Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      March 5 (Wed)      March 4 (Tue)      March 3 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

VKV Dibrugarh (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)

Small school with no sources findable online; no sources at all since 2009; and only ~1000 students. It is unlikely that the "History" section can be cited to reliable sources, and seems more likely that it has been written based on personal experience. Googling, all I can find is some routine reports of teacher training being held there in a newspaper called the Sentinel. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Assam. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are zero references in the article as is. Madeleine (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzi Vishne (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)

• Reason: There have been at least two {{notability}} and {{BLP unsourced}} templates since 30 October 2013 to 17 February 2025. The templates were made by David Eppstein, a computer science professor at University of California, Irvine.
  

After 17 February 2025, I did not see sources of his principal research areas, which were:

• Noncommutative algebra
• The first explicit construction of Ramanujan complexes
• The proof of the existence of arithmetic lattices
• The optimal bound on the systoles of Hurwitz surfaces
• The full exposition of the solution of the Specht problem
• The theorems in the theory of central simple algebras
• The computations of fundamental groups of Galois covers of various algebraic varieties
• The novel combinatorial constructions of monomial algebras
• The several papers which Vishne published in group theory, statistics, computer science and applied algebra.

The article consist three sources. One of them is an Israeli newspaper's source, which talks about studies in the university, not about math. Another source is Vishne homepage, which is a primary source, not secondary. A third source is the Levitzki prize recipients. Tornbild (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Has an h-factor of 17, but seems to be the author/editor on several textbooks in Gscholar and Gbooks. Would the textbooks not lend to notability? Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Textbooks, or other authored books, generally only contribute to notability if we have independent sources such as book reviews with in-depth coverage of them. In this case I only see one textbook Algebra: Groups, Rings, and Fields, to which he was added as an author for the second edition, and my usual searches were unable to find any reviews even of the first edition (to which he did not contribute) nor of any other book by him. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Spiritual Practices (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)

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP, with the objections in the last deletion discussion also seeming to hold; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices. Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (article creator). While acknowledging that it's borderline, there are more sources than there were at the time of the last AfD, and I think it meets WP:NCORP. CSP played an interesting role in the psychedelic revival of the 2000s. Maybe this is content that should be merged into Psychedelic therapy or some other article rather than being covered in a standalone article on the organization, but it is encyclopedic content that improves Wikipedia.Prezbo (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a tough one, there are many mentions in Gbooks and Gscholar about conferences they've either sponsored or how they've helped various researchers [1] gather information. I can't find anything strictly about the group. They've been around for a while, but nothing I can find for notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article fails WP:GNG; some searching not saw significant coverage in any reliable source Loewstisch (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has been in mainspace without a single reference for over 15 years. Does not meet WP:NCORP, let alone WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to David Conover. Nothing I can find on google news/books/scholar. There are some hits on newspapers.com, which basically fall into two categories: subject is name-dropped in a piece mostly about the founder (example: [2]), or routine pieces about documentaries being produced by the company (example: [3]). Zzz plant (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect to David Conover; there is no cited content to merge; if somebody wants to add the info in the citations listed above, they can just add it to the David Conover article. Mostly in agreement with Zzz plant. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip S. Cifarelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a doctor or lawyer. I cannot find significant coverage to add. He is quoted sometimes in the media when acting as a lawyer, but this is not coverage of him. The current version of this article relies heavily on his obituary on legacy.com; Earwig reports 83% similarity. I wondered whether his gold medal from the American College of Legal Medicine might contribute to notability, but that organisation has no article, so I am unsure how notable its awards are. Tacyarg (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Medicine, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to have published a number of papers on digestive medicine issues, per Gscholar. It doesn't bring up his h-factor, so I have no idea how influential he was... This is about all I could find for the law portion of his career [4] an ad or a PR item... This guy seems to have had an interesting career, I find it hard to believe there isn't more about him... Happy to revisit if others can find sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- interesting life story, but the obituary can't be considered independent and the medal he received did not come with significant coverage of him. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Easton station (MBTA) (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 have been no recent updates or concrete developments regarding the MBTA's Phase 2 of the South Coast Rail project, which was expected to restore service to North Easton but remains without a definitive timeline as of 2025. Given the absence of new information, maintaining a separate article for North Easton station (MBTA) seems unnecessary and no longer relevant at this time, given this article relies on a single source based on preliminary design proposals. Additionally, the distinction between North Easton station (MBTA) and North Easton station is unclear as both cover overlapping historical and transit-related content.

The relevant details of North Easton station (MBTA) should be effectively consolidated and merged into the broader North Easton station article for clarity and ease of access.

Comment added by OldPalChummus (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I don't have strong feelings as to whether this should be an article or a redirect. Unlike the other in-limbo stations proposed with this project phase, there was never a historical station located here. This absolutely should not be merged into North Easton station, as that is a completely separate location several miles away with its own history. If this article is deleted, then South Coast Rail would be the correct location for the redirect target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High-risk people (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)

Messy and confusing combination of risk factor and social determinants of health with psychology's concept of risk-seeking and some WP:COATRACK about COVID. Sourcing doesn't justify a medical concept of "high-risk person". Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a merge into risk factor. Looking back, this article was intended to be a Risk factors for COVID-19 which is now a redirect. - Wil540 art (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "High-risk" means a lot of different things in different contexts, even within public health. "Risk factor" is a far more general term, so I don't see the use of a merge to that article. Extremely vague definition makes this article a WP:OR magnet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Myoglobin and @Jim.henderson -Wil540 art (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also pinging @Jeremyb and @Belbury - Wil540 art (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with either merge or delete for the reasons stated above Myoglobin (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lê Quang Khải (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 [5] whilst third party is only a 1 line mention and is not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NOLY. A search of Vietnamese press yields namesakes. Also NEXIST can't be used to argue for keep if no significant coverage or sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Witch (word) (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)

Per WP:NOTDICT. Also the article mostly duplicates coverage at Witchcraft § Etymology. The article has also been used for some time as a coatrack for POV material about European witchcraft in general rather than about the word itself; the most egregious of that material has already been removed, but very little of the remaining content is actually about word use or linguistic history. Most is already present at the linked section and in Witchcraft or European witchcraft, thus this article is redundant.. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There was a previous AfD for this article in 2009 according to the talk page, although the article had a slightly different name at that time: Witch (etymology). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch (etymology). Not sure how to add the correct template here so the first and the second noms are linked at the top. Netherzone (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why do we have an AfD and a merge discussion going on at the same time? Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I thought for a bit that maybe etymology of witch could make sense, but etymology of Wicca already exists.★Trekker (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Fletcher (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 independent sources. Most of the sources are organizations the article subject founded or worked on, such as Next Wave, 2020 plus, Edges tv, Youth Alive, their youtube channel. Two sources are interviews with the article subject. Two sources link to error pages, such as one titled "Oops". Truthnope (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Truthnope (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. A quick search shows no other good sources. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost all the sources are from nextwaveonline which is a website founded by the article subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooop! (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)

Cannot find any actual sources aside from boardgamegeek.com or sites attempting to sell the game. Does not seem to meet notability criteria. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Gilly's might be a lot of things, but lack of notability is not one of them. Urban Cowboy was filmed in the original Pasadena location.

Thurmond, Sarah (20 November 2020). "A Look Back at How Gilley's Gave Us 'Urban Cowboy'". Texas Highways. Retrieved 6 March 2025.:

I've added a source from the Texas State Historical Association. I'll look for more references. It was originally in Pasadena, Texas since 1970, and I think they closed the Pasadena location and are now operating out of Dallas since 2003. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y-chromosomal DNA (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:REDUNDANTFORK, no reason it should be a standalone article from Y chromosome, and some of how it is written leads me to think it was created by a WP:LLM. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both because: 1, the topics are similar enough and are pretty much mentioned in Y chromosome anyways, and 2, the article in general is a mess, with formatting errors everywhere; if anything this is almost certainly written by an LLM. KrystalInfernus (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per all above. Redundant fork of Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup or Y chromosome. Aintabli (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No coverage in RS other than entries on the Portland city website and a local blog. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary David (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 has been deleted before as the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. The subject has done nothing in the meantime that makes the subject meet that threshold now. He doesn’t meet the relevant SNG. Tvx1 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Motorsport. Tvx1 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (article creator). I never read the old version of the article, but from my understanding of the AfD, it was very sloppeley. The current state of the article meets WP:GNG, as it has three reliable, independent, and reliable sources: Reference 3 [6] Reference 8 [7], Reference 10 [8], and Reference 11 [9]. Further, Reference 2 [10] and Reference 4 [11] are both independent and reliable, but are simply announcements. I would be willing to elaborate or clarify if needed. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  References 8 and 10 are WP:ROUTINE coverage and Reference 11 is scant at best. I have, however, found these: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Seems that coming from two obscure (racing) countries is of great help for SIGCOV. MSport1005 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I probably wouldn't of been able to find these myself. Implementing some of them now. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Draftify. Source review:

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

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

Nouriel Gino Yazdinian (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)

Sources are all unreliable, press releases, or have no WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:N, although there are small numbers of sources that discuss the party, most are not in depth regarding the subject; Google News and Books searches bring up only a few results as well Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, Politics, and Iraq. Skynxnex (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Rokhri (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 significant coverage from independent reliable sources found, the previose AfD was closed as Soft Delete. Current sourcing still fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I was unaware of the same page was deleted previously, which I'm also created. Oppose to deletion but suggest to Redirect it to the Shafaullah Rokhri, as little much coverage available here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imod55555 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Aitken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. None of the sources appears to be about him, just one of the projects he worked on. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Architecture, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek (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 has previously been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). It has recently been restored with one change: the addition of this source here. The issue with this source is that it never talks about Gourd Creek, even in passing , and that the extrapolation of the relation of this Gourd Creek Cave to the creek is, strictly speaking, WP:OR.

post-nom edit There is now a second additional source here but only with passing mentions and thus irrelevant for determining notability. As I commented below, , the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention.

As these changes are irrelevant, we return to the reasoning given in the previous AfDs to redirect this page; I'd like to quote, additionally, WP:GEONATURAL: for example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all editors involved in the previous two AfDs per WP:APPNOTE: @Reywas92, JalenBarks, Djflem, Premeditated Chaos, Vsmith, and Oaktree b: Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I reverted the redirect because it was done without respect to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: information. Specifically, the redirect was not accompanied with the corresponding merge of information, resulting in a piece of unreferenced info in the target article. I expanded it beyond information available except name and location. The accusation in OR is plain ridiculous, but I added a ref with no less than from Smithsonian, which directly link the creek and the cave --Altenmann >talk 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A malformed redirect does not call for overturning an AfD. The proper thing to do is to then add references to the target article. I understand that this article has, for some reason, been a flashpoint. Now, the Smithsonian ref added after I nominated this page. As it happens, it directs to a pdf download which is malformed on my system; could you quote the relevant parts? I'll strike the OR if proved. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug>A ridiculous anti-AGF statement; buy yourself a better system I could have said, but whatever. The work is by Gerard Fowke (1855-1933), so it is in public domain. I will upload it to commons. --Altenmann >talk 18:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<hah>, it was already there: File:Bulletin_(IA_bulletin761922smit).pdf. --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A malformed redirect does call for the revert of a sloppy edit. Improper edits are reverted all the time. is to then add references, well, I made a different decision and implemented it. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For reference, the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention. I've struck the OR mention and have changed my nomination statement.

Regarding your other comments, I'm intrigued that you said that you could have made a flippant remark and chose to do it anyways. I don't see where I'm not AGF-ing, and the system comment isn't productive. In re the reversion, given that the consensus at AfD was to redirect the page, categorizing the redirect as an improper edit certainly is something. I appreciate your fait accompli, and that, I suppose, is what this discussion is for. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your "mention in passing" judgement. First, the Smithsonian source gives a number of important details about the creek, so you cannot call it simply "mention". Of course, the main subject is not the creek. Second, the description of the notable things found by the river is certainly relevant information. Certainly we will not write a separate article for each cairn found there, so IMO this page is a natural place to describe them; just look at Mississippi_River#Native_Americans. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I had a researcher's fun digging for information about this "Nothing Gulch" and realize that my position may be biased by a kind of "ownership feeling", so I am recusing from further discussion here per WP:COI :-) --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you call important I call routine. But I trust the community to have a healthy discussion about this and for the community to abide by the consensus found here. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Those bits should be all that is required for "notability". Now, with the archeological bits discussed above it has even more notability. Is Wiki running out of room? Or do we need some celebrity to go skinny-dipping in it ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Per WP:NGEO: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply. In other words, maps contribute nothing to notability. I see no reason that passing beneath a US highway (or any other kind) should have any bearing on notability, and certainly no such exception is made in the NGEO guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep: I suppose with the archeological items, it lends to notability... but honestly if the cave is on the NRHP, that would have more sourcing than this creek and is likely enough for an article about the site. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, obviously. I don't want to delete the information, and I resent the implication that my original redirect was in any way malformed or in opposition to Wikipedia's purpose. I do think that a few passing mentions do not demonstrate the kind of notability that demands the creek have its own article. Whether we merge it back up to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) or to an as-yet-created Gourd Creek Cave article, I don't care. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masini Situ-Kumbanga (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)

Since the last AfD we do not grant inherent notability for simply competing in Olympics. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject didn't simply participate but was actually an international medal-winner in the steeplechase at the 1987 Central African Games. This fulfills WP:NATH, now we just need to do the notoriously difficult task of finding contemporary African media archives at the time of his medal or Olympic / World Championship performances. --Habst (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that at the time of nomination, the article was only one sentence and didn't mention the Central African Games medal. This is because he won it under a different name (Masini Situ Mbanza), but I was able to confirm that they're the same person via '83 WC newspaper coverage: [18]. --Habst (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really getting sick of seeing star African athletes nomm'ed for deletion with no BEFORE in relevant places... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Habst. Nom must be more attentive to WP:BEFORE. Coeusin (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initial closed as keep, relisted after this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect to Zaire at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references presented either here or at the article are WP:ROUTINE results. While the subject clearly passes WP:NATH criterion 2 as a top-3 finisher in an international competition, that only specifies that significant coverage is likely to occur. I am willing to reconsider my vote if more SIGCOV is found, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 17:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Per NSPORT, a SIGCOV source is still required to be cited for sportspeople who meet NATH, and this has not been identified. While it would be great if we could access Congolese sources from the 80s, NRV still demands that coverage is verifiable, and this is not demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Ahlat 1985 (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)

Draftified for being unsourced before being moved back to namespace by the original creator without any modifications being made. I could find no sources of any kind regarding anything that happened in Ahlat in 1895; the defense of Ahlat by Aghbiur Serob appears not to exist. The text also has some pro-Armenian neutrality issues. Any salvageable content (of which there appears to be none) can easily be covered in the Hamidian massacres article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Turkey. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, completely unreferenced. Some version of this page already created and deleted 3 times previously! Creator has an 80% deletion rate with 4/5 pages (including the earlier 3 versions) deleted. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mindvalley (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)

SPA continues to remove redirect to restore this blatantly promotional article about a non-notable company. Recommend deletion or forced restoration of the original redirect. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malaysia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see ANI for context. Janhrach (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just noting I've p-blocked from article space as an interim solution until they discuss their edits. Star Mississippi 17:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This user appears to be UPE, but I fail to see how this company isn’t notable unless all of those articles were sponsored. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as the original article has been draftified, yet the creator ignored that. They should not be rewarded for edit warring. Janhrach (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Janhrach. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Spirituality, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello everyone! I am the one who created the article. I have removed the self-sourcing parts and included only not self-sourcing sources. Mindvalley is indeed a notable company (look at their social media). Can you guide me please on what i need to edit for the article to be kept in wikipedia? I am new here and I really think i followed all the guidelines with my last edit. Thanks in advance all!Sofia Evangelidou (Sofia) 10:28, 7 March 2025 (CET)

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

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and no sustained coverage. The subject is not known for any performance awards or even breeding awards. His unofficial claim to fame is "lots of hair" and an owner with a marketing push in 2016 who tried to make him an internet sensation. But he's just a one-trick pony.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Five (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:NMUSIC. They are prolific, but there is no indication that they have attracted any attention from independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Career of Virat Kohli (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)

Mostly WP:NPOV, WP:COMMENTARY and WP:NOTSTATS - remaining can be merged into the parent article Virat Kohli. Vestrian24Bio 16:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 16:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NOTINHERITED; Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see significant coverage for this stadium. A PROD was removed when an editor added some sources but they are user generated and a database. It could be deleted or maybe redirected to the city. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Asia, and Saudi Arabia. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Qatif#Sports Maybe merge the opening sentence also. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Trough Fountain (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: RUNOFTHEMILL PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay and not a sufficient reason for nominating an article for deletion. Please provide policies with guidelines as reasons (such as notability). – The Grid (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's literally a hole in the ground with no significant coverage, other than getting hit by a car once. Astaire (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. Watering troughs were created all over the world for functional or altruistic reasons. I don't think any are actually notable. This one isn't.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La quema de Judas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only cited to a single primary source and to an external link of IMDb; neither of which qualify for WP:SIGCOV. Foreign language wikis likewise have no secondary or tertiary sourcing coverage. Not clear this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. As a Lugnuts created stub this could have been deleted through WP:PROD per the outcome at WP:ARBCOM but I decided to take it here in case the community feels it is worth saving. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (VERY STRONG). Commercial and critical success. Plenty of sources. Inviting the nominator to check the page, and to save us some time by kindly withdrawing. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 17:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 00:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Frederic Swigert Jr. Memorial Fountain (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 appear in any RS, other than a single entry listing it at the Smithsonian Institute. Should be merged into "Oregon Zoo." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaban Mohammed (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:NBIO. Was moved out of mainspace by article creator after being declined for being non-notable. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 15:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 15:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: This may be improved in Draft. Deletion is not necessary 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Found this article while checking AfC categories and feel compelled to vote. Other than like two sources, there is no other source that could demonstrate the notability of the subject. I contest moving it to draftspace because at anytime the author can move it back to the mainspace (the page move to mainspace was performed with zero improvements to the prose and sourcing of the article since last decline). ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pink Ladies Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same goes for 2024 Pink Ladies Cup. This is not a proper tournament. Its a glorified series of friendlies packaged into a "cup/tournament". The six participating teams only play two/three other teams. No sourcing for the supposed champions, South Korea. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as 2024, not every tournament has everyone play each other, but in all the media and announcements about it, it's spoken about as a tournament and all the teams are mentioned. There's even a logo for the tournament! Here's one example of a press release mentioning South Korea won the trophy. --SuperJew (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article appears to have a number of sources, and there are further news articles that reference this tournament which I have found through a quick search and will happily add to the article when I have a little more time. Furthermore, I believe that deleting this article based on a subjective opinion that a tournament is not a "proper tournament" does a disservice to the record of, and by extension the further development of, women's football, particularly in countries where the women's game is less developed. For some nations, what appear to be smaller tournaments and friendlies, are actually rather significant. 117.110.112.145 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pink Ladies Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a proper tournament. Its a glorified set of loosely related friendlies where the six "participating" teams face only two or three other teams (not all five).

There is no reliable sourcing that a "champion" has ever been crowned. Why is Russia with a 2-0-0 (W-D-L) record the champion over Haiti/Chinese Taipei (2-0-1) which played a game more than the supposed champion? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Turkey. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep In all the sources it's defined as a tournament, with all teams being listed as part of it. Russia's record is better than Haiti and Chinese Taipei because they have a better goal difference. Not in every tournament, every one meets everyone. Even not in every domestic league - have you seen how the Australian Football League runs? --SuperJew (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libav (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 the WP:GNG, I think a suitable merge target would be ffmpeg. I think it is somewhat compatible to the OpenWrt/LEDE situation where most developers of the fork eventually moved back to the original project. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkEquity (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. Lack of independent in-depth sources. I do see some mention of how the original went bankrupt but nothing really in-depth. Imcdc Contact 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freudenberg IT (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. Not to be confused with Freudenberg Group. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. WP:SPA creator. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Computing, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Jet (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 dab page has only two good entries. It should be replaced with a redirect to the jet fighter, with a hatnote to the film per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not meeting general notability. The available source are only of brief event-based nature - connected to his appointment as the CEO Unicorbia (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XTB S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The company is not notable, as per NCORP; the reliable multiple independent sources don't exist. Unicorbia (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arihant Publications (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)

OK, this is a request by a identified paid editor to have this article listed at WP:AFD instead of outright WP:A7 deletion. I see no good reason to not honour that that request.

Let's look at the company's webpage first. It's garish, it's obviously promoting itself, but I see nothing else there that would indicate that it is nothing more and nothing less than a company that writes exam help books for tertiary students.

Let's look at at the references in the article. All I can see, other than The Economic Times mention, are listings of this company's books for sale.

What I see here is an article that would fail any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to, WP:GNG WP:NCORP and any other tests you might like to name.

I do note that this would appear to be as close as possible as the Thu 6 Mar 2025 content of the article under discussion as to meet WP:G12 speedy deletion.

As always, please do prove me wrong!--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC) 11:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BEFORE little press coverage available on the subject, even in local language, makes only passing mention and fails to meet WP:GNG. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Branch (video 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)

Did a WP:BEFORE, but I don't feel like the sources from RPS and PCGamesN that only has minor details is enough to pass WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cerego (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 one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to Business Journals piece, there's [19] from NPR and [20] from Forbes. Both seem significant and independent to me, so I think this would qualify as multiple examples of GNG. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. I'd also think a company that is over 25 years old would have more than one WP:ORGCRIT reference from 2014 if it was in fact notable under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 17 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!} 21:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I believe it passes GNG based on the source analysis and mentions. Could be on a weaker side though NatalieTT (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)—WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious which sources would meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WSJ, NPR, and the military publications are significantly about the company's product(s). I can't judge the reliability of the military pubs but they do provide information about product use that seems solid. That said, the article could use work if it's going to provide useful info. Lamona (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that WSJ satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH? Sources must meet WP:ORGCRIT and I do not see any, other than NPR, that would meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am saying. And that I consider the military articles to be relevant and reliable. I also see other sources, such as:

• "Cerego's iKnow! Wins Prestigious DEMOgod Award at DEMOfall 08." Science Letter, 30 Sept. 2008, p. 3270. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A185816485/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aaa046a9. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "McGraw-Hill Education and Cerego." Tech & Learning, vol. 35, no. 9, Apr. 2015, p. 48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419267807/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=04a4f19c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "Cerego." Training, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 8. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A608614910/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=b3437ac8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• CEREGO & BBC BITESIZE. (2019, March 1). Tech & Learning, 39(7), 39.

I looked at these and they don't seem to be re-hashes of PR (there is quite a lot of that). I haven't looked at how they might fit into the article. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a routine announcement and the other are mentions so they fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the WSJ, NPR and the military sources. And here's another one relating to Cerego and BBC: [21]. I count this now as 5 sources. One could argue that they are more about the product than the company, and that comes up a lot with products. Ideally the article should decide which it is emphasizing. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant plural - "the others are mentions so they fall short." - BBC may meet CORPDEPTH, but the rest, including this one you just cited, is considered a routine announcement so fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the NPR and Military.com sources I also found an article in New Scientist [22] through TWL. A small section of the article that I think shows its value, including a comment from someone else about the company and its science.

" "It's all very plausible and reasonable. They know their literature," says Ryan Baker, an educational technology researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. "I haven't seen any commercial products that put together all these different things."

" Cerego doesn't yet have any published results to back up the claims made for the product. But Smith Lewis says they are working on this, and points to preliminary tests on language acquisition, run over five weeks at the University of Hawaii and reviewed by Cerego's scientific adviser, Jan Plass at New York University. In those tests, users improved their retention of factual material by a factor of three compared to a visually identical system that didn't run the spacing algorithm.

Additionally, this is a study[23] that used Cerego and spends a paragraph talking about it in what I think is their own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moritoriko (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Some sources have been mentioned above but clearly, when examined through NCORP lens, they don't meet the criteria - for exampleL:

• This NPR article mentioned above relies entirely on a "partner" and the company's blog post sprinkled with some extra marketing blurb - fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
• The New Scientist article plainly relies entirely on the "launch" blurb for the company, repeating comments provided by the company and founder. Once you remove everything provided by the company, all that's left is the quote from Ryan Baker which says nothing about the company. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
• Perhaps it wasn't noticed about the military.com article but the article is written by customers/partners - therefore not independent, fails ORGIND.
• The BBC Bitesize article is - a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There just isn't enough to satisfy WP:CORP or even WP:ORGCRIT. There's a lot of churnalism and nothing concrete enough to base a standalone article. It's close, but not quite there yet.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (Dev novel) (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)

Based on my BEFORE, this doesn't meet NBOOK. I have done a general search through Google, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. I also looked on Kirkus, Booklist, the New York Times, and Publishers Weekly. I found no reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. The editor seems to have a history of making some fairly promotional edits as a whole, so I am curious if there is any WP:COI going on here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and reads as LLM nonsense. Also could not find any sources. Astaire (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a 2025 novel about a brilliant billionaire scientist with the initials E.M. involving artificial intelligence self-published on Amazon? I'm shocked, shocked to hear it has no RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like AI-generated WP:PROMO. Madeleine (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not have significant news coverage and fails, even tough he has completed ATP main draw, but still does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:TENNIS RolandSimon (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. RolandSimon (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:GNG.Canary757 (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found [24] [25] [26] in a quick search from French langauge sources. They are more than the passing mentions you would see if they were reporting on his more notable brother, but I can't do a full analysis as I don't speak French and the last 2 of these appear to be paywalled. Iffy★Chat -- 13:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If this AfD isn't going to keep this article, we should redirect or merge to Benoît Paire as a suitable WP:ATD. That article currently has 0 mention of his family, background or personal life and could do with expansion regardless of what happens here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. Merge a small bit of this content into Benoit's article on his family. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The first source is a curious article with a handful of sentences about him, much of which is taken from his facebook account and his young child is described three times in quick succession. Very little info about his tennis career, describes it as a 'great career' but little else. It sems to say he has a career high ranking of 111 but the ATP site says 1111. I don't think we have enough at the moment to be honest. Redirect seems fair if there is no consensus to keep at the end of the week though. Canary757 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is about a pop singer that doesn't meet notability standards laid out at WP:NBIO. Current sourcing is mostly unreliable. Wp:BEFORE shows more unreliable sources but no reliable one. Please note that there is an existing draft at Draft:Ylber Idrizi. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Kosovo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Imran Qadir (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 is a bunch of Promotional contents. References are more than 60, but all fake just to support inline citations. Also seems like that the page is generated from AI. Nothing find notable that are meeting the criteria for the WP:BLP, also failed basic WP:GNG. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The length that someone went to fake the references is impressive, so much so that I would be inclined to believe they were AI-generated if it weren't for the fact that some of the fake references have been there for years. No independent references that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create this article on Artificial Intelligence module and the response was same as the article is written here. Sackiii (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was only referring to the faked references in my post, but I'm not at all surprised that the article was AI-generated as well. Thanks for nominating. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because, although the outcome appears clear, Sackiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indeffed as a sock, so we need at least one more legitimate editor to agree with deletion to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (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)

Indiscriminate collection of incidents, explicitly negative POV Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Neither point is grounds for deletion. I don't expect a list article about controversies to have more positive coverage than negative coverage, but I do expect it to mention both sides – in this case, the RCMP's responses. This POV issue can be remedied by anyone who wishes to, and is not a part of deletion policy. I think WP:ATTACK could be argued here, but that argument hasn't been made yet and I personally don't see it. Yue🌙 02:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Law enforcement in Canada. I see nom's point about this being indiscriminate, b/c there's a lack of good organization by theme or time period, it's a ton of sections where one-off, minimal-coverage events are treated basically the same way as sprawling, major investigations - but deleting for WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems like a stretch. Most countries have a controversies section in their law enforcement article rather than a standalone page - perhaps this topic could be better-served as a section in Law enforcement in Canada (which lacks sufficient discussion of controversies anyways). I don't see a good case for outright deletion here. Zzz plant (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not convinced that these are issues that can't be resolved through editing instead of deletion. It may be served by breaking it up/regrouping (e.g. pre/post Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP and Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Indigenous relations, deaths in custody, etc.) The topic has been pretty widely covered by news and academic sources as demonstrated by both the sources in the article and those from online searches (e.g. [27], [28]). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City of North Sydney (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 reliable sources. I searched google and no results found. The page creator did not add any categories or links into the pages and it looks like a hoax. AyEfDee (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 February 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 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't believe this has existed for 7 years. Could not find any sources either. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:  "City of North Sydney"
In books/documents  Google Books Internet Archive  · WorldCat refseek
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive BASE  · Persée
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr

• Stone the bleedin'! I was thinking hoax, too. But this one turns out to be verifiable. Except that this wasn't the name, which is why you didn't find it.

  In 1962 the Minister for Local Government was petitioned by a requisite number of North Shore electors to use powers under Section 16 of the Local Government Act to amalgamate North Sydney, Mosman, Lane Cover, Hunters Hill and Willoughby to form a larger and alledgedly more efficient administrative area, to be called the City of North Sydney.

  — Souter 2012, pp. 349–350 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSouter2012 (help)

  It's also on Larcombe 1978, p. 208 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarcombe1978 (help). Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Souter, Gavin (2012). Mosman: A History. Xoum Publishing. ISBN 9781922057051.
  • Larcombe, Frederick A. (1978). A History of Local Government in New South Wales: The advancement of Local Government in New South Wales, 1906 to the present. Vol. 3. Sydney University Press. ISBN 9780424000374.
• Delete. Even if is true that there was a petition, it doesn't make it notable. There have been many such petitions. Some of the facts stated in the article are very doubtful, like the centralisation of power under Askin over national parks, sewerage, water supply, and public health services, since these were always state matters.--Grahame (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to take that up with Fred Larcombe and Sydney University Press. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not notable, regardless.--Grahame (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY by Uncle G. The sources added are all independent, reliable secondary sources. There is also coverage in the newspapers of the time, as noted in this article. As an aside - I would expect amalgamations of local government councils in Australia to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but I can't find any articles about it, and Australia is not even listed in the article Merger (politics). The topic as a whole, and regarding specific areas, is notable - if there were a relevant existing article which this could be merged with, I might have !voted that way, but as none exists, it is better that this is kept as a separate article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you know, I rely upon people such as you for the newspapers; whilst I do the history books. I only have histories (but contemporary ones) saying that the newspapers had a lot on this. If there's any substantial interesting newspaper stuff that sticks out as a worthwhile addition, please give it a cite. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suchithra Alexander (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:NCRIC. WP:BEFORE search gives no secondary sources. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: A Google Search came up with him being involved in a scandal in 2014 here, on the page of a newspaper, the Sri Lanka Guardian, with a Wikipedia article. This doesn't connect to his playing career, of course; we'll, perhaps unfortunately, have to use ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive for those, like is the case with a lot of Sri Lankan cricketers of that vintage. One source is still better than none...and if someone at WP:CRIC knows Tamil, maybe other sources can show themselves. I don't have a vote either way (he has enough matches for me not to support but not enough matches for me to oppose), but I wanted to point out I had found something about him. JustJamie820 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability for this football referee. Meanwhile, none of the sources in the article seem to provide WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, and Netherlands. JTtheOG (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Article for a very old historic referee, possible WP:OFFLINESOURCES. There is clearly some coverage there. Maybe more in newspaper archives, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Govvy. – RossEvans19 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC #1. Nom and the sole deletion supporter claim that there is no indication of his notability. This assertion does not hold water. A brief article in the Graafschapbode provides both direct and indirect indications of his importance. The article explicitly states in the title and body that Van Praag was a well-known referee, listing several important matches he officiated. Furthermore, the fact that a regional newspaper in the more remote Eastern Netherlands chose to report on the death of this Jewish referee from Amsterdam, who had moved to Antwerp, Belgium, underscores his national and international significance.

Nom also claims that the sources lack SIGCOV. While there is some validity to this point, it should be noted that the article was pieced together from many sources that collectively provide sufficient coverage. Additionally, when Van Praag began his refereeing career, football did not hold the same prominence it does today, meaning that time has enhanced the notability of this international referee. Even by the end of his life, his death was already reported far and wide, as the same article was also carried by the regional newspapers Gooi- en Eemlander and Haagsche Courant and by the national Volkskrant.[29] Given that Van Praag passed away in 1934, there are absolutely no concerns regarding BLP.

Fair disclosure: Raphaël van Praag was my sixth cousin, several generations removed. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many more Dutch newspapers reported on Van Praag's death, often using even stronger terms to describe the fame of the Belgian football referee and official.[30] Belgium does have a press archive; however, access is more restricted. I agree with Govvy that it is likely there are many more sources, while the half-full glass should not be overlooked either. gidonb (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the 2022 Het Laatste Nieuws article on the 100th anniversary of Beerschot taking the national title, which covers the bust up between Van Praag and Tuur Van Menen, which resulted in Van Menen being ejected from the team despite his scoring the winning goal (and assisting the first one). Personally I always prefer if there is at least one source can describe the subject DOING something instead of just summarising their standard CV and this anecdote falls into that category – it's the type of story one would expect from a referee (and it had an impact afterwards on both the club and the athlete's career). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you so much! HLN is the most-read newspaper in Belgium. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to look behind the paywall. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Dakota, Texas, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unida Christian Colleges (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)

Has been unsourced since its inception in 2010. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you're confusing being unsourced with failing GNG. There appears to be an appropriate amount of potential citations in Google, Google News, and Google Scholar. I saw a substantial number of false positives in Newspapers search. I recommend a BEFORE search and reassess. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Median of the trapezoid theorem (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)

Nominated at incorrect venue (RfD) by Dedhert.Jr with rationale "An article might not have notability for having its own article, and possibly to be deleted instead." — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a recently promoted draft; the draft version was very badly sourced, and what you see instead as the nominated version is my attempt at cutting back the excessive calculations and proofs and providing adequate sourcing for it. I used 19th-century mathematics textbooks as sources, not because this is 19th-century mathematics, but because those are easier to use in finding online but reliable sourcing for basic and obvious statements in mathematics. The draft author disagreed with my cuts but unfortunately has been temporarily blocked for incivility so cannot yet comment here. Some of this material is already present at Trapezoid#Midsegment and height but with even less detail and worse sourcing (MathWorld). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My intended is already explained below, @David Eppstein. I am planning to redirect the theorem into the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You may think you explained your intent clearly but it was not clear to me. I do not think that replacing the content currently in the nominated article by a pointer to a worse exposition of the same material, with worse sources, buried in the middle of the trapezoid article, is an improvement. In any case by initiating this AfD you have already moved past the point where deciding on your own to perform WP:BLAR would be ok; instead, we have to wait for the outcome of the discussion to determine what to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Comment If the original nominator Dedhert.Jr agrees the new version is sufficient to meet notability I will gladly withdraw as a Speedy Keep. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) oops, ineligible for speedy keep since it was a procedural nomination — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VolatileAnomaly It was intended to redirect the article. What I meant "possibly to be deleted instead" is when the article has fewer sources supporting it and too short content, it will be deleted, so the only option is to redirect to the article Trapezoid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dedhert.Jr do you think there’s any content worth saving in the current version of the article? If so, a merge could be appropriate. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 16:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volatile and Dedhert, can you please explain why a stub-length article with three book sources and with all content footnoted to all three source has too few sources for its content and why you think that means it should be deleted? How many sources would not be too few for this length? See also WP:Citation overkill. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral towards the outcome, just wanted to hear some clarification from Dedhert because I’m not sure what outcome they desire for the article (whether BLARed or Merged or something else). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 18:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VolatileAnomaly I think I will retract this proposal since some of the users prefer to preserve it. Guess I have no comments on this. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr as this was a procedural nomination due to an incorrect venue, I can't withdraw this nomination. As David Eppstein mentioned, we'll have to wait for the outcome. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 04:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see then. My bad. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SteveLosive, the creator of this article, has responded on their talk page: A theorem about a trapezoid shouldn't be included with the Trapezoid article because that's an article about the shape in general. The Pythagorean Theorem isn't merged with the Triangle article. The Median of the Trapezoid theorem is meant to be purely metric and it's about finding the length of the median through a formula. It's a separate study and it even includes finding the median of a parallelogram that is within a trapezoid. It's an extensive topic and that theorem has proofs and studies. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Club of America (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 seems to be nothing more than a promotional page. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent sources demonstrating significant coverage. Also smells of WP:PROMO. Madeleine (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unable to find coverage of this "popular television gameshow" in reliable sources (including any mention in contemporary British papers listed on newspapers.com). Doesn't seem to meet WP:NTV or WP:GNG.

Ineligible for PROD as it has already been deleted by PROD. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- also unable to find sources on Googling, although obviously unrelated results get in the way -- anyways, finding sources is unlikely, it has none, and the article is very old. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A genre of programmes did use premium-rate numbers at this time in the UK—and we have an article about the scandal that ended many of them (2007 British premium-rate phone-in scandal).
  But this is actually a television channel, as its categories indicate, and it even had a slot on Sky. It was one of several around at this time, none of them terribly distinguished. This 2005 article from Owen Wilson in The Guardian refers to it in passing and may be worth incorporating in the premium-rate article. That article is also the only significant media mention of Quiz TV I could find. The type of channel is probably notable, but none of the individual channels are (The Great Big British Quiz is a prime AfD candidate itself). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the same one deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (Cricket) under a new name. Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Raza Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The article also have a promotional tone. Taabii (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MagiHaro (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)

Just a game listing. Clubette (month) 05:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Clubette (month) 05:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this game on List of Konami games? IgelRM (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to List of Konami games. No content, just a list fueled entirely by primary sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Konami games for the same reason as @HopalongCasualty suggested. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm unsure if this sources could count for GNG but I'll just drop it here
• 4Gamer.net - here, here, Here, Here, Here
• Famitsu - here, here, Here
• Natalie - Here, Here

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately these sources are in Japanese, which I can't read, so I can't verify them. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 11:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4gamer - 1st and 2nd one is news about Magical Halloween: Trick or Treat , 3rd is about a collab with mobile game but has a decent coverage (which I'm unsure of if it counts). 4th is announcement for the Magical Halloween 7. The 5th one is I know which is super detail coverage for the Magical Halloween 2 mobile app.

Famitsu - 1st and 2nd one is another Trick of Treat one. 3rd one is about Magical Halloween 7 mobile app.

Natalie - 1st News about Magical Halloween Miracle Quartet soundtrack, 2nd one is Magical Halloween 4's collaboration with Daimaou Kosaka

This is just a summary. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:04, 23 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!} 06:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ObserveOwl (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject isn’t Notable. Lacks supportive sources. Written like an essay. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub or draftify there is sourcing on which to write an article, but this AI/G12 (I just can't find the source) isn't it. I'll try to clean it while at Afd, but easiest to start over. Star Mississippi 02:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I stubbed it. It still may be a G12 but the G11 issues have been resolved. Star Mississippi 02:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a reminder that AfD is not a venue for article improvement. In terms of notability, NLA is clearly the national reference organization and affiliate with IFLA. Quick search shows plenty of available sources. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Bharat , as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Bharat itself. The sources currently cited in the article are about Star Bharat, a different channel[31]. This means there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence or notability of Utsav Bharat as a separate entity. A redirect to Star Bharat might be appropriate. However, without such sources, the article should be deleted. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Europe, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disney_Star#International. Per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only 3 sources that are news on unveiling, rebranding announcements. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? If the latter, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order-7 cubic honeycomb (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY, neither Google Books nor Google Scholars explicitly described this honeycomb. Thinking that redirecting it to the Cube, but not so sure for such guideline. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order-6 cubic honeycomb (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY, neither Google Books nor Google Scholars explicitly describes this honeycomb. Thinking that redirecting it to the Cube, but not so sure for such guideline. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of several possible overview articles. The name "order-6 cubic honeycomb" appears to be non-standard. Searching Google Books and Scholar for "{4, 3, 6}" honeycomb returns substantially more references, though the ones I've followed up on appear to cover the honeycomb as part of Coxeter's list of the 15 regular honeycombs in ${\displaystyle \mathbb {H} ^{3}}$, rather than as a standalone object of interest. Likewise for the article sources I've been able to look up, which suggests the topic is unlikely to meet our notability criteria. Redirecting to a broader overview article such as List of regular polytopes#Tessellations of hyperbolic 3-space or Paracompact uniform honeycombs#Regular paracompact honeycombs seems appropriate to me. Preimage (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paracompact uniform honeycombs#Regular paracompact honeycombs, where it has a table entry. Basic facts about the honeycomb, such as those listed in the table entry, are verifiable in the literature. I agree that "Order-6 cubic honeycomb" is a nonstandard name, but the article has been around for 11.5 years and has many incoming links; it seems a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Of the two target sections Preimage found, the second section has a bit more information and the article is more specific, so I would prefer it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Comedy Guide (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)

Website lacks notability; significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Refs provided are either from subject's own coverage or mere mentions (related to comments made on BCG podcasts) – no significant coverage *about* the website from reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the content of the website has received awards and nominations and is often cited in reference books and other media. -Mushy Yank. 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any reference books or media that establish significant coverage. Unless and until Mushy Yank provides citations and quotations that demonstrate that significant coverage exists, their vote should be disregarded. Awards do not establish notability, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (web) Some of the awards are mentioned on the page. With references. And a simple Gbooks click allows to verify that what I wrote is true. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for an award is not sufficient for meeting WP: NWEB. It also isn't clear to me that a Bronze-level award establishes notability. Also, please remember that Google Books may show different results for different users. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in my search. I promise I'm not trying to be pedantic; I legitimately am unable to find any sources on Google Books that establish significant coverage. Please show us the sources you've found. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The podcasts that won the minor awards are dubiously notable themselves with limited independent coverage, let alone the website that hosts them. It's even unclear to me if this website even produced these podcasts or just syndicates them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

  Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

  • The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

  Sources
  1. "The arts online: Seeing the funny side". The Times. 2007-01-13. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 101 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Is the British sitcom on the slide or on the up? Whatever its condition, the many users of the British Sitcom Guide, launched in August 2003, can be relied upon for an opinion. However, there is no doubting the authority behind this guide to more than 200 British sitcoms, which aims “to provide a comprehensive guide to every UK sitcom ever made”. Its messageboard is a forum for ferocious debate over shows such as Are You Being Served? with John Inman (above) — apparently particularly loved in the US. News competitions and shop sections will sate the most slavish devotee’s needs."

  2. Dee, Johnny (2005-04-30). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview. Internet: * The British Sitcom Guide". The Guardian. ProQuest 246286725. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The review provides 103 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "There are some foolish folk who believe the best British TV revolves around women in corsets arranging plates of fondant fancies but one glance at this exhaustive website will inform them otherwise - the true heart of UK creativity is the humble sitcom. From Absolutely Fabulous to Yus My Dear every situation comedy ever gets its own page with episode guides, links and news - including the welcome information that Max & Paddy is returning for a second series. There's a good section on sitcoms in production - most star Rob Brydon - while gossip fans can feed their habit by signing up to a weekly newsletter."

  3. "Web Life". Birmingham Post. 2007-08-21. ProQuest 324189489. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 57 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk is of the opinion that the best British TV takes the form of the humble sitcom. The site features information on more than 200 homegrown series, with many more added to its annuls each month. From Absolutely Fabulous to Max and Paddy every sitcom ever made has its own page with episode guides, links and news."

  4. Hall, Julian (2006). The Rough Guide to British Cult Comedy. New York: Rough Guides. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-84353-618-5. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via Google Books.

     The book provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk: This guide to British sitcoms is reasonably comprehensive – it has over 800 sitcoms in its index – and is a useful resource for potential sitcom writers, with a good area devoted to the craft, complete with tips, courses and reviews of relevant books."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow British Comedy Guide (formerly known as British Sitcom Guide) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding these sources, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. These each look like "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which would not qualify for establishing notability under WP: NWEB. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those summaries are most certainly trivial mentions of the subject, not the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

I consider the sources to "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" so meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byng Arts Mini School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge and redirect to Lord Byng Secondary School, per WP:ORG and WP:PROMO.

The Byng Arts Mini Program is a notable part of the school and the Vancouver school system, but it is not significant enough on its own to merit a separate article. The Vancouver school district has many other mini school programs in other schools, and while the Byng Arts Mini Program has unique aspects to it, the coverage available isn't enough to establish it as especially notable.

The version of this article before I edited it had two in-line citations; most of the article has been unsourced for over a decade and a half. Although more sources were added for existing content on the day of this nomination, most of the article remains unsourced and reads like a directory or guide for applicants to the program. This is not what Wikipedia is for, and the Byng Arts website serves this purpose already and in a more detailed manner.

If a merger is decided, reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should be merged into the Lord Byng Secondary School article. Merged material should also be checked for 'academic boosterism', which I would argue is present throughout the near entirety of the article. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 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!} 06:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (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:NPOV and WP:BLP violation, Wikipedia should not host indiscriminate lists of negative things about people Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Iran. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad per WP:BLP. When merging remove the unreferenced text. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, list of controversies about WP:PUBLICFIGURES, especially well-covered in WP:RS is well-founded. See, for example, Age and health concerns about Donald Trump, Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government, in addition to many other such pages. Longhornsg (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple M5 (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 proof the subject exists. Logically, yes it probably will, but WP:CRYSTALBALL states "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics", like how we dont have articles for the iPhone 17 or Playstation 6. Article should be deleted and recreated when/if the M5 is officially announced. –DMartin 05:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All we have so far are the usual rumors that always exist for unannounced Apple products… but there's a reason that WP:RUMORS itself goes to the same place WP:CRYSTALBALL does, as there's a bullet point for that as well. Obviously an article on this is too soon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just speculation at this point. --Spacepine (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RUMORS, both the sources in the article explicitly say it is a rumor as well. jolielover♥talk 08:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's premature for an article at this point. What we have is not coverage, but rather rumours and speculation. -- Whpq (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm sure we'll see a suitable article when it is officially announced, but until then, WP:CRYSTAL. Madeleine (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

George Mason Patriots swimming and diving (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)

Merge with George Mason Patriots until sufficient independent sourcing is found, as there is no inherent notability for college sports teams. Article was already moved back to mainspace by creator without adding third-party sources, and all I found were a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yavneh at Columbia (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:NORG. Basically an advertisement. Not an encyclopedia article. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: At best, one independent source, if an article written for a university journal about a university organization counts as independent. No reliable sources to show notability. Truthnope (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Brigden (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)

Biography of an activist and politician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or politicians.
As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about their work -- but 42 of the 51 citations here are to a university graduate school thesis, which is not a reliable or GNG-supporting source, and nearly all of the remainder are primary sources that aren't support for notability either.
The only genuinely GNG-worthy source in the entire bunch is a short blurb on one page of a biographical dictionary, which isn't enough to secure passage of GNG all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable without significantly better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have not done a comprehensive search yet, but I just added two extended newspapers articles entirely focused on Brigden. I am quite sure there are more since there are over 1000 hits at newspapers.com, which I have not yet gone through. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It seemed Brigden wrote for two publications so some of those hits might be her own articles. I will also try to have a look later. ~~~ ash (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: newspaper coverage, recognition by state historical society as a "Memorable Manitoban", honorary degree, the Westminster Handbook entry, all add up to notability. PamD 08:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I just had eye surgery on my left eye and will have surgery on my right eye on Tuesday. I apologize that at present I am not able to research sources for the article. Thank you for the notice @Bearcat, I appreciate that you advised of your nomination. Hopefully colleagues can assist. Perhaps I will be able to return in a week or two. SusunW (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There seems to be many secondary sources. I'm concerned that a single source references most of the information. Bearian (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have copy edited the article to remove most of the guff and introduced headings and subheadings. I think the material discloses that the subject is clearly notable and this is more obvious now. The article is supported by 13 sources counting Campbell's thesis as only 1. Suggest that if Campbell's work were combined into one single reference (rather than 42 - even less now), it would not attract any attention and that objection is, therefore, more one of form than of substance.ash (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMG standard (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)

Reading this blog post this appears to be a small project with a website. Its creator wrote this article without citing any sources in 2009, and since then the project appears to have had no news coverage on which to base a Wikipedia article whatsoever. Putting this at AFD rather than using PROD in case the creator has comments. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is deleted, XOMGL should also be deleted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PRODded it Mrfoogles (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. This has received zero interest from independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. I've looked and I can't find anything about it and it is also slightly promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Madeleine (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Mu (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 notability. Has no sources that provide significant, independent coverage. The sources consist of the group's website and the college newspaper. A thorough search for better sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. I was also unsuccessful in searching for better sources. --Spacepine (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are primary and a blog. Nothing else found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see a benefit of deleting. The group owns property, has a 100-year history, and is recognized by the college. We set a higher bar for notability in the case of 'locals' versus emerging nationals, and relatively few single chapter locals meet that bar. This one does. It's a separate issue to rightly assert it needs additional sources. I'd maintain that tag, to encourage more research. Jax MN (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article has had notices regarding its reliance on primary sources, etc. since 2011. Rublamb (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct. But nevertheless, they have property, have 1,000 alumni and 100 years of history, and are recognized by their campus. Hence, notable. Just under-referenced. Jax MN (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A non-notable candidate in the early UK series of The Apprentice. Searching for reliable sources brings back nothing except a small amount of tabloid articles, which are not suitable. The article appears to have also been edited by the subject.

As the title has a "businessman" disambiguator, I don't think it's suitable to have this as a redirect to the main Apprentice article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Bangladesh, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Worldbruce (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the deplorable state of the article, sources that demonstrate notability do exist (examples collapsed above). --Worldbruce (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otteri (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 refs on the page since 2013. I am having trouble WP:V the basic details on the page. It seems that there is a canal or stream of this name in Chennai but I'm having difficulty verifying that there is a community living in a place called Otteri. I would happily be wrong if someone can show Tamil or other language sources which meet the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. JMWt (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as there is no claim of notability for a neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• You are up against Indian English spelling. The name on the sign on the Cooks Road police station is "P2 OTTERY POLICE STATION". Whereas Otteri Nala is the canal at the south end of Cooks Road that leads to the Buckingham Canal. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changing vote after sources found by Pharaoh of the Wizards. I will still recommend the creator or any editor who would like to take the initiative to improve the page with sources to avoid any next AFD. Delete. No sources on the page. No significant coverage covered by reliable sources. Page fails to meet WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is an area in Chennai.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^{[1] [2] [3] [4][5]}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. Sources obviously exist, despite the fact that the article is in quite rough shape. –DMartin 05:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Lambda (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 notability. The only source is the group's website. Significant portions are unsourced. Thorough search to find print and online sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alpha Pi Delta (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 notability. Has no significant coverage from a secondary source. The majority of the article is sourced to the group's website. Rublamb (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Fraternities and sororities, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the article is only relying on primary source (source 2 is a trivial mention). Also can't find any secondary sources that are actually relevant (and not just about other things) on the web. Also tried searching with Greek and (with Google Translate) found out the same result. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Truthnope (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Bar-B-Que (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Ánimo Inglewood Charter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, the article seems to be WP:PROMO, as it sounds like it was possibly written by the school itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log for almost 24 hours until I transcluded it with this edit. Not sure what the best procedure is here, but you may want to relist to ensure the debate has a full seven days of visibility. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several schools with similar names, which may have complicated any WP:BEFORE search that was attempted; this appears to be the one that had the fatal bus crash, not the one that had the big fire.[32] Several sources are easily found in Google News:

• "Can Inglewood's NFL-fueled turnaround be a success if its schools are failing?". Los Angeles Times. 2016-02-13. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
• "Inglewood schools officials fight charter school, again". LAist. 2017-03-14. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
• "Animo Inglewood Charter High School known for its high academic standards" (video). Los Angeles Times. 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

A full search would also consider Green Dot Public Schools, a non-profit organization that operates this and several other charter schools (enough others that I'm not sure that merging them all into the same article would be feasible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even with articles written about the school, the LA times article is brief and is more like an advertisement than anything, I would say notability will continue to be questioned of the article were to be kept. We could go with merging, along woth the other Green Dot schools, which I think almost all of them have notability problems. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:39, 27 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!} 03:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College Debating Union (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)

Promotional/COI article from 2011. I'm unable to find significant independent coverage of the team itself except for brief reporting on one debate against a prison debate team. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:24, 27 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!} 03:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SIRS requires multiple secondary, independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The nom mentions one possible such source, the article has none. The Chomsky-Dershowitz debate is coverage of the debate and has little mention of the org. Truthnope (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Libes (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 does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak delete. The nominator has not fully understood the notability criteria for academics, WP:NPROF, and it appears has also not done a detailed WP:Before. Understandable since they are relatively new, but still not the best. That aside I cannot find enough citations of his papers to convince me that he passes WP:NPROF#C1. There are some reviews of his books, so there is some WP:NAUTHOR contribution. I could not find his CV, which may be available to DOE or NIST personnel. Hence I don't know about awards. I lean delete, unconvincingly. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:08, 4 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!} 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their Google Scholar page seems to sufficiently demonstrate their notability as an academic. Madeleine (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Roop (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)

Canadian Country Spotlight (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:BLP of an actor and radio host, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or radio hosts, and a similarly poorly sourced article and semi-advertorialized about his show.
The attempted notability claim as an actor is a few small bit parts as a child actor in the 1980s, and the attempted notability claim as a radio host is small-market local radio stations, neither of which are "inherently" notable enough to guarantee a Wikipedia article without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for them -- but the article is referenced entirely to IMDb and other primary sources that are not support for notability, and has been flagged for notability concerns since 2017 without improvement.
There may also be a conflict of interest here, as the articles were both created by an WP:SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia on any other topic but these. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 27 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!} 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco (cartoonist) (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 appear in any RS, may not be notable PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No RS. This is about the best I could find [33]. What's used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cleis Press: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to be a stand alone article, and Cleis Press was the only significant(ish) company that published a large amount of his work (a 200 page collection). Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco is one of the few openly black, gay erotic artists. Erotic artists are often neglected, compared to non-erotic artists. I think those characteristics are enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia.

That being said, Belasco has also been published in Meatmen (comics), a very important gay anthology of its time. Another reason to keep this article.

If that helps, Belasco has a current and updated Patreon page at [34]https://www.patreon.com/BelascoArts Frpe01 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm allowed to post again on the same subject.

A few more sources about Belasco's work:

The site for The Advocate (magazine) has a page, https://www.advocate.com/art/2021/8/25/miguel-angel-reyes-sketches-sexiest-men-world#rebelltitem1, for a 2021 online gallery including examples of Belasco's work.

The Advocate (magazine) also presented a 2013 show that includes Belasco's work at https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/art/2013/07/11/galleries-sexyblack

The page on the aforementioned gallery's official site is at https://antebellumgallery.blogspot.com/2013/07/sexyblack-opens-july-12th-antebellum.html Frpe01 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While mainstream coverage in online sources is not plentiful (a WP blind spot), the subject's notability in the context of gay black erotica is substantial. Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:06, 28 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!} 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalga Beach (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)

Intentional or not, from the clearly advertorial tone to the sources they provide to their own website, this is clearly a WP:BROCHURE and fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 27 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!} 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Miller (rabbi) (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)

Went through all the citations and the history of this article. It appears to have been started by the subject and all the citations are blogs written by the subject. This fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and borders on self-promotion by the subject SpeechFreedom (talk) 00:20, 27 February 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 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Judaism, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep – While reasonable editors may disagree, I believe this subject meets General Notability Guidelines. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the article cites sources other than the subjects blog, and this include reliable secondary sources. More importantly, some of those sources speak directly to his notability. This includes a rating as one of the top Jewish Twitter influences by the Jewish Telegraphic Agancy and making the top ten Jewish influencers according to the National Jewish Outreach program. Finally he received significant coverage in a few mainstream national publications in regards to his Rick Perry satire.

So far as it being a vanity piece, it isn't anymore. The account, which appears to belong to the subject, was blocked, along with the associated IP address for Sockpuppetry.--Kerbyki (talk) 15:40, 4 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!} 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is WP:ADMASQ for the subject's bar/bat mitzvah and kosher certification businesses. The sources are the subject's own writing ([35], [36]), trivial mentions ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41]), blog coverage (which is also pretty trivial - [42], [43], [[44]). The "weak keep" !voter cites his listing as an influential Jewish Twitter user, but that's a list of 25 people and he gets a single line -- it's not WP:SIGCOV. Similarly, he gets a brief mention in a list of NJOP influencers, which is not an WP:NBIO-qualifying award program. Bottom line: I don't see a single GNG-qualifying source here, and the WP:PROMO is particularly egregious. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Very poorly referenced fictional concept, mostly a WP:NLIST/WP:IPC failing list of appearances of this concept in fiction. That said, maybe a short rewrite could save this (User:Tompa Dompa?) given SFE's short entry on "time gate", which seems a similar concept (their Time portal effectively redirects here), but I remain concerned about GNG given that I did not locate any mention of these terms in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction (Library Movements) by Don DAmmassa, The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and The New encyclopedia of science fiction . The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature has two in passing mentions of works using this term. Is entry in SFE enough? Possible merge/redirect targets: time machine, time slip. PS. Time machine in fact seems to be just a redirect - that concept is very likely notable (separately from time travel) and should be (re)created... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Tompa dompa (I messed up with ping above...) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Try three. Pretty please, could you blue link (and blank if you hate it) your username, so I can quckly see if pings work...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There seems to be something in Worlds Enough and Time : Explorations of Time in Science Fiction and Fantasy (edited by Gary Westfahl, George Slusser and David A. Leiby), but I can't see if it's substantial or a shorter mention. Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction by Paul J. Nahin has a number of what seems like relevant mentions, but yet again, I can only access snippets. Physical copies of both are available in the Swedish library system, but not in the city where I live, and I can't find a way to borrow the e-books. Anyone with better/easier access? /Julle (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Julle The first book is limited access in IA [45], but it is in Z-library. The second one seems available from IA [46]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Time travel Time travel in fiction, where there seems not yet any mention of this specific device of time travel. In addition to the above, there are many short appearances in various secondary sources, so I don't doubt that at least a short article could reasonably be written. This has brief commentary on the function of a time gate vs. time slip, The Time Machine Hypothesis: Extreme Science Meets Science Fiction, p. 195, quantifies use in sci-fi, and this extensively talks about one instance by Heinlein. Here the preview looks pretty promising, commenting again on use and function ("Often, the time portal site “is the ancestral home of the child protagonists” (Cosslett 245), … Amy’s time portal combines all of these devices"), but I cannot further access it. Daranios (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios The latter is available through Wikipedia Library ([47]). But it's a short mention and it seems to focus on Zilpha Keatley Snyder’s The Truth About Stone Hollow (which we don't have an article about yet). The cited work (Cosslett) is also available there ([48]), but it seems not to mention time portals or gates, and is all about time slip trope. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So it seems in total that we could easily support the improved version of a list-like article like we have now, with general commentary based e.g. on the SFE article, and many individual instances including commentary supported by various sources. Which would mean sourcing/improving what we have, trimming examples not supported by sources, and expanding based on found sources. Further such sources would be Unendliche Weiten: Lösungsorientiert denken mit Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock und Dr. McCoy, p. 193, supporting Star Trek, and Zeitreisen - Die Erfüllung eines Menschheitstraums. Also, my impression is that both time portal and time gate are in use, but the latter appears more frequently and such suggests itself for the article title. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A list-like article is, as usual for topics like this, a bad idea. The article should instead (as always) be built from the sources and reflect the relative weight given to different aspects of the topic found in the overall literature on the overarching topic, as mandated by WP:PROPORTION. There's a reason science fiction encyclopedias like the ones mentioned in the nomination don't really do TV Tropes-style lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another way of putting it would be as it was phrased in the most recent essay in the WP:SIGNPOST: build the article from the source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. TompaDompa (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't want to go too deeply into this, as keeping it a list is just one possibility: But I don't feel like the comparatively short overview in a tertiary/secondary source we have should prevent us from including appearances of time portals with short commentary based on other secondary sources. That's too much a zero/one approach for me here. I feel that on the one hand that allowing them would be more or less in accordance with "If you're writing about something more obscure where sources are hard to come by, you'll probably need to use every source you find, even the minor or hyperspecific ones." from the source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. And on the other hand, if we want this to be a list of time portals, it could include such instances based on the formulation of an inclusion critereon like "has been commented on in a secondary source". Daranios (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, sourcing/improving what we have means working backwards from improperly-added content, which is incompatible with proper article construction. Secondly, lists put an outsized emphasis—i.e. WP:Undue weight—on examples due to their visual prominence. Examples are supposed to support the analysis, not be included for their own sake (in that way, they are similar to images). TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a general rule, I mostly disagree. For this specific case, fair enough: My view here is just that we should (be allowed to) include time gates in works of fiction which do not appear in the one overview article we have found so far, if the other secondary sources dug up have something meaningful to say about them. Which, sure, supports the analysis. Daranios (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations (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 appears to be a promotional article for a non-notable organization. Any significant coverage I turned up in searches was not independent. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Psychology. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources 1-7 and 13 are from ISPSO, except for 6, which does not mention ISPSO. Sources 8-12 are a list of papers and the article does not make clear what connection, if any, these papers have to the organization. I found a copy of source 12 here and I could not find mention of the organization. It appears that these papers are just examples of things the organization studies, and not publications by them. Hence, no independent coverage. Truthnope (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soaring Association of Canada (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. Sources added are all primary. I could not find indepth third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability in being a national association. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Several independedent references now added. This should satisfy the criteria for notability. JMcC (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources added are primary and related to the organisation. They need to be independent. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as always, the fact that primary sources are used is not cause for deletion. The question is whether there are sources that could be cited, and I'd say that the evidence points to 'yes'. I note the mentions of SAC from 1946 ([49]), 1956 ([50] "SOARING ASSOCIATION OF CANADA The national gliding organization , the Soaring Asso- ciation of Canada , has been mentioned several times . It arose in 1944 from the need for a responsible body to represent glider pilots' interests to the Government, for a means of dissemination of news and information, and for a representative of the Federation Aeronautique International to issue soaring awards and homologate records"), from 1958 ([51], "Soaring Association of Canada , the national organization which now has 17 member clubs"), apparently issued pilot licenses around 1950 ([52]), organization involved in WWII efforts ([53]), same author ([54]), 1989 ([55], statement on prestige of SAC trophy), "...from the Soaring Association of Canada a Certificate of Honour for his creative work in the field of glider and sailplane design which helped to develop a constantly growing glider movement in Canada" ([56]), "[Soaring Association of Canada ( SAC ) was therefore formed in 1944 and a national charter was granted to the Association a year later . The first slate of officers elected was : J. A. Simpson , President ; Don MacClement..." ([57]), "... Soaring Association of Canada in 1944 sparked new interest , which has continued to the present day . The association , made up of 700 glider pilots in 28 clubs from coast to coast , marks soaring achievements by a traditional series of ..." ([58]), "... Soaring Association of Canada . This body has been approved of by the Department of Transport as well as the Royal Canadian Flying Club's Association and the representative of Federation Aéronautique International . The S.A.C. is ..." ([59]), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salin Man Bania (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)

Actor fails Wikipedia criteria. Given references doesn’t talk about his contribution in Nepali Cinema . It talks more about his debut film, where he has insignificant role. Not a single independent source. All the given sources are ordinary media. Article is full of promotional material. Rahmatula786 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to A Mero Hajur 2#Cast: or Keep if the award is judged sufficient and the coverage enough for either GNG or ANYBIO. -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to A Mero Hajur 2 Or Delete: Award is not notable. None of the references give significant and independent coverage about subject to meet notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Out & Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this album, nor any evidence of chart appearances, certifications, or major awards. Their previous album, The Boarder's Door, was released by a notable label, which seemingly explains the disparity in coverage between the two. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an interesting one, as there appears no single redirect or merge target, as we have no article for these two artists as a duo. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biola Media Conference (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)

Very few independent sources found about conference; I found this from 13 years ago by HM Magazine and a Biola-affiliated post (this). The Phil Cooke source is a blog. Perhaps this could be PROD'd but I don't feel confident putting it up for PROD. Would also be OK with a redirect to Biola University. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Christianity. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of any notability. Searches demonstrate many links from the University and social media sites and some blogs, but nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like it was stubbified a few years back instead of being deleted as promotional. I didn't see any of the excised content as unjustly removed. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't even see any valid search/nav reason to redirect this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above (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. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [60], and the other is a TechRadar article [61] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing NBOOK. Couldn't find any other potential sources. Even Higher and Beyond Frontiers should probably go too. Astaire (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Astaire above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion. I have WP:BEFOREd these and am unable to find sources to determine notability:

Even Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beyond Frontiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After a cursory search of coverage, it is pretty clear this book is extremely niche and has very, very little secondary coverage. There is one source that gives the book a mention [62] but that is essentially it. Any reviews of the book might help in establishing notability but otherwise essentially all of the article's sources are primary or local, which don't factor into its notability. It lacks the widespread and significant secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Obviously leaning towards delete, but more discussion on the two bundled articles as well as possibly redirecting should be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. High Above and Even Higher are still a delete for me. Redirecting Beyond Frontiers to SES (company) is a reasonable ATD given that it is a trademark. Astaire (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polit (operating system) (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:NSOFT. The creator's website presumably contains almost all the coverage this OS has received. This coverage consists of an article written by the creator, a magazine interview with the creator, and a TV interview with the creator (practically inaccessible). None of this contributes to notability. I didn't find anything else when trying to search Ukrainian sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Ukraine. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]