Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 31	April 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Charter Communications (publisher)

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

fails GNG TzarN64 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Almer

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

Declined prod. The 2 third party sources added [1] and [2] are very small 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Romania. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland Academy, Mandia

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

This page fails to meet notability requirements. The page contains no references and I could not find any reliable sources mentioning this institution. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:28, 1 April 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) 00:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails notability as there are no secondary sources TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA Communism

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

Non-notable Twitter fad. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why this article is scheduled for deletion? LaparohMesa (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaparohMesa, the nom said it’s a “Non-notable Twitter fad”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it isn't "Non-notable". I think it is important to note people of the misinformation these fascists spread. LaparohMesa (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t usually just right great wrongs. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that the article has some notability and can be improved. Theofunny (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree with the "Twitter fad" comment from OP. The article is based on sources that are not particularly reliable or notable: a Substack, some Youtube videos from a channel that barely cracks 30k views per video on a good day, and a couple of websites that look more like blogs. It doesn't deserves its own article. Could also be redirected to Jackson Hinkle who, from my understanding, it's their main "representative". Paprikaiser (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson Hinkle - aside from the article currently being in a questionable state, it itself already seems to acknowledge at multiple points in the span of merely five paragraphs that "MAGA Communism" has a near-zero number of serious supporters and no real presence outside of the internet (seriously, about a third of the article is currently dedicated to explaining how unpopular its subject is), and the sources, as already stated by another editor, don't seem to be particularly excellent for proving the subject's notability. I fail to see how this is notable, or any reason to not redirect this page to Jackson Hinkle, which was already the case when it was created.

FiveInParticular (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Some coverage [3], [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a few hits in a thesis and some communist newspapers in Gscholar, click on the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Weak coverage by unreliable sources outside of Twitter does not indicate notability. The recreated article has the same citation issues as a previous rejected draft from 2023, i.e., lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Yue🌙 00:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then the appropriate title should be MAGA communism without the unnecessary capitalisation. Yue🌙 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Mostly covered by unreliable sources that are improperly cited in this article. Generally unnotable outside of Twitter similar to "Dark MAGA", which redirects to the Madison Cawthorn page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.166.230 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I believe we should keep this article but protect it, as I believe its educational. Valorrr (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to Keep; MAGA Communism has been covered by notable sources (though much of the ideology's notability is directly linked to coverage of Jackson Hinkle). If the article is kept it will need much work, perhaps from editors of WikiProject Socialism. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Oaktree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the argument for deletion was that it was non-notable. But notability can be established. As per Oaktree, there is coverage on it from El País and The Guardian, and it is notable enough to be noted in some dissertations. I also saw some coverage elsewhere, like in Compact and UnHerd. It was given a mention by MSNBC too. Thus it appears to be notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 11:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people agree to weak keep/keep it, so it's official, it'll be kept. Could we close the discussion now? LaparohMesa (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 16:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will close it. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the notice 78.87.23.12 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has only been active for a little over four days. There's no need to be an eager beaver and close it earlier than the standard seven days, especially when the responses are mixed. AfD decisions aren't based on the number of votes, and speedily closing per something like WP:SNOW isn't applicable here because the discussion is not universal in agreement (mostly weak support for keeping the article at best).

Regardless, whoever closes this discussion needs to do it properly; this discussion was still open when the tag at the top of the article was removed. Yue🌙 02:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established, enough sources have been added to verify that. Frijfuhs (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the subject seems semi-notable, but the article needs a lot of clean-up.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion was incorrectly closed as a Speedy Keep but it was never withdrawn. It was not eligible for a Speedy Keep as there is a Deletion argument. AFD discussions also should never be closed by an involved editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle (or simply delete). The only high-quality source that more than mentions this is the Guardian piece, which paints a rather different picture than what we get in the article. So, at least at present, I would say it flunks notability (unless maybe if the Spanish sources are especially strong?). Also, there's a possible NPOV issue with treating what is elsewhere presented as mostly a social media provocation as if were a serious social movement or emerging political coalition. Patrick (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom. Was a soft delete in August, but I agree with the original nom, Brunnaiz, "Non-relevant organization, the article is backed only by self-sources and there's information missing sources. In fact, the article was replicated in cawiki around the same time with the very same problems, which could even be viewed as cross-wiki spam." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and Spain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand by my former opinion on this article. It was even deleted in Catalan Wikipedia. --Brunnaiz (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable research group. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tryon Coterie

AfDs for this article:

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

Functionally a single chapter. Reference to Baylor Lariat contains the single fact that it was founded in 1946, reference to chapter website have information accessible in archive.org. Naraht (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Texas. Naraht (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability with current sources and is unlikely to based on my search for sources. Also, WP:FRAT guidelines are that single chapters should not have their own articles. We can merge some of its content into the main article for the fraternity. Rublamb (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jäger Rosenberg

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

Delete or dratify per WP:BIO with WP:TOOSOON in mind. Several citations are repeated, but of the sources given, the only independent publishers are Coast Reporter and My Powell River Now, two small local news sites / blogs. The rest are primary sources from the NDP or Jäger Rosenberg himself. The coverage by the news sites is largely routine due to the current election cycle, with the only point of notability being Rosenberg's young age, which in my opinion is not enough for standalone notability.

If Rosenberg is elected next month in the federal election, then he would have a stronger case for having an article due to his notability as an MP. Until then, however, this article should remain in the draftspace, especially in its current state with citations being limited to primary sources or local coverage. Yue🌙 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Yue🌙 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice this before starting the AfC discussion, but Talk:Jäger Rosenberg#Nomination for deletion was started two days prior without an actual AfC being started. That discussion already contains arguments from other editors to delete / keep. Yue🌙 23:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Running for MP doesn't inherently indicate notability and agreed on being a young candidate as well. Also worth noting that his provincial campaign was only for a nomination race, and not the general election at large. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kid wrote the article himself. Running for office does not make you notable, neither does being young. Winning does. 2001:569:F085:B000:B0EB:2BE3:59A7:DF80 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As already stated, I am not him. It's really funny you think I am. I think most of the point for why we should keep this article are already on the talk page, but I'll say some again. Being the youngest candidate to ever run is very notable. For someone of that age to be approved to run either for a party nomination or be approved as a major party candidate is very notable. Yes, he hasn't won an election (yet), but lots of other candidates who didn’t win have pages because their candidacy is notable in some other way. There are reliable sources talking about the historical nature of his candidacy—yes, most of them are local to his riding, but that isn’t all that uncommon. I'll admit that maybe I was a little hasty to publish this article, I haven’t written very many, but that doesn’t mean it should be deleted. At the moment, he is notable and it is likely that notability will only grow, and if it fades away, then it can be removed at a later date. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Most of the arguments seem to already be presented here. Running so young is notable and he seems to be already making his mark. The sources are fine. Arguments for removing seem a bit flimsy and based on a seemingly false assumption. RobertR47 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ran for office at 18 too. I am not notable enough to have a wiki article, neither is this kid. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a footnote at this point, and such a footnote belongs in the article of the election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His candidacy is historic enough to earn a page. Carolebax (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? 18 year olds run in pretty much every election. There have been at least a half dozen between the 2019 and 2021 elections, most of whom are probably more notable for other reasons. None of them are here for the common denominator of they all lost. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable is that he ran at 17. Which would make him the youngest candidate to ever run. Hence why his candidacy is historic. Carolebax (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that notable? I personally did that myself in a previous election. It’s not some mythical story that comes once in a generation, it happens every time. 2605:B100:918:7F6C:388E:9117:BEB:1C4C (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said before you ran at 18. Did you really run in the last election at 17 or are you just making it up for the sake of your argument? Carolebax (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. If he really is "the youngest Canadian to seek elected office," he could be notable on that basis - however, that claim would need to be much more strongly supported in the article's sources - which are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of his campaigns. Just running for office, of course, is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an article for vanity purposes lol. Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that two account expressing "Keep" viewpoints here, RobertR47 and Carolebax, are both brand new accounts with zero-to-almost-zero activity outside of this deletion discussion. Sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion is not OK; refer to WP:BADSOCK Madg2011 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that the two accounts expressing "Delete " are just IP addresses, likely both under the control of the same person. RedBlueGreen93 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this individual would need more dedicated coverage beyond the sources here. Being young and running for office in itself does not make someone notable. JSwift49 22:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Dratify - Looks like a historic candidacy. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, historic on what basis? Young people run in every election 2001:569:F085:B000:E4E5:8ADC:6286:481 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. What sources provide SIGCOV establishing notability? Just being "the youngest" isn't enough, even if it is true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received significant media attention from secondary sources and is very notable as the youngest candidate to seek elected office in Canada. RedBlueGreen93 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan M'Bango

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

Made three appearances for SC Bastia over two Ligue 2 seasons. A web search for "Bryan M'Bango Bastia" finds nothing remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV. There may be offline sources but it seems unlikely. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would have been suitable for PROD. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [5], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [6][7] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca, Arizona

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

This one is a mess not in the least because it's not clear that the ghosttowns.com entry is talking about the same place, but according to this story the place came into being as a failed attempt by the local reservation to create a vacation spot. I'm not sure that it all there is to it, as it shows up on the map before that timeframe, but at any rate it is absolutely not a populated place now. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Seneca Lake Recreation Complex with the artificial Seneca Lake on Cienega Creek that flows down Mule Hoof Canyon is indeed where this is. But it is not Cienega Creek; this one rather being a minor tributary of the Salt River. The construction of the complex on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in the 1970s required the production of OCLC 21683618 before it could be signed off.
The ghosttowns page implies that Seneca "ghost town" was part of the asbestos mining in Arizona; and hdl:10150/629706 confirms the existence of a tiny Seneca Mining Company in the 1950s, although other Bureau of Mines publications such as OCLC 1990345 indicate that Accident Group of Globe was the major asbestos mining company there.
In the 1980s GNIS, Seneca at 33°45′24″N 110°30′44″W / 33.75667°N 110.51222°W / 33.75667; -110.51222 (Seneca) was a "locale" not a "ppl". So this is another "unincorporated community" lie that is not really fixable as it isn't the real subject anywhere. asbestos mining in Arizona is a missing subject, but this would be a totally ridiculous way to start it.
Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may also fail WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per Uncle G; not a community in the sense required by GEOLAND and not a reasonable redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have done work on the article and added sources to establish notability and remedy the obvious problems which led to the nomination, work still in progress.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to meet the minimum required by WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please changes made since this article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not convinced that the extra material shows that this was anything more than a commercial center without residents, but it is certainly better than it was. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge van Balen

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

Declined prod. The added source does not appear reliable. Worldgn appears to be a marketing website. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Venezuela. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^{[April Fools!]}

Alliance for Germany

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

WP:SOCK Namealreadytak (talk) 21:56, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no deletion rationale. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giok Djan Khoe

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

As an AFC reviewer I accepted this as a draft on the basis that it was likely that an emeritus professor passes WP:NPROF. This version, the one I accepted, was poor, but I trusted the community to work with it. The issue is that this has now been turned into an advert by an editor who appears to be the subject of the article. I might have flagged it for CSD as an advert, but choose to ask the community to discuss it. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Indonesia, and Netherlands. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 50. Is this nomination serious? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I will stop editing. The editors asked to add categories, citations and links and I was trying to fix just that. I received a lot of encouragements to continue editing. I had difficulties at the beginning with the editing format but found out how to do that properly. I hope that the article will not be deleted because of my actions. Khoe0005 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep. A highly inappropriate nomination; just because there appears to be COI is not grounds for an AfD. His Google Scholar h-factor of 50 qualifies for WP:NPROF#C1; Fellow of IEEE, Optics and other awards fly through #C2-#C3. This is definitely not an advert, it is a non-peacock academic page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cramer

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

Proposing deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Cramer played an important role in a scandal about the book Arming America and is an adjunct professor at College of Western Idaho.^[1] I have found no evidence that he meets an NACADEMIC criterion and insufficient coverage for BASIC.

Of the current references, ^[2]^[3]^[4] are by Cramer; ^[5]^[6] are not about Cramer; ^[7] is run-of-the-mill primary election results. I found additional references^[8]^[9]^[10] that mention Cramer in passing, apropos his role in the Arming America scandal. Even if this coverage was more extensive, it would fail Wikipedia:BLP1E.

References

^ "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.
^ "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
^ My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.
^ "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
^ "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
^ Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.
^ Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.
^ Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Firearms. userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There might be notability with the correction around the book, but these are sourced only to educational websites. Rest seems non-notable and I can't pull up coverage on this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you can find are interviews with a few universities, that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's not really an academic as an adjunct; he's notable as a gun advocate, which is shown by the coverage. This is not an endorsement of his views. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found independent significant coverage of Cramer as a gun advocate? There are several articles/op-eds by Cramer about his advocacy, but the most substantial independent coverage I've seen is the Books & Culture article, which has (charitably) two paragraphs of coverage. userdude 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only scandal about Michael Bellesiles book, Arming America, was the content of the book itself and the fact that virtually all the purported history contained in the book was fraudulent. How this should in any way be cited as a reason for deleting a Wikipedia article on Clayton E. Cramer, who has published several historical books none of which have been accused of using falsified source material, is incomprehensible. Wally3438 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I mentioned Cramer's role in the Arming America scandal for context, not as an argument for deletion. Cheers :) userdude 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of his books are sparser than I might expect, but I found: Reviews of Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: [8], [9]/[10]. Review of Black Demographic Data: [11]/[12]. Review of Armed America: [13]. Four published reviews of three books is on the positive side of borderline for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I also found a review of Lock, Stock, and Barrel [14] and another review of Armed America [15] (full text may not be publicly accessible). However, I don't consider books with 1–2 reviews "significant or well-known work[s]" per WP:AUTHOR3. userdude 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I buy the NAUTHOR case. Comment also that redirection to Arming America would be a good alternative to deletion (a keep or no-consensus close looks more likely at this stage). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we keep a standalone article, or merge/redirect to the subject's clearly notable book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an adjunct is often a matter of hiring processes and not an indication of someone's status as an academic. I'm seeing sufficient coverage, and his role in exposing the poor research methods used in Arming America tips the scale for me. Intothat darkness 12:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzor Ngoladi

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

Subject fails WP:NWRITER as a writer or journalist and fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Albalag

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

No known sources exist in this article. It contains some general references but lacks inline citations, which means its near to not becoming notable on Wikipedia. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable. I will add inline citations shortly. -- -- -- 22:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please notify me if anything else needs to be done to save the article from deletion. Thanks in advance, -- -- -- 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Bay, Tanzania

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

Subject of article not notable Munfarid1 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not look like a WP:GEOLAND fail. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are no reliable sources for Oyster bay to be a notable subject. - If you can find any that really speak about the place as a subject of encyclopedic relevance, you could include it. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Bitch (disambiguation)

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

With only one article with this title, this is an unnecessary disambiguation page. Hat note at Psycho Bitch should be sufficient. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Disambiguations. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars FYI, it's been expanded. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I withdraw this nomination. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

How It Should Have Ended

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

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [16] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received a Streamy awards for Best Animated web series. https://www.streamys.org/nominees-winners/2010-nominees/ Coverage abounds. Cleanup might be necessary. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Young Labour

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

Nothing much found to suggest that a county-level youth branch of a national political party would be notable. The one reference on the page does not appear to be directly about the subject of the page JMWt (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot prove that these people, some of whom can actually be located on the WWW, were ever members of such an organization. But I can spot their names in the accounts that are in the edit history of the article. ☺ This seems to be people writing an unverifiable article about their own organization directly into Wikipedia, and giving up on that over 10 years ago. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the two sources are relevant nor establish notability, and can't find any additional sources. Looks like WP:PROMO. Orange sticker (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Timberwolves-Detroit Pistons brawl

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

Non-notable NBA fight, with no long-term significance. Yes, players were ejected, and there are upcoming suspensions, but the longest suspension handed down is 2 games ([17]).

Comparisons to the Malice at the Palace are hyperbole, and this will be forgotten in a month or so. Content from this article could be merged into the season articles for the Timberwolves and Pistons if desired. Natg 19 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Basketball, United States of America, Michigan, and Minnesota. Natg 19 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is as significant as most entries in Category:Brawls in team sports and I don't expect lasting coverage, so I favor deletion in the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. However, this is a reasonable search term, so I'd like to redirect this somewhere. This could be to the season articles for the Timberwolves and Pistons, but why choose one over the other? Merging/redirecting to 2024–25 NBA season makes most sense, I believe. Once you flesh out the unnecessary content, there's a paragraph to add to 2024–25 NBA season. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this option. Didn't consider that target initially. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I think that a merger or redirect may be possible. However, I do feel like this event that caught national news should be considered as a maybe keep. I mean, there are 7 million articles on English Wikipedia don't you think that this isn't in the 7 million most significant event in modern history. CostalCal (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are reasons to keep. We explicitly have the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete if for no other reason that, after a single day, there's no way of knowing whether anyone will care about this even a month from now. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings Lake

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

Non-notable minor geographical feature in Antarctica. Nothing to suggest the notability criteria for inclusion have been met. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I predict Amery Ice Shelf. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Kiarashi

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

Previously salted as Alireza kiarashi. No clear evidence of notability, and riddled with promotional trivialities. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion: This is WP:PROMO. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are no promotional items. All sources are correct. This article follows all Wikipedia policies. Please do not give personal opinions on a topic. Shayanbehrad10 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giv[ing] personal opinions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article should be deleted because the subject of the article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Specifically, the artist has not received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Literally, the Google news search for this artist comes up completely empty. - tucoxn\^talk 10:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of charted singles, or any other form of musical notability. I don't find any sources we can use, and what's given is mostly just articles he's written. Having music on Apple Music isn't notable in 2025 either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlacVolta

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

not notable digital company; the sources are either paid or not with reliable coverage of the subject (based on interviews or press-releases) Unicorbia (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another frivolous deletion nomination orchestrated by (Personal attack removed).Postit note warrior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia already has enough low-quality African-subject stubsPostit note warrior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments should be disregarded by the closer as they were made out of spite, and the self-proclaimed warrior is now blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are from low quality publications, The Ghana Report is about the founder, ameyawdebrah.con seems AI generated, ghanaweb has nothing to do with the company.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meet Market Adventures

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albana Bilalli

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

After being deleted less than six months ago, this promotional page is back, different enough that it's not G4-able but still with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The sources are music database pages, marketing copy for events, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS ([18]), her Spotify page, and brief tabloid-y mentions of her videos/singles being available ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) -- not any independent reviews that confirm NMUSIC eligibility. (I didn't find anything else in my BEFORE search, but of course open to reviewing other sources should they be found, considering they are mostly in Albanian.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Kosovo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Providing a courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @Iaof2017 @4meter4 @Cooldudeseven7 @Bearian @Doomsdayer520 @Vanderwaalforces. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In the interest of being completely fair, I did raise the point of the previous article and a {{G4}} deletion decision with @asilvering and it was their opinion that at least some of the source present in this version of the article were not present or discussed the previous go-round, see this discussion. —‍Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG or NMUSIC. ^Wiinter_U 17:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the source analysis done by the nominator and come to the same conclusion that the subject does not meet NMUSIC, ANYBIO or the GNG criteria. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still has very poor sourcing. Most of the sources given are at most one paragraph of text and a link to a Youtube video. Could be seen as promotional, but with the limited sourcing, should be deleted. I find no sources about this individual either. I don't see proof of a charted single, a major album release or anything else we'd use for musical notability. Simply appearing at an Expo in Dubai is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there is at least one reliable source, Telegrafi, but that still doesn't make it significant coverage. It's a good try anyway. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the previous AfD she seems to have placed some press releases with more prestigious news sources (as noted by the last voter), but they are still basic introductions and promotional statements that do not add up to significant coverage. To be charitable, let's go with too soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources or coverage. Does not deserve to exist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buçe Ambush

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

Looks like a minor event in the grand scheme of a war that doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. The only reference in the article that actually discusses the incident, "prizrenpress.com", is a non-RS web portal that describes the insurgents as "brave", "freedom fighters" and "martyrs". Griboski (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaean colonization of Africa

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sabean colonization of Africa

Articles for deletion/Sabaean colonization of Africa (2nd nomination)

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

The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History is a high quality tertiary source that summarises the literature, and in Documentary Sources and Methods for Precolonial African History (2018) it says

Thanks to archaeological and linguistic research, scholars now know Aksum was preceded by a state in inland northern Ethiopia and Eritrea that by the first millennium bce appears in epigraphic evidence as D’MT or Daamat. Damaat, centered at Yeha, was long understood in connection with political and economic contacts with ancient Egypt and Saba in South Arabia as well as the expansion of Roman trade into the Indian Ocean in the early first millennium ce. Saba is generally associated with the biblical Sheba, the famous queen said to reign in the early 10th century bce, at the same time as Solomon. Until the 1980s, scholars viewed the emergence of the state as the consequence of the colonization of the Horn of Africa by Sabaeans from South Arabia in the early first millennium bce.

According to this narrative, South Arabians colonized indigenous populations and, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in Yemen (4th–3rd centuries bce), they created the kingdom of Aksum in Tigray. The assumption derived from the early modern myth that Africans were not capable of producing complex states themselves, and thus state formation must have been the result of external colonization or influence.

In fact, neither archaeological, epigraphic, nor linguistic evidence supports Sabaean influence or the sudden rise of a polity that would suggest colonization. Rather, evidence demonstrates Damaat was preceded by complex societies dating back to the beginning of the third millennium bce. This is significant because it demonstrates that the formation of the states of Damaat (and later Aksum) were the result of local historical developments, likely driven by the integration of the Horn of Africa into the economic networks of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea, a process that began in late prehistoric times, rather than external colonization or influence.

In summary, it's a colonial narrative based on the Hamitic hypothesis. The source Japp et al 2011 used to cite The Sabean colonisation of Africa was a process of colonization by Sabaeans that occurred in the Horn of Africa during the first millennium BC in the lead does not support it, the closest thing it says is

One research opinion, based on archaeological and epigraphic finds, assumes a Sabaean colonization of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in the first millennium ВС and the South Arabian origin of the political system during that period (Bent 1893: 134-151; Anfray 1967: 49-50; 1968: 353; de Contenson 1981: 354; Fattovich 1997: 341).

, citing old sources. It’s conclusion is frankly a bit unserious and doesn’t mention colonisation. It’s almost pure grandiose speculation based on one assumption that other scholars have dismantled. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing Jstor:
Edit: these were from a survey of Jstor searching "Daamat Sabaean"

Fattovich 2010
Until the 1980s, most Ethiopianists assumed that a state emerged on the highlands in Eritrea and Tigray as a consequence of a South Arabian (mainly Sabean) colonization of the northern Horn of Africa in the early 1st millennium BC. According to this reconstruction, the South Arabian colonists dominated the local populations, and after the decline of the Kingdom of Saba in Yemen in the 4th-3rd century BC they gave rise to a local kingdom with the capital at Aksum in Tigray. The Aksumite kingdom progressively incorporated the whole region into its territory and laid the foundation of the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia, which survived until the 1970s. This hypothesis was mainly based on the indisputable evidence of a South Arabian influence in Eritrea and Tigray in the mid-1st millennium BC (Conti Rossini 1928; Ullendorff 1973; Ricci 1984). Beginning in the 1960s, this narrative has been challenged by archaeological research, which suggests that the development of complex societies and states in Tigray and Eritrea was not a linear process of state formation, consolidation and decline, but consisted of at least two distinct trajectories to social complexity, indirectly related to each other, in the Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands and the Eritrean and Tigrean highlands respectively. This process was characterized by a shift in the location of complex societies from the lowlands to the highlands in the early 1st millennium BC (Fattovich 1997b).

Concludes:

At present, the development of early complex societies and states in the northern Horn of Africa can be tentatively outlined as follows: 1. In the 4th millennium BC, an incipient hierarchical society emerged along the middle Atbara valley. 2. In the early 3rd millennium BC these people moved northwards, following the progressive shift of the Gash river to the present delta, and occupied a strategic position as a gateway to the sources of frankincense, gold, and ivory in the lowlands and along the western slopes of the highlands. 3. In mid-3rd to mid-2nd millennia BC a complex society consolidated itself in the Gash Delta, and was part of an exchange circuit with Egypt, Nubia and southern Arabia. 4. Beginning in the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Gash Delta was cut off from the exchange network with Nubia and Egypt, although a hierarchical society survived in the region. At the same time people culturally related to the occupants of the Gash Delta occupied the Barka valley and acted as intermediaries between the Nile Valley and/or the coast and the highlands. 5. In the early 1st millennium BC, the progressive inclusion of the highlands into the South Arabian area of commercial expansion most likely stimulated the rise of hierarchical societies in Eritrea. 6. In the mid-1st millennium BC, an early state arose in northern Tigray and central Eritrea, maybe as a commercial partner of the Yemeni kingdom of Saba. 7. In the late 1st millennium BC, the pre-Aksumite state disappeared in Tigray. A new polity emerged at Aksum and was included into the Roman trade circuit of the Red Sea. 8. In the early to mid-1st millennium AD, the kingdom of Aksum was consolidated as a large territorial state, becoming an important commercial partner of the Roman and Byzantine empires. 9. In the late 1st millennium AD, the kingdom progressively declined, most likely because of environmental crises, migrations from the Eastern Desert, and the Arab commercial and political expansion along the Red Sea.

D'Andrea et al 2008 says
Inscriptions make reference to a kingdom named Daamat, which has been described as an Ethio-Sabaean state, but the nature and extent of this polity remains uncertain (Fattovich 1988, 1990; Fattovich et al. 2000; Munro-Hay 1993). This PreAksumite kingdom had roots in local cultures but also experienced strong South Arabian cultural and economic influences (Anfray 1973; Fattovich 1988,2004; Munro-Hay 1991; D. Phillipson 1998; Curtis 2004). Recent research has proposed that the origins of social complexity in the highlands were the result of multiple factors, including increasing aridity and the elaboration of cultural exchange networks extending across eastern Africa and the Red Sea (Curtis 2007).
Sernicola 2021
The nature and extent of the connections with South Arabia have also seen considerable controversies and revisions over the years. These range from the claim of a Sabaean colonisation of the northern Horn (Bent 1893; Conti Rossini 1928; Robin, de Maigret 1998)
(citing old sources and talks about this no more)
Fattovich 2012
The origin, development, and nature of the "D'MT" polity as well as itsrelation to the later kingdom of Aksum are virtually unknown, as the archaeological record is very scant and textual sources provide only fragmentary and ambiguous information (D. W. Phillipson, 2009, 2012, pp. 22-41)

At the core of the scholarly debate about "D'MT" is the role of South Arabs in the formation of this complex society. The occurrence of nine sites in central Eritrea, eastern and central Tigray with evidence of monumental buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style, as well as Sabaic inscriptions in South Arabian script (de Contenson, 1981; Anfray1990, pp. 17-63; Fattovich, 1977, 1990a; Bernard, Drewes and Schneider, 1991tpp. 67-83; Finneran, 2007, pp. 117-141; D. W. Phillipson, 2012, pp.24-32), has suggested two different interpretations. Scholars emphasizing the South Arabian elements claim that a South Arabian tribe migrated to the Tigrean highlands and/or Sabeans colonized the region and imposed their dominion on the indigenous people in the early to mid-lst millennium BCE (Bent, 1893, pp. 134-151; Glaser, 1895; Conti Rossini, 1928, pp. 99-101; Sergew Hable Selassie, 1972, pp. 26-34; Ullendorff, 1973, p. 47; Ricci, 1984; Japp, Gerlach, Hitgen and Schnelle, 2011; Gerlach, 2012).

(citing old sources, other than Japp et al 2011 mentioned above, and Gerlach 2012)

Scholars stressing the local component (mainly pottery and lithics) of "D'MT" stress an indigenous origin of this polity, suggesting that local elite used South Arabian elements as symbols of power in the mid- 1st millennium BCE (Anfray, 1969; Schneider, 1976a; Fattovich, 1977 1990a, 2004; J. Phillips, 2004; Curtis, 2008; Manzo, 2009). According to several scholars, a few South Arabs settled in the African highlands and spread elements of their culture among the local population (Anfray, 1994; Scheneider, 2003; Fattovich, 2010).

(citing more recent sources)

Phillipson 2009:
By at least the mid-eighth century bc, monumental stone architecture and inscriptions were being produced in the northern Horn, in both cases in styles very close to those used in southern Arabia, although the language of most- but not all- of the inscriptions showed significant local differences. It is probable that these elements were the prerogative of élite sectors, whose distinctiveness and prestige they served to emphasise. At this time or shortly afterwards (the date cannot be determined precisely), small numbers of immigrants from southern Arabia may have arrived in what is now Tigray. Their separate identity as a distinct population element may have been very short-lived, raising the possibility that individual specialists- e.g., masons- rather than family groups may have been involved. From this time onwards, cultural elements originating in southern Arabia seem to have been adopted by sections of the indigenous population- particularly the élite- to a very varying extent. Indeed, long-distance influences may be detected with other regions also, notably with the Nile valley. At Yeha, a scattered population seems to have been drawn together by the establishment of an élite centre. Local rulers are indicated, owing no demonstrable allegiance to contemporaries in southern Arabia. Elsewhere, as in the Asmara region, there is very little evidence for foreign cultural elements or for the presence of local élites. Stimulating suggestions by Curtis (2008) notwithstanding, the reasons for these developments remain poorly understood.

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This WP:WALLOFTEXT afd nom with literally no arguments at all of a well sourced article that has 24 sources supporting the fact that a colonization had happened where the nominator just quotes random paragraphs from sources (some of which are almost a decade old). They completely ignored the message that I left in the talk page of this article where I brought up the fact that there was a conquest of the region by Karib'il Watar which triggered the colonization process but instead of replying, they nominated this article for deletion, placed a pov tag on the section of the sheba article where the invasion was mentioned (which was cited by new and high quality sources) and canvassed the discussion with User:Havenseye (who they know damn well that they want this article gone and had no reasons for that except that they dont like this article's existence, see Talk:Sheba#removal) and placed the exact same quote from the oxford source which has no mentions of the conquest. I also find it very weird that they had to mention that the sources they are bringing up in this discussion are "not cherrypicked" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 19:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per WP:APPNOTE, it is appropriate to notify users involved in previous discussions. I can only assume that if you are not WP:POVPUSHING, then you haven't read the sources on the page. They do not support a "colonisation", and the one that does is from 1895. The other one, Munro-Hay 1991, attributes what he says to Michel 1986, nearly 40 years old. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made a mistake pinging only that user. I'd already notified Abo Yemen and assumed the other person in the discussion was a 3O based off a glance, but the 3O had been declined. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of quotations given say that no colonization happened , what they say is its disputable that this caused complexity in the area or created Dmt. The article already mentions this under Cultural features - "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do, the first quote disputes it totally. The others either say Daamat was indigenous in origin and were influenced by Sabaean culture, or that the Sabaean influence came from migrations to the region. None say there was a colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading it disputes that the rise of Dmt indicates a Sabaean colonization. And the absence of the affirmation of "colonization" is undecisive as you have selected the sources. Even if you succeed in challenging the colonization angle, the deletion is rejected as the sources like Nebes 2023 and Schulz 2024 call Dmt an Ethio-Sabaean kingdom and discuss Sabaean migrations into the area and describe a lot of cultural and political and architectural influence. This should be a rename discussion not a deletion discussion. Pogenplain (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not “selected the sources”, I did survey of Jstor searching “Daamat Sabaean”. Migration is not colonisation, not even close. And regardless, we would need recent sources calling this a colonisation which there aren’t. I’m going to try to stop now as I think I’ve made myself clear. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a rename discussion to Sabaean migrations into Africa, we dont need to delete a well sourced page on a notable subject. Pogenplain (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what others think, but given the above I have little faith in the rest of the sourcing. What’s salvageable could be merged to Dʿmt? Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the best way for us to cover the origins of Daamat, Dʿmt is very underdeveloped, I plan to add to it from the above sources and cover the two POVs in recent sources, briefly mentioning the colonial narrative and Japp et al. Preemptively addressing a rename and rewrite, I don’t think we need an article on this.

Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A well-sourced article with 24 sources against a low-quality revisionist history expressing a minority view. The suggestion is ridiculous. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article discusses Sabaean influence, which no one is disputing. This is about colonisation, only mentioned twice in the article, cited by Japp et al 2011 and two others which don’t support it, and by Munro-Hay 1991 and one from 1894 which are far too old. Calling the output of the ORE revisionist history as a pejorative is frankly laughable. Have you read the quotes or any of the sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of African history is revisionist, it was first written by colonisers. See African historiography#History Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation

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

The School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation was an academic unit of Arizona State University. Though the article claims it was established in 1998, referring to when the Polytechnic campus began offering courses in education, it appears to have properly been founded effective January 2006. In a major reorganization in 2009, this school was subsumed by the College of Teacher Education and Leadership (in order to have one teacher preparation school on all four campuses). In 2010, CTEL and another unit were combined into the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, which mentions SEITP by name.

On its own, this unit fails the WP:GNG. Significant coverage is nonexistent. A search of The Arizona Republic reveals only 14 hits, none of which are in-depth articles specifically about the school. A search in ProQuest turns up just 21 results, some of them duplicates with the Republic and others in mentions of journal article writers' academic affiliations.

Contested WP:BLAR. Disclosed paid editor on behalf of ASU. Melted Brie (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Arizona. Melted Brie (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing much decent coverage outside primary sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThePapare

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

None of the sources is about the subject of the article. There is no mention of this subject in it's supposed parent company Dialog Axiata article, therefore I am unable to request a redirect to the parent company article but if found to be a subsidiary of that parent company, then redirect. Mekomo (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Sri Lanka. Mekomo (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThePapare is not a subsidiary of Dialog Axiata. Instead, Dialog Axiata serves as a sponsor and broadcasting partner for ThePapare. This collaboration is evident from ThePapare’s official website, which states "© Copyright 2024 - ThePapare Powered by Dialog." This indicates a sponsorship or partnership rather than ownership.

Additionally, ThePapare operates as an independent sports media platform, providing comprehensive coverage of Sri Lankan sports through live updates, news articles, and live streaming services. This independence further supports the distinction between ThePapare and Dialog Axiata.

Therefore, redirecting ThePapare’s article to Dialog Axiata would be inappropriate, as the two entities maintain a partnership rather than a parent-subsidiary relationship.

Here's a link as proof ThePapare - About Us

— ✦ KurumbaKing ✦ — (talk) KurumbaKing (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's promotional then, thank you for explaining it. That helps with the discussion about notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find primary sources [24], nothing else. The sources used in the article are thin, most only talk about shows on the channel. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 1 is rather brief, source 2 is only about programs on the channel and source 3 won't open/isn't archived properly. None of these really show notability. TV stations have programs, that's just how they operate. This doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FindSALT

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

I propose the deletion of the FindSALT Wikipedia page due to its lack of notability, as it relies on limited sources that do not provide substantial independent coverage or establish its significance within the restaurant industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep I lean toward keeping this article. There is independent coverage in gulf news and Conde Nast traveler. The fact that someone had to clarify that the restaurant in london is not from UAE also suggests notability to me.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleos insurance

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

Lack of notability, as it is primarily supported by limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination claims Eleos Insurance lacks notability due to limited sources and insufficient significant coverage. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Just a search on Google news highlights many. They seem to have partnerships with well-known financial companies. Additionally, industry papers & media have covered Eleos’s role extensively. All these points to a level of recognition and impact that supports notability beyond limited scope. Bytanco (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful, see WP:ORGTRIV. There is not much in mainstream media. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs amendment rather than deletion. Additional reliable secondary sources from industry publications, financial news, and regulatory filings should be incorporated. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but requires better sourcing, which aligns with Wikipedia's preference for improvement over deletion. Wikinoleakshere (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Mapley

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish him as a prominent figure within the financial industry. Furthermore, the content primarily focuses on specific legal cases without providing comprehensive context or wider recognition that meets Wikipedia's notability. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets notability guidelines - independent coverage in reliable sources, especially in relation to international financial investigations and whistleblower activity.

Coverage and involvement include:

Mapley’s role in the collapse of the Basis Yield Alpha Fund, which invested in the Goldman Sachs Timberwolf CDO, is covered in HuffPost, The New York Times DealBook, ABC Australia, and International Business Times.

Mapley was a technical advisor to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contributing to its 650-page report on the 2008 subprime crisis, highlighting Goldman Sachs’ misrepresentation of structured financial products.

Further third-party coverage includes Expatica Switzerland, St Vincent Times, Further Blows Traded in EPF Fraud Case – PA Europe, and OffshoreAlert, which document his broader work in international financial investigations and asset recovery.

The article avoids promotional content and focuses on well-documented, encyclopedic facts. Legal cases are not undue weight, but part of broader public interest and regulatory investigation coverage.

This is not a case of routine mentions — Mapley is a central figure in multiple reputable sources with long-term notability — Quadtripplea (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like a promotional handout or a linkedin write up for someone looking for work. This reads as an extended CV. None of the sourcing used is directly about this individual, rather, about other things and simply mentions this person. I don't find sourcing either that we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this is the same person [25], but it doesn't confirm... If he's been suspended for doing illegal things, that could be notable, but without further proof, I can't confirm. I don't see criminal notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caprinos Pizza

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone, failing to provide enough credible, verifiable content to justify its presence as a standalone entry on Wikipedia. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is notable, the page documents an uprising multinational Pizza parlour, despite this, one of the few things I agree with is the fact there's too much promotional content, these are leftovers from when a caprinos employee tried to edit Wikipedia for their favor. If you CAN find reliable sources about the topic please link them below.

- WinterJunpei :3 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Review: Colchester Caprinos a great option for pizza-lovers". Daily Gazette. 2024-03-03. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The review notes: "Caprinos Pizza opened in North Station Road last September. ... Walking in, I was instantly very impressed by the décor, which felt modern and clean. I was greeted warmly by a staff member and the service was quick, not just because I was the only one there. After deliberating and then realising I was actually not that hungry, I decided to go for a small margherita pizza with a BBQ dip, as well as a side of fries. For just £9.48, £6.99 of which was for the pizza, the price was definitely a positive. It was a short ten-minute wait for the cooking and prep before I collected the goods and headed home to try it out. I was pleasantly surprised with the pizza itself. It was full of flavour and tasted delicious. ... The fries were a little disappointing. However - as with many things, they were made better by the dipping sauce."
2. Aldridge, James (2024-09-27). "Pizza chain in Reading could keep selling food at 4am". Reading Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Caprinos Pizza in Wokingham Road is a chain takeaway that serves up a range of pizzas, sides, salads, wraps, desserts, milkshakes and more. Caprinos is a growing chain, opening up in Reading in the Spring of 2021, taking over from the closed Christian Community Action charity shop. It has nearly 100 takeaways in the UK, with other locations in Thatcham, Newbury and Slough. The chain is a decade old, with the first Caprinos Pizza opening 20 miles away in Didcot in 2014."
3. Manuschka, Jacob (2024-08-08). "Oxford United kit to feature Caprinos Pizza logo this season". Bicester Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Oxford United has partnered with a pizza company in a deal which will see the firm become the official sleeve sponsor of the men's team. Caprinos Pizza, a chain founded in Oxfordshire, will sponsor the team for the 2024/25 season. ... Established in 2014, Caprinos Pizza has expanded to now have 99 stores across the UK, Ireland and Pakistan. In 2021, it opened its 40th branch, in Northcourt, Abingdon, having started with a store in Broadway, Didcot. ... The pizza takeaway service quickly became extremely popular within Didcot, causing the owners to branch out to other towns across the South East."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caprinos Pizza to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news articles of this chain are limited to local papers talking about new stores opening. The only exceptions are a couple articles saying that one franchise wanted to open late and a local paper saying that they sponsored a regional football team. Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Really only of local interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the sources given above seem hyper-local, with nothing beyond routine local news. I don't see any national or international sourcing... Being a great local place is fine, but we need something more than what we have for sourcing to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content appears promotional in tone. Additionally, the article does not provide substantial historical context or unique insights that justify its standalone existence. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some potential good sources but on a closer look they fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. For example, this article is basically an interview, this article is paid (see disclaimer "PARTNER CONTENT"), and this article is just full of quotes like "Mr Chandran says", "Mr Latheef says", "the founders say", "the partners say", "Mr Latheef adds", "chief executive of MySyara, says", and then at the end they posted a brief interview. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles here will establish notability: Forbes, The National News, Middle East Business, Expeienece Abu Dhabi, Jawlah, Zawya. I will stop here. There are many more. I also don't see anything that sounds promotional. The content is strictly about their major milestones, historical facts, such as acquisitions and partnerships. There is not much difference between this and hundreds of other similar companies on Wikipedia. Dear Nominator: Please name me one section that you think is promotional and I will remove or revise it. There is no need for deletion if the article can be improved. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: It is also suspect that a user with around 50 edits started doing nominations for page deletions. I think such tasks should be reserved for more experienced editors. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources don't really contribute to notability. The arabnews story is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The Olympiads.sa source appears to be a primary source of the athlete's Olympic Federation. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's an WP:NEXIST case to be made here considering that the subject was one of the first three athletes to ever represent Saudi Arabia internationally. We have three different WP:RS sources covering the subject plus two prose-based ones that I found despite not knowing the target language. I think a Wikipedian in Saudi Arabia should be able to find more SIGCOV out there, understanding that that Saudi newspaper archives would certainly have covered this in the 1970s. --Habst (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of the first athletes is fine, but we have no sourcing that talks about it. I can't find any in the languages I can speak; there might be some in Arab-language sources, but those aren't in my wheelhouse. Happy to revisit if someone can post some sort of extensive sourcing in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Doctor Who is an iconic series, and nearly every iconic series has been parodied at some point; there is no coverage indicating that parodies of Doctor Who specifically are notable. The overall topic has no coverage: All GNews hits are from unreliable sources or trivial mentions, while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular. There's absolutely nothing indicating the notability of this subject, and none of the spoofs individually appear to be notable either given the lack of strong sourcing for all of them. This subject completely fails notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular: Dancing with the Doctor has a multi-page chapter dealing with the subject, "Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy". A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories reviews one parody in-depth, The Reign of Turner, but also discusses Doctor Who spoofs more generally on p. 171 (and presumably 170). It does have an ISBN, does not look self-published to me at first glance. Is Houston Press unreliable? Daranios (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A list of parody moments is in general a much more dubious proposition than a list of parody works—the latter being particularly suitable for a WP:CSC #1 (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.) kind of list, assuming there should be a list in the first place. If we are going to have such a list, I would be in favour of keeping information about each parody to a minimum on the list page, relying instead on the link to the article about the parody work for the details of the parody.
I took a quick look at the sources linked above by Daranios (or more accurately, the parts Google Books decided to show me). I would note that The Reign of Turner (IMDb link) does not currently have a stand-alone Wikipedia article and based on a quick search for sources likely does not merit one. The other linked source is a bit difficult to assess as Google Books rather severely limits what I'm able to see, but it mentions (at least) Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch, and "From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love". The first and last of those are explicitly described as specials (a Doctor Who special and a The Sarah Jane Adventures special, respectively), which seems a bit dubious to describe as "parodies" without further qualifiers or elaboration (one might term them "self-parodies", perhaps).
I would also note that there is a Doctor Who in popular culture article (which is, it should be said, not in great shape at the moment). It is not immediately obvious to me that we should have separate articles for parodies and other types of cultural references. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a stab at reducing this to a list of parody works with stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think. At any rate, we should not be listing parody works, parody moments, parody characters, and parody in-universe media together—that's just sloppy article construction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdullah (Emirati athlete)

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

Declined prod. The added source when translated is a mere 1 line mention of this athlete and not SIGCOV. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. We have at least three WP:RS on this subject plus one prose-based source that I found. Because he was one of the first ever athletes to represent UAE internationally, I think that more coverage can be found in UAE newspaper archives from the 1980s. --Habst (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the sources are databases. The third source is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. This is not enough to demonstrate notability. As shown in other athlete AfDs simply invoking NEXIST doesn't give a free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No indication of notability. Forget the hot air about 1980s newspaper archives. The wam.ae source is not worth anything for notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Abughazaleh

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

I have never seen a random House candidate be considered to pass WP:NOTABLE prior to an election, let alone the primary. Jesus, we've had primary winners in D/R+25 districts who are all but guaranteed victory in the general not get articles published until they're officially members-elect. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Separate from WP:NPOL, which she clearly does not pass, I see a WP:GNG pass with WP:SIGCOV in Business Insider and Buzzfeed News. A marginal pass, sure, but it's not a WP:BLP1E situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist having two articles about her prior to a campaign does not meet GNG imo, let alone using that very thin standing to crack the door open and prop up essentially a promotional piece article dedicated to her primary campaign. We don't have articles for the abysmal primary campaigns by Matt Lieberman for GA Senate in 2010 or Levi Sanders for NH-01 in 2018 that both got fairly ample press coverage. Mondaire Jones didn't have an article in main space at least until after the 2020 primary with a ton of press in the lead up. Diana Harshbarger didn't move into mainspace until after the 2020 general in a district who's primary she won with an R+30 Cook PVI. I can't think of any other "insurgent challenger" or "progressive/MAGA in a crowded primary" candidate getting an article this early in recent memory, let alone on their first campaign and before they even win the nomination. Marie Newman/Cori Bush had at least run before; Ayanna Pressly/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib and Jake LaTurner/Katie Arrington were elected officials already. AOC was a totally unique bombshell campaign that I'm 95% sure didn't have an article until after she'd won the primary. I don't think Lauren Boebert had an article until she succeeded in primarying Tipton, Bob Good didn't after primarying Riggleman with a ton of press coverage until after the general. This reeks so much of WP:RECENTISM to me. She wouldn't have had an article on the standing of just those two articles alone before this campaign, and the coverage of her launch like 18months before the election does not uniquely distinguish her to merit an article compared to all these others to me. Nothing personal to you here, to be clear, it is just boggling to me what makes this candidate so different. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this to say, I think this does fall under WP:BLP1E, and we should wait until the primary to see if she wins before considering an article at that point. Not to go too far down that road, but think in general that if she beats Schakowsky, a very lontime and notable incumbent, in the primary with this wealth of news coverage that it would merit an article. But if Schakowsky announces a retirement, based on past first time candidates winning in heavily partisan districts (like Harshbarger or Brandon Gill this cycle, who was himself a cuspy semi-notable online person based on his father-in-law) that we've held off until the general to move them into the mainspace. In the former scenario, the primary win over the incumbent is the notable event regardless of eventual victory in the general. In the latter, even if the chances of her losing are extremely small, I would agree with those other past editors in viewing it as still under WP:CRYSTAL because life/politics does happen and she could lose; and I can't see a case for a failed one-time nominee who vied for a retiring member's seat meriting an article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went into this discussion expecting to !vote delete and was surprised to find what I decided was GNG-qualifying coverage. Both articles pre-date the campaign by years, so they're not the same event. What happened to other article subjects is irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF; in this case we should look at the sources in front of us. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and fundamentally disagree that an article based on those two pieces would pass muster either. I would support deleting any article with just those two events. And while I hear you about OTHERSTUFF and frequently think the "rules"/"guidelines" of wikipedia are over enforced by some users here like they're international law over using WP:COMMONSENSE, I think the very strong history of practice has been wise. Again raising RECENTISM and CRYSTAL, I strongly feel the primary at a minimum should be the determining factor moving from draftspace to mainspace. The campaign was launched one week ago with a flood of (much of it likely planned) media attention; that's smart campaign tactics! There's no evidence as to the efficacy of her campaign maintaining this level of momentum and attention beyond week one. I just can't see the encyclopedic/editorial case for it at this stage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON. I've gone back as far as Gnews will allow, and you can only find articles about the run for office (in Rolling Stone, the Washington Post and others), but these are all in the last week, some going back as far as last fall. All entirely related to the political run. Outside of that, doesn't appear to have been known enough for being an "influencer" or any of the other things listed. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time today with paywalled sources and found commentary on the prominence and influence of her media work in 2023 and mid-2024, significantly before she ran for office. I also found some coverage of her social media influence in 2022. I've added these to the article accordingly. Sumana Harihareswara 02:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see articles going back "years" mostly from late in 2023. "Online person does stuff and people talked about it/didn't like it" is about the extent of the two sources used. Had this person not been running for office, they wouldn't be notable as an influencer due to a lack of sourcing. Running for office doesn't put them over the hump for notability. Could always revisit in six months, if they win. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, the primary will be between in March to June 2026 next year, and not in six months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The nominator spent the entire nomination statement annoyed about this article's existence rather than pushing an actual rationale for nomination, so be very thankful I didn't ask for a procedural keep on those grounds. In this case though, it's very reasonable to let this develop in draftspace (I considered a redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois#District 9 but at this point there's no reason to do that). I don't see an issue with the article outside needing some time to be written properly and with more developed sourcing. We've got until next year, more than enough time here. Nathannah • 📮 20:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very extensively elaborate in the discussion and support moving it back into draftspace, so the accusation that it's just IDONTLIKEIT is off base. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from campaign-specific coverage in The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Politico, and Vanity Fair among others, I see non-insignificant coverage in The New Yorker, Business Insider, The New Republic, and Buzzfeed News. It's not a massive amount, but I think there's enough there to satisfy WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at least a half of the article is based on (authoritative) material written in 2023-2024, prior to her campaign, and describes her as an influencer/internet personality Opostylov (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In 2023, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed were covering her work, in detail. In 2024, Politico and The New Republic named her a political commentator/influencer to watch, and she was influential enough that the Democratic National Convention wanted her there in person. (I've improved the article to include those -- as well as 2022 coverage of her social media influence, which also speaks to WP:SUSTAINED.) Those periodical articles, and regard demonstrated for her media criticism work, indicate that the subject fulfills WP:JOURNALIST. Sumana Harihareswara 02:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wth the improvements by Sumanah, we're in WP:HEY territory for this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bass-T

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG based on a WP:BEFORE search. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject does appear to have an extensive catalogue of releases. Out of these, three singles do appear to have had impact on national charts: Germany and Austria. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mokokchung Times

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

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am coming here from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers#What_do_you_cite_when_You_are_talking_about_a_Newspaper? and a request for comment on newspaper notability which I am organizing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability#Request_for_comment:_Notability_guideline_for_newspapers. Here we have a Wikipedia article for an English language newspaper in Nagaland. I highly respect Wikipedia's fact-checking process, which says that we cannot have Wikipedia articles without sufficient citations. This article does not meet that requirement, which is documented at WP:GNG. However, I am proposing and exploring the idea that newspapers need a special exception, because they themselves are the sources which we use to fact-check other content. Having Wikipedia articles for newspapers is the natural way for anyone to find available information about a newspaper, or also - and this is very useful - confirm that no one has been able to find many sources for a newspaper.

We have very little Wikipedia representation in Nagaland (Northeast India) and I looked at this newspaper, and right now it seems fine.

Here are some article headlines which I see right now in this newspaper. All of them seem appropriate to me to cite to develop Wikipedia articles on related topics:

TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (1 April 2025). "Nagaland: Four injured in clash over border dispute; Dy CM calls for calm » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (1 April 2025). "Nagaland govt officials reaffirm commitment to strengthening sports infrastructure for youth empowerment » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (10 March 2025). "Mokokchung's waste and burial site woes: MMC struggles for alternatives » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (15 September 2023). "Imnayongdang Kichu: The inventor behind the 'Areca Nut Peeler' » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.

Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, Nothing to pass WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will barely find any references for newspapers. News media do not talk about each other. This was already a discussion in Wikiproject:Newspaper that the criteria for normal articles cannot be used for newspapers. Kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nagaland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM generated response.

Keep As per the points raised by User:Bluerasberry. Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG primarily focus on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. While this is a useful standard for most topics, newspapers and media outlets require a different approach. This is because newspapers themselves are frequently the primary sources used to establish the notability of other subjects. Expecting extensive secondary coverage of a newspaper—when media outlets rarely report in-depth on each other—creates an unfair standard that contradicts Wikipedia’s own reliance on journalistic sources. Moreover, WP:NMEDIA (the notability guideline for media organizations) states that media outlets can be presumed notable if they have a history of independent journalism and wide distribution. Mokokchung Times meets these criteria, as it is a well-recognized newspaper catering to Nagaland, particularly Mokokchung district. Newspapers serve as the backbone of recorded history, providing real-time documentation of current events. Deleting articles about newspapers like Mokokchung Times hinders access to valuable contextual information for future Wikipedia editors and researchers. This deletion would set a dangerous precedent where only mainstream, global newspapers are considered “notable,” marginalizing regional publications that play a crucial role in covering local events. The English-language Wikipedia has long faced criticisms regarding systemic bias, particularly against smaller, non-Western media outlets. Mokokchung Times represents an important regional voice from Nagaland, which has historically been underrepresented in both mainstream Indian media and international coverage. Maintaining this article is necessary to ensure diversity in media representation on Wikipedia. While the AfD nomination claims there is "no significant coverage," Mokokchung Times has been cited in multiple instances for its reporting on Nagaland-related issues. Even if other media outlets do not frequently cover it, the newspaper’s own reporting has contributed to the dissemination of newsworthy information, which has been used by researchers, government agencies, and other news platforms. Additionally, a newspaper does not need to have won national awards or have extensive mainstream coverage to be considered encyclopedic. Its impact on its local readership is just as valid a metric for notability. If the argument against deletion is that there is insufficient sourcing, the best course of action is to improve the article rather than draftify it or remove it outright. Newspapers like Mokokchung Times are ongoing enterprises, meaning more sources and references will accumulate over time. Rather than erasing the article, editors should work to strengthen it with citations from government reports, NGO studies, and academic references that have used Mokokchung Times as a news source.

Arunachal Times

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

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, No evidence of notability. References are just passing mentions and not from reliable sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will barely find any references for newspapers. News media do not talk about each other. This was already a discussion in Wikiproject:Newspaper that the criteria for normal articles cannot be used for newspapers. Kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arunachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM generated response.

Keep: Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG primarily focus on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. While this is a useful standard for most topics, newspapers and media outlets require a different approach. This is because newspapers themselves are frequently the primary sources used to establish the notability of other subjects. Expecting extensive secondary coverage of a newspaper—when media outlets rarely report in-depth on each other—creates an unfair standard that contradicts Wikipedia’s own reliance on journalistic sources. Moreover, WP:NMEDIA (the notability guideline for media organizations) states that media outlets can be presumed notable if they have a history of independent journalism and wide distribution. ARunachal times have been cited in several research articles as a source. ^[1] Also kindly have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability#Request_for_comment:_Notability_guideline_for_newspapers Notability regarding newspapers were already discussed in length. The Arunachal Times is a prominent English-language daily newspaper based in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Published by The Arunachal Times Publications Pvt. Ltd., it offers comprehensive coverage of local, national, and international news, focusing on issues and events shaping the state. The newspaper has been instrumental in informing the public and contributing to the socio-political discourse in the region. ^[2] The newspaper has garnered attention from international bodies advocating for press freedom. In October 2017, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) expressed concern over acts of censorship against The Arunachal Times, highlighting its role in upholding journalistic integrity and the challenges it faces. The Arunachal Times is actively affiliated with the Arunachal Press Club (APC), a significant organization representing media outlets in the state. In October 2024, the APC welcomed 49 media outlets, including The Arunachal Times, to strengthen the media landscape in Arunachal Pradesh. This affiliation underscores the newspaper's commitment to journalistic standards and collaboration within the media community. The newspaper has been a vocal advocate for press freedom and ethical journalism. In December 2024, Arunachal Pradesh Governor KT Parnaik urged the state's media, including The Arunachal Times, to promote positive journalism and contribute to the state's progress. This interaction highlights the newspaper's influential role in shaping public opinion and fostering constructive discourse. The Arunachal Times provides extensive coverage of various topics, including local events, politics, social issues, and cultural affairs. Its dedicated sections for editorials, readers' forums, and community news reflect its commitment to engaging with the readership and addressing pertinent issues affecting the community. Arunachal Times itself has been used as a source multiple times in Wikipedia

Yogodyan

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

Zero reliable in-depth sources in current article (2 of the 3 sources are deadlinks). Search turned up the same, zero in-depth from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BGG correspondence

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree that the topic is not notable. It is an important instance of Koszul duality. A quick Google search also shows there are a plenty of coverages in literature. —- Taku (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar claims to find "about 267" hits for this exact phrase, and 22 publications where it appears in the title. MathSciNet finds fewer, only 28 hits (because it is searching a brief review or summary of each paper, not its full text), but still with 10 in the title. The 10 from MathSciNet appear to be the work of at least 7 distinct research groups. Either way, there is enough to convince me that this meets WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this is notable due to the amount of publications it is referenced in. Also, I would say that it does meet WP:SIGCOV because no original research is needed to extract the content. — AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 00:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McInerney

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability beyond routine coverage of his professional role. Most sources primarily focus on Visa Inc., rather than McInerney as a notable individual. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, United States of America, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Most sources are about getting the job at VISA. There's a small bit of information otherwise [26], but he gets quite a bit of coverage. He was with JP Morgan Chase [27], for quite some time before joining VISA. He was speaking with Forbes before even joining VISA [28], showing he was well-known even then. He's the CEO of one of the largest financial /credit card businesses in the world, he's not working for some small, local firm. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Haraszti

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A lot of media references are personally relevant. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pandora! I have made changes in the article. Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I am not an expert in analyzing Indian sources, but the company seems to have the minimum notability for an article ([29], [30], [31]). If there is promotional content, it should be removed without prejudice to the existence of the article as a whole (WP:DINC). Svartner (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly promotional article. CJ Darcl Logistics provides a broad range of services... Most of the references are just press releases or announcements. the coverage is typical sponsored churnalism lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are press releases, announcements and churnalism. The article sounds promotional and has many sections that are unnecessary.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Corrigan

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

Minor fictional character; article sourced entirely to primary sources, a quick search didn't reveal any substantial secondary sources. Not notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Kumar Bijli

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his corporate role. Most references focus on his position at PVR Cinemas rather than demonstrating substantial independent recognition Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Film, Delhi, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources cited in the article like [32], [33], and [34] are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided by you is reliable. I read them all. They all are talking about either the other brother or business or are just collection of citations (thus not meeting Reliable sources standards):

Sanjeev smiles, and nods his head.

"No, actually both of us are innovators and look at improvisation in equal measures. But Ajay is slightly more of the innovator than I am. Innovation in the film industry is absolutely mandatory as it had been stagnant for the longest time."

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/the-bro-code-of-bijli-brothers-divide-the-work-multiply-the-fun/articleshow/51680481.cms?

[35]

Adds Sanjeev: “For now, focusing on maintaining the numbers and the profitability in Cinemax-and analyzing the numbers there-are top priorities. We are also talking to the team and meeting and motivating them, assuring them things are the way they were. We are also learning from each other. Cinemax is a very well-run company with high profitability, processes and systems. We are trying to apply best practices of both to the common entity. We are also looking at enhancing the numbers of the common entity.” 31.165.10.116 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no sufficient coverage, not independence in coverage to meet GNG. 31.165.10.116 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not deep and reliable. Interviews or brief press release mentions. --31.165.10.116 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are primary, interviews, or press releases. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like this article is still a work in progress. A simple Google search for Sanjeev Kumar Bijli shows many articles and video interviews that are not included here. There are coverages in reliable media like Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Financial Express, The Print, The Hindu, and Mint, which prove the subject's notability. Instead of deleting the article, we should add these sources and improve it.

Coverages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Interviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 2405:201:10:C288:F5F0:B96B:9BA6:C496 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the sources listed by the second IP would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the second set of sources above, most are written by "staff" and read as PR items, or they are trivial items (less than half a page). Interviews don't show notability. I don't see anything we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community Leadership Education Fund

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

I cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Africa, Botswana, South Africa, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiia Ivanova (fashion designer)

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

Seems promotional per WP:PROMOTION, fails WP:BIO,WP:GNG. Drat8sub (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Fashion, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional in tone, and I can't find substantial enough coverage for this to meet the general notability guidelines. As a patroller, this stuck out to me as possible undisclosed paid editing, because the article creator was reverted for refspam and has created or edited articles in a promotional way across multiple unrelated subject areas. Aspening (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beehype (magazine)

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this magazine. Lots of mentions, it exists, but I can't find anything that would indicate it passes WP:GNG. If others can, and it is eventually kept, it does not need the dab in the title. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I Could Fly (One Direction song)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSongs. There is not significant enough coverage of this song to warrant an article.

When searching no other sources appear besides those on the article (American Songwriter) which provides 1 sentence; there is also another source with fans opinions (MTV NEWS); the producer who co-wrote various songs for them also used in the article, trivial (RS). There are also two album reviews that do not count towards notability. Other then chart entries that again do not give a song notability.

The rest of the sources in the article should not warrant this song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogimiyau

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

No refs on the page since 2017. Maybe there's some issue with transliteration in English because I'm not seeing much in terms of references to consider. I will be interested to see what others can find which meet the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Charlton

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

Fails WP:BIO, Fails WP:V, And my WP:BEFORE failed to find anything significant. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and England. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, no significant coverage. The best I can find is a primary source confirming that he has written for Listen Against. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about someone with the same name that works for a "Brothers and Sisters" agency in London, nothing about this person. Sourcing used in the article is not helpful, it's only one source and doesn't show notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No meaningful sources found. Most hits are about the other, unrelated Matt Charlton. Clearly not a significantly notable individual. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the above. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant, independent, and sustained coverage available to establish notability. The only source in the article is primary and does not demonstrate the depth required. Most search results refer to a different individual with the same name, further confusing the issue. Without reliable, in-depth secondary sources focused on this person, the article does not warrant inclusion. Bhw664488 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Topal Gökceli

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

Mark Topal Gökceli should be considered for deletion due to insufficient independent sources that establish his notability and impact in the field. Additionally, the article mostly focuses on recent positions and roles without providing any significant achievements or widespread recognition, making it lack depth and relevance. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sarofim

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

Phillip Sarofim should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage from independent sources that demonstrate notable achievements, making the subject appear less relevant. Additionally, it contains excessive citations that detract from the clarity and conciseness of the information presented. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the coverage I find is around his time dating Avril Lavigne, all focused on her and who this "rich boyfriend/heir/insert noun here" was. I don't see coverage solely about his accomplishments. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Werapong Prapha

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

Werapong Prapha should be considered for deletion due to the issue of citation overkill, which undermines its readability and may clutter the overall text excessively. Furthermore, it appears that the content primarily summarizes recent career developments without providing substantial notable achievements, historical context, or coverage from independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's significance. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any valid reason for deletion being advanced. Deleting something just because of citation overkill is a rather absurd notion, though I think the nominator meant to say that the citation overkill is an indication of intractable puffery masking lack of notability. That said, the puffery issue can be solved by reverting to the version on 10 November 2024, before the puffery was inserted by edits by SPA Chantawit. I currently have no opinion on the notability issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback. I would like to respond with a couple of points:

(1) The citations of Werapong's works were included to ensure credibility of the content. All the citations are from publicly available and reliable sources, including respectable newspapers and websites of established international organizations. Nevertheless, to improve readability, some citations can be removed.

(2) On the issue of notability, Thailand Trade Representative is a minister-level position in the Thai government. The four trade representatives work directly as an advisor to the prime minister in trade and investment areas. Therefore, the public may find it useful to learn the background of trade representatives from a wikipedia page.

Overall, although I agree that some edits can be made, I think this article adheres to the principle of a wikipedia page. The existence of this page would serve the public's interest and I would strongly advocate for the inclusion of this article in wikipedia. 61.90.30.89 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aly

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

Appears to be a place without a population and without other claims to notability, which suggests it might not meet WP:NPLACE. I don't read the relevant languages but am not seeing anything other than the name in a database and the other language wikis are not offering any additional information. For interest, it is in Eveno-Bytantaysky National District which is very sparsely populated so it is plausible is has a population of 0 although I can't explain why it appears in the censuses as a place. JMWt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. JMWt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Whiti, New Zealand

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

Fails both WP:NPLACE (it isn't legally recognised) and WP:GNG

I cannot find any evidence in a reliable source that this is a real locality. The main source for this article is a UGC website (something akin to Geocities). The Gazetteer source does not mention 'Te Whiti' nor is a 'Te Whiti' gazetted in that source. The most I could find is a Te Whiti o Tu pa site [36] and some roads bearing the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching "Te Whiti o Tu" shows there was a conflict there in 1823, and the 1901 Kahiti O Niu Tireni showed that someone elected to the Maori council was listed as being from there (from May the People Live: A Story of Maori Health Development.) The NZ government even says a settlement was established there. The battle is discussed significantly in the text here at archive.org. If we can show a school there closed it'd easily pass GEOLAND but it probably passes GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND requires legal recognition, which this place (now aware there was some form of settlement bearing the name) does not have. The battle would be in reference to the pa that used to be there, which are not presumed notable. A school bearing the name has no bearing on the legal recognition of the area e.g. Bayfield School which is located in the unofficial neighbourhood of Bayfield (split between the legally recognised Herne Bay, New Zealand and Ponsonby, New Zealand).

Gladstone, New Zealand is the legally recognised area that covers the area and it could be mentioned there as an WP:ATD. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough out there on the battle alone that it deserves to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. A school would simply show it was a populated place at one time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the battle meets GNG that is a separate matter. A redirect to an article on the battle would be an ATD but currently no such article exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's now been fairly comprehensive information on the school added to the article, though the masters did live a couple of miles away. Between that, the battle, and the NZ government documenting people living there, I do think we're at GNG for this particular place, even if GEOLAND is in question. SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe GNG is met. The Wises source isn't in depth and very basic. The Carolyn Robyn source is self-published. The biography of Sylvia contributes to GNG but I don't believe it meets GNG by itself given it is mostly about the person and not the area. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the only sources, though, and GNG isn't based on what's in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other sources that contribute towards GNG please do provide them. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete The NZ names database identifies it as a "homestead", which is something we would require to satisfy GNG anywhere else. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument so illogical that I suspect you meant to write something different from what you actually wrote. Nurg (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it is these days defined in some database as a "homestead" is irrelevant. It is, or used to be, quite a large area. While Masterton Borough existed, Te Whiti was one of the borough's ridings.^[1] That alone shows that it had relevance that establish GNG. Schwede 66 04:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT19110421.2.15 See newspaper article from 1911

I wouldn't refer to LINZ as simply a database, they take a lot more care than something like GNIS when it comes to recording places and even include some background history/etymology for many places. I don't believe we can make a connection between the settlement and the riding. Waitemata County had Karangahape, Manukau, Waikomiti, and Waipareira as subdivions and Piako County had Patetere riding, none of these derive their name from a settlement for example.

I would like to hear from Nurg about what Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide has to say on the subject (I couldn't find a digital copy). Traumnovelle (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide entry says, in its entirety, "Farming locality on the east bank of the Ruamahanga River, Masterton District, 6km north of Gladstone, 12km south from Masterton." Nurg (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Paora (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources make this a GNG pass? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as to legal recognition of the place name: NZMS 261 sheet T26 shows Te Whiti North, Te Whiti South and Te Whiti West land registration districts in this area. https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_261/jpg/NZMS261_T26_1977.jpg Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment from the above, [37] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [38] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tower restaurant

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

Doesn't appear to be a actual or at least commonly used category of restaurant after a BEFORE. Unsourced since 2009. Phrase not used in any dictionary, including wiktionary. In search, most uses of "tower restaurant" are part of a larger phrase, such as "Eiffel Tower restaurant". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this has been around unsourced since 2005! Most of the items on the list are just the buildings, not even the names of the non-notable restaurants. This is a pretty generic concept with no specific sources and the list is obviously quite incomplete. Revolving restaurant is certainly a notable and less ubiquitous concept, but there's not anything really distinguishing about a restaurant on the 50th floor vs. one on the 5th, just a view but I'm not sure what else to say about that. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how a more ubiquitous thing is thereby less notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopædia. The more ubiquitous thing might be less exceptional, but we're not just covering the rare and unusual here. This is an encyclopædia, not Ripley's Believe It or Not. Also, if the category is not as commonly used, that would tend to support these things being less ubiquitous, wouldn't it? I tentatively concede that if tower restaurants are really quite as ubiquitous as you suggest (press X to doubt), then perhaps examples aren't notable just for being tower restaurants only, and thus perhaps there is no need to list just any and every unexceptional tower restaurant. But not every article has to have War and Peace vibes. Perhaps a simple article barely over stub-length might suffice. That's all fixable without article deletion though. Granted, fixing that might be boring, and the article might remain neglected for a long time, but that's also not a good reason for deletion. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReadOnlyAccount The overall question isn't if it's ubiquitous we should keep it. Something even more ubiquitous than tower restaurants may be red towers, but if sources don't describe "red tower" as a grouping, we don't write Red tower. Do you have RS showing "tower restaurant" exists a concept? I hope you do, and we can WP:HEY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon just a tiny bit of cursory "research" (read: googling), it seems the related term "rooftop bar" is better established (these places often do serve food too, so there is significant overlap, and the differences are a matter of degrees, though not all of the former would be the latter and vice versa). I might have proposed merging with rooftop bar, except that doesn't exist, so shucks – or aw-shucks, even!

Possibly even more shucksworthy might be the fact that a good part of such third-party coverage as tends to hang out near the top of google results appears to often refer to tower restaurants by the superlative-minded moniker/description "tallest restaurants (...in the world /clarkson)". Even though that may be the more common term for actual tower restaurants (not mere rooftop bars), I prefer the less common name on grounds of technical accuracy: It's not actually the restaurants that are yay tall. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This reddit post made me smile, because "high-rise restaurant" sounds as European as a continental breakfast – which latter, btw. is another perfect example for something that's very ubiquitous but also not exceptional, yet probably deserving of its own article.

That's why the should be called "The highest restaurant in X" Moritoriko (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rooftop bar really captures this concept. Take the example above of the "Eiffel Tower restaurant", it's not a bar, nor is it on a rooftop (imagine). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hierarchy here: The most general concept is physically elevated establishments to eat, drink, and be merry. (WANTED: Pithy term.) Rooftop bars, cliff-top restaurants, and tower restaurants are all types of that. A revolving restaurant is probably always a type of tower restaurant, probably the most desirable type. You want the place to have a view. Just because it rotates, and you eat/drink in it— oh hello, Manuscript Found in a Police State (Brian Aldiss, 1972). Jokes aside, I think the—duly linked—presence of a tower restaurant article actually helps explain the revolving restaurant, and I'm still more in favour of keeping something like this in place. I realise that deciding upon a taxonomy verges on original research, to an extent; again, 'matter of degrees I suppose. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This is not an actual category as far as my searching found. It feels like 'Castle restaurants', is it a nice feature of some restaurants. A more extreme example is 'patio restaurants' because that's an actually established term. I think rooftop bar is a poor merge target as well because rooftop bars are generally open air which these are usually not. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to List of notable tower restaurants. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides "tower restaurant" not being a real term, it looks the former Windows on the World is the only one with a standalone article; typically the tower itself is what's notable and the respective article only makes brief mention of the restaurant. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More include Le Jules Verne and Vue de Monde. The article includes revolving restaurants as tower restaurants, so Seventh Heaven and Blue Orbit would be included, although duplicating much of List of revolving restaurants. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's has been a bit of a clue to panoramic restaurant in the second sentence of the article since 2005. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no sources whatsoever, and is basically just a definition with a list of dubious notability attached to it. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article fails to establish "tower restaurant" as a recognized or well-defined category of restaurant. Despite existing for a significant period, it remains entirely unsourced, and searches indicate the term is primarily used descriptively rather than as a distinct classification. The list format is problematic, often listing the towers themselves rather than notable restaurants, and there's significant overlap with the existing article on revolving restaurants. Without reliable sources that treat "tower restaurant" as a distinct concept, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, making deletion the most appropriate course of action. Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Times

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

No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please check wikiproject Newspapers. You will barely find sources to establish notability for any newspaper as media houses generally don’t write about each other. These newspapers have been used by the Wikipedia community to cite various articles and thus it’s important to have them. Please also see Shillong Times and other such newspapers. There are barely any sources for them as well. I have used the sources that I was somehow able to find. The "Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability" guideline acknowledges that not all newspapers may have extensive secondary sources but can still be considered notable due to their role and impact within their communities. Additionally, the "Wikipedia:Notability (media)" guideline offers criteria tailored to media outlets, emphasizing their significance even when traditional notability standards are hard to meet. Given these considerations and the precedent set by similar regional newspapers, retaining the "Wesean Times" article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to documenting diverse and regionally significant media outlets. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyingphoenixchips: The WikiProject and notability guidelines for media that you cited above are not Wikipedia policies. They include the statement: “An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Therefore, these are not policies but merely opinions.

Please do not use a WP:WHATABOUT argument here at AfD. How can this news website be considered notable? It was just started last year with no significant history, and after checking the backlinks of their URL, I found that no reliable sources have ever linked to them. GrabUp - Talk 11:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing the notability of Wesean Times within Wikipedia's framework requires a nuanced understanding of the platform's guidelines, particularly when evaluating media outlets. While the General Notability Guideline (GNG) emphasizes significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, this standard can be challenging for newspapers, especially regional ones, as they primarily serve as sources rather than subjects of news. Wesean Times has been utilized as a source by other publications, such as Mokokchung Times, which reported on its launch and highlighted its significance as a student-run news platform. This usage demonstrates that Wesean Times contributes valuable content that other media outlets find noteworthy. Furthermore, the newspaper serves the Wesean region of Northeast India, providing news and cultural commentary pertinent to the local community, thereby fulfilling an important role in local journalism. While it may not have extensive third-party coverage, its impact within its community and its role as a source for other publications suggest that it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Therefore, considering the challenges inherent in obtaining third-party coverage for media outlets and the significant role Wesean Times plays in its region, it meets the criteria for notability and merits a dedicated article on Wikipedia.

You cannot evaluate newspapers like you do, other articles. Kindly have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability#Request_for_comment:_Notability_guideline_for_newspapers Yes I do acknowledge that an RfC is not Wikipedia's guidelines and I respect Wikipedia's Policies on verification. However what I am asking is to not treat newspapers like other articles because they themselves are the sources we cite in articles we write in Wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyingphoenixchips: Please don’t provide LLM generated responses here. GrabUp - Talk 06:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Manipur. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

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

No film title, just started filming, and anticipated release date in 2027. Nothing notable about the production and references are all churnalism, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I do not see a redirect as an option as it has twice been removed based on the history. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

```Delete```: This article is premature as the film is still in the early stages of production and lacks a confirmed title. The current sources primarily offer routine production updates and do not demonstrate the significant notability required for a standalone article at this stage. Creating a full article now risks violating WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, as details about the film are likely to evolve. While the involvement of notable figures is acknowledged, Wikipedia articles require more than just anticipation to warrant inclusion. Deletion is recommended until the film progresses further, has a definitive title, and receives substantial coverage establishing its notability.Aditi's Voice (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: filming has started; notable cast, crew and director; a lot of coverage about production. At worst, redirect (or draftify). Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 15:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SSMB29, the film's tentative title. It is noteworthy that the director's previous film's tentative title was so famous that it became the actual title, which is likely not the case for this film however. DareshMohan (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 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!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mrfoogles: Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. This will remove about half of the listings and leave only the ones that are notable enough to have their own article. There are enough notable breweries in the county to justify an article listing them. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:48 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is also Beer in San Diego County, California#Notable breweries as a merge target. There are fewer than 20 notable breweries and we certainly don't need a standalone page for just a bulleted list when there's this article and the statewide list. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of breweries in California retaining only notable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsardom of Bulgaria

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

Largely unsourced for seven years. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bulgaria. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More or less a holding entity for First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria (1908–1946) (Kingdom of Bulgaria redirects there). Maybe a redirect to History of Bulgaria leads the reader to a place where the periods/phases are adequately discussed. Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since some sources use the name "Tsardom" for the First and Second Bulgarian Empires, perhaps Tsardom of Bulgaria should become a disambiguation page for the three kingdoms instead. Rocfan275 (talk) Rocfan275 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more useful than a redirect. Peter James (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and television

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

Vanity article with deminimis view (several hundred a month) that is more like reflection. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, and Internet. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pageviews are not relevant in determining suitability for Wikipedia. And if the article is poorly written, that's reason for a rewrite, not a deletion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except.. we already have social media and television. This article is a vanity article with no clear merit. Graywalls (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whose vanity? Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article as in spammy filler material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Graywalls. Vanity is not spam as such, it's the notion that "I'm so important that I need a Wikipedia article". Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but boy does this need a rewrite. I think it's talking about the effect of social media and television, but this is all over the place. I'd maybe sent it to !draft, but it's an old article, not sure anyone would pick it up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norachit Sinhaseni

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and I don't see evidence that this one passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The coverage is brief and routine coverage of him in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV of him. Please ping if I missed any qualifying sources in my search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sin City characters - Mushy Yank has done good work, but in my opinion all of these are passing mentions of Marv, except for maybe the Dan Rempala book, so it still doesn't meet GNG. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of other sources exist; might add more if I have time. (and thank you but I beg to differ, most of the sources I added are not only "passing mentions"). -Mushy Yank. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of things again. No time to do more but sources exist (a lot). -Mushy Yank. 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Howard

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

Blatant WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable former college football player's asset-based lending, botox and supplement businesses. Behold the sourcing:

Stats pages (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE): [39], [40], [41].
Profiles/bios from his schools' websites or student pubs (WP:RSSM): [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].
His own companies' websites: [47], [48], [49].
Sponsored/paid-for profiles: [50], [51].
Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS (and most of these have the stink of paid-for content: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57].
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION: [58].
... and his LinkedIn page

We have basically one piece of independent WP:SIGCOV, about his decision to end his football career after six seasons of eligibility, and that's nowhere close to a WP:GNG pass. I've left all the spam in here for now so AfD participants can see what this page was intended for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, American football, and Arizona. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe cut most of the promo content. He's notable as a football player, see SIGCOV from e.g. Arizona Republic (2 3 4 5), Chicago Tribune, AP, and Big Ten Freshman of the Year probably passes WP:NCOLLATH as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPJO-LD

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

Largely unsourced; more OR slop Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Kansas, and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: You know significant coverage is lacking when its history before DTV America came into the picture is "unknown". This is another case where a MyNetworkTV affiliation is a practical red herring; it's a typical DTV America/HC2/Innovate station whose article nominally survived a failed bundled nomination two years ago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Per Wcquddich and the long unsourced asides about things not even happening in the market the station exists in and network changes better as a summarized list than prose. Nathannah • 📮 21:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushi Tiwari

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

WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable actress; roles appear to be minor roles in notable productions and if there are significant roles they are only in non-notable productions, so fails WP:NACTOR. I don't see a WP:GNG pass either; the coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid or unbylined coverage in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the assessment of current sourcing and everything I find in a WP:BEFORE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stryder7x

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. While some of the sourcing is reliable, the issue is that none of the reliable sourcing provides significant coverage of the article subject. For example, the extent of the Kotaku source's ([59]) discussion of the article subject is: "As Paper Mario expert Stryder7x explains in the video below" and "Stryder did just that on October 23, 2016". This and similar mentions are not enough coverage to write a reliably sourced biographical article. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing in my own vote for deletion, as I can't argue with the reasoning provided. Prior to creating this article, I was surprised to find out that one had never been created for this subject, and I decided to just give it my best shot. Maybe one day he'll meet the notability criteria...if he ever comes back to the Internet. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filevine

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

Promotional article for a non-notable private company. The sources are limited to: the organization's own website and press releases; sponsored content; trivial mentions; or WP:ORGTRIV like capital raises. Nothing else found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Utah. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of independent coverage. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Ahmed

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

Fails notability guidelines for sportsperson. The only coverage of this person was regarding their recent unfortunate death which seems to be the reason for the creation of this article, which was made very recently and after their death. Therefore, the only potential article would be one focused on their death which also fails notability with lack of signiificant coverage and no lasting effects.

The article also seems to have been created by someone that knew the person personally. The article talks about unreferenced personal touches such as their career ambitions and hobbies. Half the sources are links to Facebook posts. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fr 46.125.44.118 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument(s) from the last? That discussion had a series of votes with absolutely no basis in policy (including that the song is charting well despite being an introductory track, that the article's author put lots of effort into the article, that it's charting in Asia) and one vote claiming that it meets GNG, which was unsubstantiated and the article's sourcing (as well as a search online) shows is clearly not the case. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having peaked in the top ten and top five in numerous Asian countries, it's the most notable album track from Eternal Sunshine. The article is incredibly detailed and includes coverage such as the song's live performance video on its own. An extended version will be included on the deluxe and be the subject of more commentary as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where it charted doesn't have anything to do with the notability guidelines for a song. A single report from Rolling Stone that a live version of the song was released online does not count as independent non-trivial coverage of the song in multiple sources. Future commentary can't be accounted for; this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). Any and all arguments for wanting to keep this article I feel completely misrepresent WP:NSONG, and I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition.

NSONG clearly states that a song charting or being certified might be an indicator that it is notable, but it usually needs to work with something alongside it. That could obviously be articles exclusively about the song that discuss it in detail (not "this song was performed live today for the first time!" or "here's an interview discussing it's creation!"), or rankings of the best songs in a certain category (e.g. best songs released in a year). Hell, in most circumstances I'd say that a song placing in a ranking of a band discography can be acceptable to prove notability if there's some meat to it. Even run-of-the-mill coverage like what I just mentioned could be useful if there's meat to it. But this song doesn't have any of that. It is near entirely pieced together by run-of-the-mill coverage such as the aforementioned Rolling Stone piece that says a version of the song was released online but not much more, or in articles specifically talking about the album in the context of a review or a track-by-track analysis. Sure, this is worthwhile information detailing the song... in the context of the album. In-fact, NSONG makes it very clear that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". I do understand that the article is reasonably detailed and I commemorate the authors work here to make it a GA, but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album)." But there, hopefully it is more clear now.

Redirect/merge I find that NegativeMP1 explains my argument better than I can. My thoughts on this article's notability remain the same as it did during the previous AfD. This view of charts as an indicator of notability is heavily misunderstood. Just because an album track charted higher than the rest does not guarantee it's notable; SIGCOV outside of album reviews does. A lot of tracks that appeared in two charts - or hell, none at all - are notable by WP:GNG standards (Joni (song) as an example, or many of the articles on Category:Unreleased songs). Conversely, many songs that did chart in a lot of countries are not. And re. "this is detailed enough to have its own article," (1) the details about the song here, such as the series of Eternal Sunshine surprise performances, can easily be covered in the album article. (2) a lot of incredibly detailed articles, many of which were of FA-quality, were merged into their parent articles. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those calling for a Redirect or Merge, please specify the target. Don't assume the closer will guess you meant Eternal Sunshine (album) or any other target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the track to its parent album.

MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the creator: This is my first time participating in an AFD, please tell me if I did something wrong. The last AFD for this article was one of the most impactful reality checks for me as a Wikipedian editor. Before that, I used to create and expand Taylor Swift's deep cuts and assumed that it wouldn't hurt to create such articles if they have decent coverage or are relatively successful commercially. It was the same for this article, but compared to Swift's, most of which still exists to this day, Grande's song have less substantial coverage nor have article sources pertaining to it.

Now, I agree with all arguments for this AFD that the article is warranted for deletion, and I completely understand with the intentions of redirecting it to its parent album. However, now that the extended version was released, please give me a chance to expand this article more thoroughly up until next week for the sake of saving this, as new/upcoming articles concerning the album's deluxe edition will hopefully focus more to this track. Gained (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the album is not sufficient to establish notability for this song. It would have to be new coverage of the song itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Given chart history, coverage in reliable sources, and amount of content in the article, I think this is a helpful fork from the parent article. I'd prefer to see this Good article expanded and improved, not deleted. An extended version of the song was just released today, so some updating is in order. I've shared a few very recent sources on the article's talk page and added links to the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe edition and the article about the accompanying short film of the same name (which uses the song). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect, skimming the citation titles, they are discussing the album, falling WP:NSONGS (WP:GNG is not above NSongs as claimed; this is the same principle of why WP:USPLACE is above WP:PRECISION). A perfect example of an independent song released off this album is Saturn Returns Interlude. If someone manages to find independent sources, then it should be kept, otherwise, this song is as trivial as other GA songs that were redirected years ago. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch to be clear, you favor redirecting to Eternal Sunshine (album)? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is mere bureaucracy to believe anything else. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but the relisting comment asked for specificity. Just hoping to wrap this up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch I recommend taking a deeper dive than just skimming article titles. An extended version of the song was released this week in a deluxe edition and short film, so there's another wave of press coverage focused on these new songs. Some of the sources even compare the extended version of the song to the previously released version. I've added a few additional recently published sources, but more updating to the article is required. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't specifically know why Brighter Days Ahead would make this song notable on its own if it is still a deluxe edition of the parent album / film by its own singer. There seems to exist a general reason on why users assume that mere charting or having dozens of links discussing a song tangentially from the perspetive of an album will qualify as a standalone article as per GNG. Even GNG stipulates that the song must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, the subject is Eternal Sunshine, not Ariana Grande.

So I clicked on every link and is was a disappointment. As of [60]

Primary sources discussing the song: 1, 8, 31
Secondary sources that don't even mention the song: 2, 3, 5
Secondary sources discussing the song from the album perspective: 4, 6, 7, 9 (tracklisting), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (rank of Grande's songs), 28, 29, 30 (rank of Grande's songs), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44
Secondary sources actually discussing the song (most of them are charts): 10, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Source 10 ([61]) is about the live promotion of the album, but it is the only source that does discuss the song. Ariana Grande discography#2020s already covers the charts anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this breakdown! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting Brighter Days Ahead "would make this song notable on its own", I was just saying there's a recent wave of press coverage that's barely been applied to the article and should also be taken into consideration. Not expecting to change your vote, just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability of the song would likely increase following the release of the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe. It might've been too early to call for an AfD before she released the extended version. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL, and a far-fetched one at that ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my earlier comment: "I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition." Your comment is openly voting to keep an article based on coverage that does not exist. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG and NSONG. The existing cited sources about live performances and composition/critical reception are good enough to make a relatively detailed article, and there are more available. Per GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." IMO the spirit of NSONG is about not creating articles for songs that are merely mentioned in an album review. That is not the case here, as the song received detailed commentary in album reviews, not just mentions that it exists. The cumulative material is such that it would be inappropriate to place in the album article. GNG says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." I read "or" to mean that NSONG does not supersede GNG. I think it meets both anyways. The subject is "Intro (End of the World)", not Eternal Sunshine. Coverage is independent of people affiliated with the song. This is what "independent of the subject" means. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NSONG states that "notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This is a reasonably detailed article about a song that also charted in several countries. Medxvo (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That clause means that even songs that meet notability requirements may not warrant their own articles—it does not mean that detailed articles about songs that don't meet the notability requirements should be kept. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would prevent the songs that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" from having a reasonably detailed article that can grow beyond a stub? Medxvo (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

[HNN2-2] "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.

[3] Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.

[4] My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.

[5] "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.

[6] "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.

[7] "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.

[:2-8] Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.

[9] Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.

[10] Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

[11] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22arunachal+times%22&btnG=.

[12] ttps://arunachaltimes.in/index.php/2024/10/05/apc-welcomes-49-media-outlets-boosting-arunachals-media-landscape/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[13] ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

[14] ttps://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT19110421.2.15 See newspaper article from 1911

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]