Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bajgora offensive

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

Declined G3. This appears to be original research. I can't find a mention of a "Bajgora offensive" anywhere. The author of this article claims that two of the sources mention a "Bajgora offensive", but I can't find those mentions via translation, and certainly not an offensive that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations provide barely any coverage of the website, let alone significant coverage.
These are the complete mentions of CFDW in those sources:
The only information that can be gleaned from any of those sources comes from the New York Times piece: that CFDW is a "website" and that David DeLassus is a proprietor.

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

These are all trivial mentions at best. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by cbl62 appear to contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV of the website to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Where are you seeing WP:SIGCOV in those sources? The citations only say that "College Football Data Warehouse" was used as a source for each article. They contain basically no details at all about CFDW itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced with other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comment regarding moving to projectspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as incredibly widely cited media outlet. It’s well established that media doesn’t cover other media in the same way it covers the subjects themselves. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WilsonP makes an incredibly good point. And very few media outlets have such a long history of being cited as a reliable source to the extent we see here with CFDW being cited in the most reputable newspapers in America in addition to books and academic journals. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response Among the Wikipedia articles on college football, for the past several years, mentions of and citations to CFDW have (for reasons not related to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV) been removed from articles and lists by:
- replacing, within a table, a column that relied on CFDW for inclusion criteria,
- deleting from another article the very same table that appears in this subject article,
- deleting a section about CFDW,
- (per a statement by one of the respected editors above) removing references to CFDW, with a mission to eventually remove all references to CFDW from Wikipedia.

For some of these removals, I began a discussion to object to and resolve the disagreements, and in the end, I relented based on good faith considerations. However, the pursuit to remove CFDW wherever it is mentioned is beginning to seem like a targeted effort to inflict upon CFDW a "death by a thousand cuts", and I am growing weary in general, not to mention becoming older by the day. And I mean no disrespect of any other editors.

Perhaps there is an effort to eradicate all mention of CFDW from Wikipedia; I don't know. I will predict that, if this article is moved to Wikiproject space, then in relatively short time, someone (in disregard of the level of project activity and collaboration it might receive) will say, "The project never really got off the ground," and nominate it for MFD. That could well be a nail in the coffin of CFDW on Wikipedia, and people will celebrate that Wikipedia policies prevailed and therefore that CFDW suffered a deserved fate.

Therefore, I agree with Cbl62 that, if ever there was a reason for implementing WP:IAR to keep an article, this is it. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to that, from my perspective CFDW was extremely over-represented (to the point of clearly violating WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT) in the articles you mention. This probably comes from being one of the top college football websites available in the years immediately following the founding of Wikipedia. I am rather critical of their opinion on "recognized national champions" (as are you?) and I believe per our evolved adherence to NPOV it was right to remove them from the Wikipedia articles you mention.

CFDW is/was perhaps a reliable source on records and statistical data (although I do have my doubts due to it being WP:SELFPUBLISHED). My issue with using it for this, though, is that the authors of CFDW do not cite any sources for their information. They were surely just drawing it from athletic department publications and newspaper clippings, which is exactly what we now do here at Wikipedia. This was obviously MUCH harder in the time of microfilm and the early days of the internet, so I commend them for their research. But today, in the age of Newspapers.com and other great archives of contemporary reporting, I would rather just mostly skip the step of citing a random self-published website that has been offline for a decade and that may contain forever-uncorrected errors.

I myself have absolutely no intention of deleting a CFDW page in the CFB wikiproject space. I would probably be one of the primary authors. I would have expanded the mainspace article, but unfortunately there appears to be zero significant coverage ever written about the website. If either of the authors are shown to be notable or published, I will consider writing an article on them. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Jeff in CA's suggestion that if we projectify the CFDW article, it will soon be MfD'd to be credible. We have lots of project pages that have been around for years, including several that I created (like Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Official college football guides, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archived yearbooks, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Media guide errors). I don't recall any of these every being MfD'd. If someone were to MfD a projectified CFWD article, you can count on my keep vote there. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether to move to projectspace or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation site

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? NSOFT is (an essay) about computer programs, not concepts in computer science. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -referring to WP:NSOFT,which means the article is related to non-notable software. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said NSOFT is about, but I still don't see how it's the least bit applicable here. It would be like applying WP:NSPECIES to a concept in anatomy. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSOFT applies, but I also think a computer scientist could offer a more useful response. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think the article meets Wikipedia general notability guideline criteria? Clenpr (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that this really is specifically germane to OOD, merge to Constructor (object-oriented programming), as I don't think you can say much about it out of that context. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The definition is correct, and it's not specific to object-oriented programming - it's used generally when talking about dynamic memory allocation. A quick search for "allocation site" on Google Books finds 15 references using it in this sense in the first 20 results. However, I'm not sure there's enough to say about the concept for an article of its own. Pointer analysis could be a redirect target, although that's specifically about static analysis and it's also used in dynamic analysis (e.g. memory debugging). Adam Sampson (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though I am not as savvy in programming itself, basing upon the definition stated in the article, a sensible move for me is to merge it to Object-oriented programming,as on its own as it is, seems not enough as a standalone, noted also by fellow wikipedians above for lack of RS to support it.Villkomoses (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa, do you have an opinion on the two merge/redirect targets above? Mangoe, do you stand by your proposed target or would you prefer Adam Sampson's proposal of Pointer analysis? Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodaya (train)

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

This article has been created multiple times before (Draft:Lodaya Train, Draft:Lodaya train, Draft:Lodaya (train)) with slightly different names. I am unable to find sources to show that this meets GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is completely unsourced, and notability is clearly lacking. Author is a bit disruptive since they keep recreating the article for no reason, and they also remove maintenance templates without explanation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Csonka

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

This footballer only played two matches for DAC Dunajská Streda before disappearing for over one decade. The only secondary source I found is Pravda, a passing mention in squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Christensen

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drake Passage earthquake

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

Fail WP:EVENT; this is an earthquake with no lasting impact or in-depth coverage unworthy of its own article. Has not caused serious impact or disruption. Some notable aspects of the article suitable for Wikipedia can be merged into List of earthquakes in 2025 as the list has dictated. An article is unnecessary Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for similar reasons. Quake1234 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Argentina, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no enduring impact. Mikenorton (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dora. Any arguments about strength amount to WP:TRIVIA at this stage. Borgenland (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Antonio Alvarez (soldier)

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

Fails WP:BIO. He fought in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but did not seem to have had much impact. Not to be confused with Juan Antonio Álvarez de Arenales. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Keyrouz

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and all I could find elsewhere was some mentions like [[1]]. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U Maung Maung Lwin

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source is a database and I can't find anything else to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Myanmar. Let'srun (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Reyes Marión

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshdi Khalil

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

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Not a listed heritage building, so no listing there to help. I don't see news articles about this place, appears to be just another high rise in Toronto. No real sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

put the wrong address in, it's listed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. [2], but that's not enough for sourcing. Let's see what else we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy heritage study attached to the by-law [3]. Coverage here [4], column down on the left, suggests there is coverage of this in a book about the architect. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate additional sources mentioned by User:Oaktree b.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Secondary School

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

Lacks Notability. Promotional contents. All the references are primary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher

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

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same opinion with ~~Badak Jawa~~ Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [5] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remind

The author of the article has created or edited all versions of other projects, which is generally considered cross-wiki spam.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjab FC records and statistics

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The particular content can be found at Punjab FC#Records and statistics. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club is far too young to need this WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. I'm not against this type of page, but there's still little material to be worked on. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska Zimmerer

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

No indication of signifance. BLP with what looks like zero WP:SECONDARY sources. Seems to be a man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything of substance on this person, BTW, she's a woman not a man according to the article. I agree it's an article on a run of the mill journalist/political scientist just doing her job. Fails WP:JOURNALIST WP:NSCIENTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher filmography

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

The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jordan and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the director is notable, I don't think his filmography is long enough for a separate page as of yet. I think this should be merged to Abdulrahman Thaher as there are some pieces of media he's been in not mentioned on that page. jolielover♥talk 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Glauser

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

An associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [6], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [7] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Health and fitness, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [8]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17% viewership in Kanto (Japan's most populous region) as noted by above editors. DCsansei (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BASIC is a notability guidelines for people, and doesn't apply to the notability of TV shows. Also note that viewership numbers have never been valid proof of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing much evidence of WP:SIGCOV. 2 statistics websites that give viewership numbers of shows and a brief synopsis probably won’t cut it. ApexParagon (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon also publishes news articles about media. Here is a link to all the articles published about the television drama. lullabying (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huijiwiki

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources I found were passing mentions and unreliable sources. Huijiwiki (simplified Chinese: 灰机wiki; traditional Chinese: 灰機wiki; lit. 'Gray Machine Wiki') does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or not reliable enough. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for websites. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Huijiwiki is cited in multiple papers:

吕明芳 (2019). 功能对等视角下游戏本地化翻译策略探讨与反思 ——以游戏《文明Ⅵ》为例 [A Study and Reflection on Game Localization Translation Strategies from the Perspective of Functional Equivalence -- Taking the Game "Civilization VI" as an Example] (Thesis). Beijing Foreign Studies University. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

杨玲 (2018). 《临高启明》与当代幻想文学中的世界建构 [The World Construction of Lingao Qiming and Contemporary Fantasy Literature]. 济宁学院学报. 39 (1): 51–56. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

刘显. 科幻小说《三体》及改编作品的故事世界研究 [A Study on the Story World of the Science Fiction Novel The Three-Body Problem and its Adaptations] (Thesis). Retrieved 2025-05-01.

郭小嘉 (2022). 论《三体Ⅱ·黑暗森林》日译本的文化意象传递 [On the Transmission of Cultural Images in the Japanese Translation of The Three-Body Problem II: The Dark Forest] (Thesis). 黑龙江大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王昊岚 (2023). MMORPG及其演变分析 ——以《最终幻想》系列为例 [Analysis of MMORPG and Its Evolution -- Taking the Final Fantasy Series as an Example] (Thesis). 天津大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王依婷 (2021-11-19). "zh:审美认同与孙悟空视觉形象的海外流布" [Aesthetic Identity and the Overseas Spread of the Visual Image of Sun Wukong]. 中外文论2021. “跨文化视野下文艺理论批评前沿问题”研讨会暨中国中外文艺理论学会第18届年会. Guilin. pp. 135–150. doi:10.26914/c.cnkihy.2021.083048. Retrieved 2025-05-01. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these sources 内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs). Do these sources merely cite Huijiwiki, or do they also discuss Huijiwiki "directly and detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline)? Cunard (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be enough to support keeping the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an author of the article, someone who cited some would make me nominate to keep the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw

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

Non-notable javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally consider these event articles as valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long). If deleted this would be, I think, the only event in the history of the Commonwealth Games to not have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per WP:NOLYMPIC "*Significant coverage is likely to exist for events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's", and this extends to most international Games and Championships as well. There is also SIGCOV in this specific instance to prove the point, e.g. "Silver lining as England team mount final push" or "Backley spurred on by upset". Lastly I'll just say that because this is a list article, per WP:NLIST sometimes lists can be kept because they're useful navigational aids without demonstrating notability. --Habst (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.

While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources": Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.

Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:

direct quotations,
material whose verifiability has been challenged,
material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.

The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed as details, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..

Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.

Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommend immediate closure as the "keep" arguments and actions are policy-compliant, and the nomination reveals a lack of experience in subjects of this type. I would close it myself but for earlier involvement. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Firstly, I do not understand the argument that this is a list article. It is an article about a single event in the athletics section of a single competition in a single year. I suppose it "lists" the distances thrown by competitors but that is not really a list so much as a demonstration that this subject only has database listing evidence. No, the piece about Backley's throw does not show that the event is independently notable. The games are notable, but the single event is a spin-off of the games article. There is no clear reason why that is necessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not a results database, and that is all this page is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Years ago, it was decided to spin-off the results as otherwise the main page would get way too long. If deleted, this would be, out of the thousands of events in its history, the sole Commonwealth Games event missing an article. That would be nonsensical. If we're saying that its not encyclopedic they need to be discussed as a group, not just one, as that would leave a very awkward gap. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only to the list classification, historically these articles have been classified by the community as lists due to the reasoning you point out; see Category:List-Class Athletics articles for hundreds of other examples. I only chose the first two newspapers.com results but there are many others about the event if you just search the names of the medalists in quotes. These javelin throws only happened once every four years and they were a very important and highly-discussed sports match, second only to the Olympics. --Habst (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion to establish if this should be treated separately from other Games articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:NOLYMPIC position quoted above extends to other top-level championships including the Commonwealth Games. It is true that the Games as a whole have an over-arching level of notability as they are a major sporting event, but each individual competition within the Games is also notable in its own right. In practice, as BeanieFan11 rightly pointed out earlier, individual event articles are maintained as valid forks from the Games article for reasons that must include pagelength and readership convenience. Spartathenian (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOLYMPIC suitably makes the case that the Commonwealth Games would be notable, but there are 45 disciplines at the Commonwealth games, of which 26 are core disciplines. The relevant discipline for Men's Javelin is, in fact, Athletics (a core discipline). The Athletics discipline consists of nearly 70 events, of which the Men's javelin throw is just one. A page on the Commonwealth Games in any year it is held is certainly notable. That does not mean that for every Commonwealth Games we should also presume there are many hundreds of pages of notable events for every one of the 45 disciplines. There is clearly no such presumption intended nor implied. The only thing that matters would be secondary sources telling us about the 1998 men's javelin throw, discussing the event, and explaining why the event is enduringly notable. Such coverage would need to be WP:SUSTAINED, and not just primary reports of the results of the competition itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I understand your frustration but I think part of the reason these guidelines have worked so well is because nobody has been able to find a case disproving the rule yet, at least not for a javelin throw at the Commonwealth Games. In my search earlier I saw newspapers that do exactly what you describe about the 1998 Commonwealth javelin, I can't speak for every event but these ones at least were a big deal. Of course, another explanation is that these articles are classified as lists which can be treated differently w.r.t. notability per WP:NLIST. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were the guidelines suggesting that every single event spawns hundreds of pages, then the guidelines would not be working well. But the guidelines don't say that. This page is a spin-off. There is no evidence of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by Habst. I agree with the user Habst here. It meets significant relevance and notability. WP:N and WP:V HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not about a small sports event respectfully as coverage is there. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad University shooting

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

While clearly serious, this shooting involved no fatalities (fortunately), appears rooted in a personal dispute, and lacks any indication of broader significance, national/regional impact, or lasting consequences/discussion. Coverage is minimal and localized Mooonswimmer 05:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering deletion when I came across this in NPP earlier. I agree that this event doesn't seem to have had lasting impact and was only reported in passing in local news sources – one of which appears to have been closely paraphrased here. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only has local news coverage, there is not much impact. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find limited news coverage from the day of the event, nothing since. Does not appear to have any lasting effect, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra

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

Without broader coverage of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra as a group, the topic does not warrant a stand-alone list, especially with only a single entry and no reasonable expectation of more in the near future. Mooonswimmer 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: They are reviewed together. I think it shouldn’t be deleted because there is no reason that the restaurant is any less deserving of a place in a list than any others. It is just because there are no others in the same nation, so the best list to put it in is Spain. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per History6042. One item is not a list. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: per History6042. I don't think an article with just one article is considered a list. Merge until more. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Ameer Ali

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

Promo bio for a non-notable individual with no evidence of passing WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. His h-index of 5 (from the Scopus page linked in the footnotes) is what might be expected from a postdoc or graduate student, not an associate professor, and signals the opposite of significantly impacted...academia, to quote the peacocking language used here. He meets none of the other NACADEMIC criteria. The sourcing (here and in a BEFORE search) does not support GNG either. It's limited to non-independent pages: his faculty profile, primary source bios ([9], [10], his own writings [11], [12] and a LinkedIn page. One source turns up a blank page and another is a random search box. The final tenuous claim of notability is an award as a lifetime member of the NZ Institute of Quantity Surveying, but this is unlikely to be a notable award since NZIQS appears non-notable, and it fails WP:V, since the only source is the aforementioned WP:USERGENERATED LinkedIn page and search queries on the NZIQS website turn up no results for life/lifetime members or for Ali's name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long way from passing WP:Prof and, on the basis of the thorough nomination, I don't see enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens

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

Contested PROD due to being a political party. However, such organisations still have to meet WP:ORG, and there is no evidence that this one does. C 679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail organisation guidlines, not many signs of notability. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Bevan

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

A journeyman actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can tell, all of his roles were bit parts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not have any major roles in any films, only minor ones per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most roles are uncredited or minor roles, I don't see sourcing we can use. I don't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Batten

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have continued coverage beyond news reports at the time of the incident and consequent investigation. A state representative later cited the case when a state gun control law was passed six years later (per this article), but this seems like a passing mention. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Crime, Events, and Washington. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The event led to legislation, even if the mention of the original event was brief in context of the legislation. Between the in-depth coverage of the event and the eventual lasting effect, I would consider it notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is sigcov in this academic article from 2015 [13] which seems pretty good and analytical about the case and its impact. ~~Weak keep~~ unless I can find more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There also appears to be significant coverage (maybe only of the perpetrator? I can't tell, he had some notability as a creator outside of the crime. it covers the game development which due to timing i believe may intersect with the murder) in Designers & Dragons by Shannon Appelcline. So keep probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a relatively lengthy description of the circumstances surrounding the murder in a debate on gun rights from 2013 as an example of lasting coverage [14] Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several paragraphs from the NYT in 2013. [15] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times and NYT articles on the gun control debate that you cite aren't significant coverage – there are only a couple paragraphs dedicated to the crime. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define as "significant coverage"? Per WP:SIGCOV it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'd say several paragraphs counts, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are both lengthy articles that briefly touch upon multiple crimes, including Batten's murder, alongside each other. They do not look to me like they "[address] the topic directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV. Bridget (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the results of the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Missouri

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

Same reason as "List of villages in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. I don't have much of an opinion beyond that at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. The "proposed merge" was not a formal merge discussion, either. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? There should be two lists: List of municipalities, and List of census-designated places. Those two are comprehensive and do not overlap. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The gallery and lead info should be retained, but List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigational information. The highlighting of county seats is also nice, but there doesn't have to be a separate duplicative page here. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Missouri

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

Already merged with "List of Municipalities in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. Even at that, a {{Being merged}} tag was removed from this list last year by Nythar (talk · contribs) saying no such consensus exists (in reference to the proposed merger). (For what it's worth, a similar tag was not removed from the list of cities in Missouri, which the nominator has also proposed to delete.) It would not surprise me if this nomination ends up not leading to anything, but at this time have little opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Villages are by no means so different that they should be listed separately from the list of all municipalities. This is purely redundant and serves no purpose, List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigation but with data that isn't just bulleted blue links. You should merge the lead info as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Habromania

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

Fails WP: GNG; subject has lack of significant coverage online, with only a single article from an unknown reliability website being passable. Other sources include the game's profile in reputable sources like IGN which include no significant coverage other than a single trailer. Other sources includes the game's website (primary source), an Instagram link (removed) and a marketplace link to a soft toy associated with the game. The game does not display sufficient notability and significant coverage to warrant its article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason for there to be an article about a game that's three (or four) years out with little coverage. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Clover

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. I am not persuaded that the The Guardian source is enough to meet WP:GNG/WP:BLP1E nor be able to actually create a biography. I am unable to find anything else online to add to the sources already present in the article. The existing article isn't really a biography, but rather a brief recap of her edit history. The existing detail can be (and for the most part is) covered in the list Wikimedian of the Year. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year, not enough coverage to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 06:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JackFromWisconsin: Did you look at the other two sources in the article? The three combined make up the GNG coverage, it's not just The Guardian. One is from a magazine, the other is a newspaper. The magazine gives the coverage outside of WP:BLP1E because they wrote the article this March. While they definitely bring up the point that I was awarded Wikimedian of the Year, the piece is not substantially about that, and goes into significant detail about my editing in general. It currently meets the threshold of Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. The author was a journalist that happened to attend a meetup I went to this January with the intention of covering it for their magazine, and we had no interactions before that.
There's significant coverage of me in all three sources. They're reliable and they're all independent. I agree that other than that I'm relatively low profile, but I have no issues with a biography if one exists. I nominated the article for deletion myself the first time around (which was two sentences for people new to the discussion and right after I won the award) when there was only the PelhamToday source. There was a bunch of !keep votes then on the basis on WP:ANYBIO. My rationale was mainly based on notability grounds in that I didn't meet GNG at the time. I personally think I do now.
By the way, I really should have been officially notified about this AfD. No one left a talk page message or even a ping. I also think that if source analysis and notability debates are the type of thing one is passionate about, there's lots of articles at List of Wikipedia people that have much weaker sourcing than this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, everyone from the previous AfD should probably be notified. I'm obviously aware of it so no need to tell myself. Courtesy notice to Dclemens1971, Another Believer, Lajmmoore, Reywas92, Elli, Md Joni Hossain, Carrite, Hemiauchenia, Yngvadottir, Iggy pop goes the weasel, Rjjiii, Barkeep49, Ipigott, Hey man im josh, ScottishFinnishRadish, Randy Kryn, Szmenderowiecki, BennyOnTheLoose, Tuhin, Schazjmd, Let'srun, Just Step Sideways, Ahri Boy, MAL MALDIVE, Queen of Hearts, JPxG, BusterD, Sohom Datta, Nadzik, David Eppstein, Red-tailed hawk, and Balph Eubank. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fix pings to @মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন and @Beeblebrox charlotte ^👸♥ 07:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt per above. One source is not enough. Just wait for more news sources to cover the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Guardian coverage, combined with local news reports, creates an accurate portrait of a young Wikipedian who has taken to editing the encyclopedia as a service to humanity. The sources meet GNG, although there should be much more coverage if the Foundation public relations department were on task and realized that promoting the Wikimedian of the Year is a perfect opportunity to connect Wikipedia with its readers through interviews and public appearances. This would reach young and older readers who would otherwise think of Wikipedia as a public utility, like a sidewalk or the telephone (it's always there, no need to wonder where it came from or who created it). Some dismiss articles about Wikipedia as something called "navel gazing" without taking into account that the project itself is notable, present, and necessary in everyday life. The Wikimedian of the Year's recipients receive enough media to justify yearly articles, and Clover's is simply a page about the recent winner of an encyclopedically-worthy award. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument veers into speculation of what Wikimedia Foundation 'should' be doing; decisions should be made based on what coverage currently exists, not what should exist. There aren't multiple, independent articles on the subject. My little source review:
- The Guardian article: One small paragraph about Clover, mentions she is the youngest 'Wikimedian of the year' and 75% of her edits were on a mobile device. This source isn't completely independent since she was interviewed by the article's author, and is a small mention in the article overall.
- CanCulture: Small, independent magazine, interview with her; not independent.
- Pelham today: Local news site, article is dedicated to her.
- Wikipedia user profile: well... don't need to explain this one, it's a primary source that doesn't establish notability.
What many people think of Wikipedia is irrelevant when it comes to an AFD about notability, and from the sources, there is a clear lack of it. jolielover♥talk 10:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't say the CanCulture source is an interview. It includes some quotes from me, but it's not similar to anything I've seen counted as an interview in AfDS before. Those are usually more Q&A like in nature. I agree that an AfD isn't nessecarily the best place for speculation on what the WMF should be doing, and if PR-based sources existed they wouldn't really count towards notability anyways. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PelhamToday source is completely about me and is about 11 small paragraphs. The Guardian piece dedicates 2 of its 7 paragraphs to me and provides a bit more detail than suggested above, specifically about how I'm a younger editor and also that I used to edit on my work breaks at McDonald's. CanCulture dedicates about 46 lines to me. I also dispute that it isn't independent simply because it quotes me. I say lines rather than paragraphs but there's a lot of line breaks and I didn't want to mischaracterize what is actually there. Then there's a fourth source that covers me (an interview with BBC Techlife that was briefly mentioned in the last AfD), but as an actual interview it wouldn't count towards notability at all. I'll also mention that the PelhamToday source is technically a republished version of a ThoroldToday source (not cited in the article and not included as part of the 3 that contribute to GNG) and that the brief quotes included in the piece are the journalist quoting me from the awards ceremony (which was uploaded to YouTube). I didn't actually talk to him. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there's still hardly enough to establish notability as of yet. Like I said, CanCulture is a really small independent magazine, PelhamToday is a local news source, and The Guardian source isn't about Clover, focusing instead on generational gaps between editors and bringing Clover in as an example. Per WP:GNG, sources must offer "significant coverage" that goes beyond routine announcements or trivial mentions. I definitely see The Guardian's article as a trivial mention. jolielover♥talk 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we just disagree then. I know what SIGCOV is and I think that these sources do indeed meet it. I guess time will tell what other editors think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "PR based" simply means that the Foundation's public relations office would put together a press kit for television, radio, press and influencer producers alerting them to the Wikimedian of the Year's availability for media interviews, and those interviews would apply as sources. If this logical action is being done on a yearly basis already, my apologies for bringing it up. Yes, The Guardian mention, combined with local and other coverage, arguably meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Additional Comment) I was looking at the deletion discussion for Newyorkbrad and really think that we should take better care of our BLPs, especially Wikimedia related ones. To quote 28byte of that discussion, "problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career." Facing it, there is no real narrative about Clover's life written in the sources. The few sources that do exist all cover her winning the award and one goes a bit further in depth and also looks at her mobile editing.

While we're possibly at a bare minimum for an inclusionist, I think we should take more care for BLPs of our editors (if not all BLPs) and prioritize creating articles when its possible to make a decent article. Looking closer at the sources, like what User:jolielover did above, shows that what exists may not be even enough to count for notability. Currently, I feel we are a still a way off. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 12:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Rjjiii
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.pelhamtoday.ca/local-news/niagara-resident-named-wikimedian-of-the-year-9371669	The majority of the article is about the subject and not quoting them.	Pelham Today is a local newspaper.	The article is about the subject.	✔ Yes
https://canculturemag.com/literary/the-toronto-wikiclub-finds-value-in-the-citys-diversity/	The majority of the article is about the subject's group and not quoting the subject.	CanCulture "is a student publication (... that ...) promotes the Canadian arts and culture niche to the rest of the country and the world."	Multiple paragraphs about the subject.	? Unknown
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/wikipedia-generation-z-young-editors-chatbots	The article provides in-depth secondary coverage of one organization where the subject volunteers.	The Guardian is a newspaper of record.	Two paragraphs about the subject (24% of the article).	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

keep as I said the previsou discussion, Wikimedian of the Year is a serious international award, and I would suggest that being a recipient is enough for notability Lajmmoore (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that it was a student publication. Hmm. That does change my mental gauge of things a bit. I will say that the Guardian article is fairly short to begin with, so two paragraphs is slightly under half the piece. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the percent of characters, 24% (1492/6270), to the chart. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Wikimedian of the year" is not that significant of an award. I still don't think the sourcing is good enough to warrant a standalone article. Local news coverage of local people counts much less for notability than coverage in high profile national newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think enough has substantively changed since the last AFD to justify an article – the coverage is not in-depth enough or with a wide enough audience. Our own organization's award is by no means well-known and anyone who asserts it passes ANYBIO is wildly overestimating our significance and reach, regardless of the fact that people from many countries have received it and we think our colleagues deserve recognition. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, kindly pointing out that instead of others "overestimating our significance and reach" that you may be underestimating it? Wikipedia as a cultural phenomena built on existing and expanding technology is a significant influence that explains available information in a unique and important way. To pick one person out of the pool of editors to honor as a named example of its production is backed up by the notability of its, amazingly to many, ongoing existence without falling prey to the IP vandals. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that wasn't clear, it's overestimating the significance and reach of internal activities like volunteer awards, not the encyclopedia as a whole...and its contributors, even the best ones, do not inherit the project/organization's notability or influence. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the 'our' caught me in its all-or-nothing trap. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to be humble and be cautious when writing about Wikimedia topics. Yes, our website is incredible and the way we've been able to build an encyclopedia free to all is amazing. But we also need to be realistic and not give ourselves undue attention. Let other publications do the talking. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, The Story!

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

Non-notable indie band. The only (possibly) non-primary source in this article is a thread on now-defunct website “AbsolutePunk”, which doesn’t seem to be archived anywhere. Since AbsolutePunk had a forum section, it’s also possible that the post was user-generated rather than official content, which would make it unreliable. (If anyone can confirm this or figure out what the post was, let me know)

Cannot find evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and seems to fail WP:NMUSIC ApexParagon (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There a passing mention here calling the subject a local band. There does not appear to be sufficient evidence available to meet WP:BAND. ResonantDis_tortion 09:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Avenue (band)

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

Seems to be just a cover band. Sources listed in article are all local, routine coverage. After a google search, not seeing enough sources to justify WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Jaime

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary and while a BEFORE found coverage at [[16]], student newspapers generally aren't considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Feener

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources in the article are all primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything that could be used to have the notability guidelines be met. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Oklahoma, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kordel Davis

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

Rejected CSD A7 and contested PROD. This article appears to have issues around WP:BLP1E. Davis has received coverage related to the Penn State fraternity hazing scandal but does not appear to be independently notable. Discussion of his music career is sourced only to retailers where his music has been published. Discussion of his activist work is sourced to articles that either don't mention him; make very brief mention without significant coverage, when discussing a different topic; or articles written by Davis himself. It seems like this would best be covered with a redirect to Penn State fraternity hazing scandal. hinnk (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politics, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranald Leask

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

We're not Linkedin and I can't find sigcov. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search finds close to no sources on him, all just brief mentions from over a decade ago. Fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 06:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

While American Sailing does offer training sources, this sailing program fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant oorganization that sets a nationwide standard. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dastan Satpayev

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

Contested draftification. The only coverage of this football player I can find are trivial announcements that he'll be joining Chelsea and run-of-the-mill stories about his scoring in particular games. The Forbes article appears to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Note that NFOOTY has been explicitly repealed by consensus of the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already cited the most no. of sources and citations in Eng than other language versions, even more than the Kazakh version. Also included sourves from Kazakhstan FA and FC Kairat, please consider those. Chelsdog (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International player, loads of sources on google, did you bother with a WP:BEFORE, [17], [18], [19]. Terrible nomination in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part of my nom where I said all of the sources I could find are trivial coverage or run of the mill stories about his transfer to Chelsea? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Randall (footballer)

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

Played once professionally. We could redirect to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season as he is mentioned there. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season, I tried to have a look to see if he did anything after being release from Aldershot, but see nothing. Very similar to other AfD Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981). Couldn't see any coverage after release. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]