Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 07	March 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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.

List of streets in Amsterdam

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Dajasj (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Dajasj (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

We already have Category:Streets in Amsterdam, this adds no value Dajasj (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 8 March 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.

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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Op Hoop van Zegen (1918 film)

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

Unreferenced article tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. The Dutch wiki article also has no sources. Not clear this meets WP:GNG/WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Op hoop van zegen (1934): together with Op hoop van zegen (1924), or redirect to director and create a WP:SETINDEX. Opposed to deletion. I did not even perform a BEFORE for that very film so if sources exist, Keep -Mushy Yank. 20:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Or to The Good Hope (play) but coverage exists. And the disambiguation page Op Hoop van Zegen can be enhanced into a SETINDEX. -Mushy Yank. 21:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
On second thoughts, I favour a Keep, the film meeting Wikipedia:NFIC as one of the best performances in the career of Annie Bos and WP:NFILM [added a source indicating it was considered the best Dutch film until then, in 1918) (in English, so no doubt on what the text means)-Mushy Yank. 21:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film adaption of a popular play. We ought to have an article on the 1900 play.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have one. The Good Hope (play). -Mushy Yank. 23:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:HEY. Article improved and sufficient citations added. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting the GNG. Nomination is in defiance of the golden NEXIST rule. Some sources follow. gidonb (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GUIDO PIETERS, REGISSEUR VAN 'OP HOOP VAN ZEGEN' Ik hou van films op rand van sentimentaliteit. "Leeuwarder courant : hoofdblad van Friesland". Leeuwarden, 08-08-1986, p. 1. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 09-03-2025, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010566110:mpeg21:p017

Bioscoop-vertooningen, enz. OLYMPIA-THEATER.. "Provinciale Geldersche en Nijmeegsche courant". Nijmegen, 02-02-1935. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 09-03-2025, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMRANM02:000033480:mpeg21:p003

https://onsamsterdam.nl/artikelen/kniertje-trok-volle-zalen

Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse film en bioscoop tot 1940 - Karel Dibbets en Frank van der Maden - Het Wereldvenster - Weesp.

and ample sources now in the article.

There were no sources in evidence at the time of nomination, and the sources you provided here weren’t likely to be found by someone who doesn’t speak or read Dutch in a BEFORE. Saying the nomination was made in defiance of WP:NEXIST is a bad faith statement given the lack of any sourcing in the article at the time of nomination. In practical terms, NEXIST only applies after sources have been located. Otherwise it’s a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument which is discredited at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started learning Dutch but got sidetracked with other languages and things, reminds me that I should resume with learning, it's a fascinating language! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been located by others and me. Defiance of WP:NEXIST is the equivalent of a WP:BEFORE failure. If you do not know how to find sources in foreign languages, please stop nominating such articles! gidonb (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb No, your hostility in this instance is WP:UNCIVIL, and your attempt to cast a good faith AFD nomination as a failure to follow policy a clear sign of bad faith. You could choose to simply follow best community practices by participating with civility at AFD, and making your case by presenting materials that contain SIGCOV rather than making odd NEXIST arguments that result with a strange logic that if anyone finds sourcing at an AFD than a nominator must have been defiantly made the nom to begin with and violated policy by not following NEXIST. That creates a Catch-22 in the AFD nomination process and an overly hostile work environment at AFD that shouldn't be allowed. Nobody can predict what others may or may not find in terms of sourcing and not everyone has the same skill sets in performing searches which is why AFD exists in the first place. We all get to participate here because it is a community space, and we should be able to do so without this sort of harassing behavioral nonsense.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No hostility from my side, just the usual accusations from yours. NEXIST says: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's big and bold, also in the source, so nobody will miss it! When no thorough BEFORE is done, by anyone, this hinders our community project. I totally understand that it is difficult to search for sources in foreign languages but there is no rule that you must AfD articles when you cannot find sources. There are ample templates that deal with the lack references in an article. PLEASE consider using these next time! gidonb (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld Shouldn't all these pages be renamed Op hoop van zegen (no capitals) per MOS:5? https://cinemagazine.nl/op-hoop-van-zegen-1986-recensie/

Including Op Hoop van Zegen? That might be decided on the talk pages but since we are here..... -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though there's a case for using the English title of ''The Good Hope''. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:NEXIST clearly states:

"Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

just like the Notability template's documentation clearly states:

"Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work. Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article."

So that even if one cannot understand the sources, it is expected that users check if sources exist before initiating an AfD and/or adding the tag. Understanding is one thing, finding is another.

Now, 4meter4, you indicate that you did not find any source to verify the film was notable, unless I am mistaken. But I have a question: do you check the GBooks and Archive.org results? If you don't, please don't forget to do so.

In general, "old" (including early) films with notable cast by notable directors are very likely notable (and in the case of extremely notable directors with extremely notable cast, very likely so, even if the page does not confirm it at first sight)[and therefore sources probably exist; or (from a WP-guideline point of view, sources probably exist so that the film is probably notable], so that the tag (indicating a very serious issue, and being the potential antechamber of deletion) and AfDs (same comment, obviously) should imv only be used in very dubious and difficult cases, not just because the page needs rework/sources/cleanup. Apologies for stating the obvious. Best, -Mushy Yank. 23:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to all who participated in locating materials and improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 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.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Colorado Council on the Arts

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

Defunct Arts Council that fails WP:GNG, I could only find articles that were written about the organization about the company, not to mention it has been a permastub since 2006, and is likely to remain one. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some sources about this agency that I was able to find from a quick Google search: 1 2 3 4 5 I plan on using these to improve the article sometime soon. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 07:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to see if someone can rescue this. I'm leaning to keep all the state-wide arts councils so that we have complete coverage, but handle county or metropolitan arts councils as necessary. Bearian (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to rescue it, using the sources I cited above. I'll also do some more research. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist and are available. This stub can be improved, and simply being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. I do not see how deleting this would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. WP:HASPOT It seems like a proper WP:BEFORE may not have been conducted especially when so many have been nominated by the same editor within minutes, and sometimes even seconds of each other. However, I would suggest that the article be renamed to the current name for the Council, which is Colorado Creative Industries.[1], Netherzone (talk) 13:19, 11 March 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.

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 merge‎ to Pioneer Park (Fairbanks, Alaska). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbanks Arts Association

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

Fails WP:GNG and is WP:PROMO. The entire page is practically promotional content, the sources are just articles written by the organization themselves. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pioneer Park (Fairbanks, Alaska), of which this is one particular organization that is there. Bearian (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and redirect per Bearian as an alternate to deletion. I am perplexed as to why the nominator's mass deletions of arts councils and organizations would be an improvement to the encyclopedia that would benefit our readership. It seems as though proper WP:BEFOREs are not been performed especially when so many have been nominated by the same editor within minutes, and sometimes even seconds of each other. Netherzone (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pioneer Park (Fairbanks, Alaska)#Attractions as a viable ATD, per Bearian and Netherzone. Sal2100 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 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.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Wyoming Arts Council

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

Fails WP:GNG, another Arts Council perma-stub. This article has been without organization related sources and has been unimproved since 2008, it doesn't seem like it will improve given it's been 6 years since any change was made to the page ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. I see lots of hits on Google News. This is different from a lot of other arts councils up for deletion, because this is statewide. Bearian (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist and are available. This article can be improved, and and AfD is not cleanup. I do not see how deleting all of these art council articles would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. WP:HASPOT It seems like a proper WP:BEFORE may not have been conducted, especially when so many have been nominated by the same editor within minutes, and sometimes even seconds of each other. Netherzone (talk) 13:18, 11 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ekpe Adamu

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

Fails Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines, almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More interviews and flowery articles than anything of substance, sourcing is typical for Nigerian sources. I can only pull up the same type of things. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFB and for lack of WP:SIGCOV. This page is written as a resume or LinkedIn profile, with factoids about helping children's charities, without any actual facts, and a photo that is more of a publicity shot than of a business person making a business, or a mentor mentoring mentees. How much did he donate - $5, or $120, or $45,000? How much time did he mentor - an hour a year, or a few hours a month, or 35 hours a week? Why is it only documented by NewsWire, a company that literally posts press releases? Has any of that been documented in significant coverage? Ping me if you find reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 09:18, 10 March 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.

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.

Amador County Arts Council

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be WP:PROMO. Just like El Dorado Arts Council, is nothing but an advertisement for the company. I am also nominating the following related pages for also having notability problems and promotional content:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - each of these organizations are very different and might be notable - or not. Bearian (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example:
1. Amador County Arts Council - I don't know, but a merger to either the county or state arts council would be fine.
2. Humboldt Arts Council has already been merged with a museum; that's a probable keep as they have potential sources.
3. City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs is a government agency, and covers one of the newest and most vibrant art capitals of the world. That's a definite keep.
Bearian (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For ones like City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, I could argue they could be notable to stay. As for ones like Madera County Arts Council, that are pretty much an advertisement with only primary sources availible, I would say delete for. Though all of these councils are mixed in notabilty. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, except for City of LA, a lot of these arts councils are likely to remain perma-stubs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - per Bearian's analysis above. Also, there is nothing wrong with stubs and that is not a reason for deletion, AfD is not clean up. It seems that proper WP:BEFORE searches are not being conducted since so many are sent to AfD within minutes of one another by this editor. I fail to understand how these mass deletions would be an improvement to the encyclopedia and a benefit to its readership. What proof is there that they are PROMO? While I agree that promotional/advertorial editing can harm the integrity of the encyclopedia, I am not finding that this is the case for these stubs that have existed for nearly two decades. They can be improved. WP:HASPOT. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Since I looked more into some of these articles, I may withdraw some of these articles from this discussion, but I think some of them could still be AFD worthy, such as Madera County Arts Council, which I can only find primary sources for. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ロドリゲス恭子, Did you check news and newspapers in a BEFORE search? I'm finding significant coverage of Madera County Arts Council like this: [2],

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and more. Note: Log into Newspapers.com may be required to see these, however, they are clearly verifiable, and establish that the Arts Council meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 11 March 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.

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 Procedural Keep‎. Any editor in good standing is welcome to open a new AfD if they feel there's merit. Star Mississippi 14:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Doc Fuller

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

He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant and sustained coverage. His book is not notable. Being Martha Stewart's coach in prison doesn't make you notable. Ynsfial (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as a WP:SOCK of Smobasa. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:44, 9 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Kawathe

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Taabii (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Maharashtra. Taabii (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Poor sources on the page. I did not find that the subject is widely cited by peers or successors or is known for creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:22, 11 March 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.

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 merge‎ to Clementine (software). asilvering (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry (software)

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

Fails WP:GNG The only references are to Github and other hosting sites. It does not demonstrate any sort of notability. My searches have come up empty on anything more substantial. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused about "The only references are in Github and other hosting sites."

The software has a website, with an active forum:

https://www.strawberrymusicplayer.org/

Some reviews:

https://itsfoss.com/strawberry-music-player/

https://linuxmasterclub.com/strawberry/

https://absolutelybaching.com/technical-articles/music-players-for-windows-a-comparative-review/strawberry-music-player/

https://umatechnology.org/strawberry-a-fork-of-clementine-music-player/

https://www.addictivetips.com/ubuntu-linux-tips/organize-your-music-on-linux-with-strawberry/ Samuraibrian (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it has a website and forum is no indication that it meets the criteria of being notable. All but one of these sources are not suitable as they are missing key criteria such as significant, reliable or independent. The first one is the only one which may meet the criteria. The second is just a listing of its features not a review. The third is a personal blog, not reliable. The last 2 are not independent, no byline to say an independent person actually wrote these. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The software has a homepage, and a latest release this year (2025) for several mainstream OS's. How's that not enough? 130.238.197.107 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons stated above. I see that improvement can be made in the references, and as the main contributor to this article, I will try, in the next few days, to reference some of the technical web sites that reviewed this software. The problem with WP:GNG is that it is heavily one-sided towards large news sources and academic work. This is not relevant to most, if not all, the Open Source software where development is done by a small group of even a single developer. Such pieces of work have significant numbers of followers and users satisfying specific niches. In the case of Strawberry, it started from a general audio reproduction application and added significant options catering towards audiophile audiences.

Usually large news/media sources tend to review OSS where there is some financial reward even if that is only due to advertisement. I wish that WP editors consider these facts and apply notability requirements appropriately instead with utmost strictness without any consideration to the subject matter. --Ank (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the issue here, the issue here is the article didn't have any suitable references. Everyone one was connected to the software/developer or did not provide any actual independent insight to the software or why it is any more notable then any other software on github. I couldn't find any source not connected to the developer when I did my before search. So this wasn't a strict application of the guidelines it was a poor choice to move into the main space without even one decent source. I am not opposed to this going back to draft space to incubate longer as an alternate to deletion and to give more time for proper sourcing to be found. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What I was trying to say above is that as an editor you should be more relaxed and try to see the larger WP picture rather than going after every detail on each article. Specifically you are (trying) enforcing WP:GNG on articles that have little relevance to it. WP:SNG might be a better guide but unfortunately it does not have a section for open source software. Additionally, all WP rules state very clearly that WP does not have strict rules just guides and each guide is enforced having in mind the subject matter at hand. In other words an editor cannot be trigger happy and be a good editor.

2. There are numerous articles in WP that, in some form or other, fail WP:GNG. May be they should all be deleted.

3. An editor listens to the community. Above, there are three individuals that believe this article presents a sufficiently notable software application. We disagree with you that GitHub and hosting sites cannot be referenced, especially when the application has survived the test of time. In WP there are numerous articles where this is done.In addition some references supplied above are not in any way related to the developers or contributors and are therefore independent. One web sire referenced is sponsored by a huge open source provider therefore as reliable as it gets. Based on these arguments the article should remain in the main namespace.

4. An editor that has classified an article as a candidate for deletion should NOT engage in editing/contributing in any way to the article. This is just common sense if you want to be an impartial editor. By severely editing the article including removing whole sections (features) and almost all its references, including those that are independent/reliable you have nullified your impartiality and invalidated your guardianship of the rules therefore you cannot function as an editor.

5. MY SUGGESTION: You should immediately remove yourself from further action on this article and possibly refer the whole matter to another editor/administrator. It is obvious that you are not impartial.

Personally I do not wish to engage in a discussion war. In my >20 years of contribution to WP I have had enough of such petty disputes. I prefer to spend my time more constructively possibly contributing to Strawberry, if I can. Ank (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Clementine (software): As an unofficial successor of Clementine, it's probably worth discussing, but I'm not seeing good enough sources for a standalone article. I note that the other editors were almost certainly brought here by an off-wiki discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Helpful Raccoon. It doesn't help that there was a Strawberry Software Inc from way back in the day to throw my reference search off. Conyo14 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Dorado Arts Council

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

Fails WP:GNG and is WP:PROMO. zero sources that aren't tied to the organization, the page is also pretty much an advertisement for the council. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete per WP:TNT - it's a basically spam and possibly a copyright violation. However, there's lots of news coverage from both Nevada and California media, so in theory an article could be created. Ping me if you want to rescue this wreck. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:50, 15 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userssio Technologies

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

Not enough sources to pass WP:NCORP. This company has only been active for one year and has received no coverage from reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and India. Badbluebus (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This paid editing bludgeoning from user needs to stop. Pages that have been moved to draft space are continuous moved back to mainspace. That aside, references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've blocked the author as a sock, hence this is eligible for G5, but if it is preferred to let the AfD run its full course, that's also fine by me. If speedying is wanted, ping me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have preferred G5, but I suppose this way, it's harder for future spammers to recreate so that works, too. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-reviewing its cited sources seems to lack WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, in which even a quick search on the company also shows the same trend. Villkomoses (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even come close to being notable. I also found that the user uploaded this bogus earnings report with completely made-up numbers. Yuvaank (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per NominationRahmatula786 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nom. lack WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Does not pass WP: CORP. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 03:25, 14 March 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.

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 keep‎. Thanks in advance to Mark999 for the promised improvements. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets

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

A very large and overly detailed list that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unlike something like Hearthstone expansions, which has coverage for the subject of expansions in the game as a whole, the subject of TCG sets does not have any SIGCOV I could locate. WP:NLIST requires notability as a group for the list to be considered "notable", and while a few individual sets have some standalone hits, the topic of sets as a whole does not WP:INHERIT notability from these standalone sets. The vast bulk of these sets yield little to no actual significant coverage, and nothing in the article is really worth preserving, as the bulk of content here either hails from unreliable sources or WP:PRIMARY sources.

I will also note that this topic does not inherit notability from the concept of Pokémon Trading Card Game. There has been significant discussion of the card game as a whole, but very little on the topic of *sets* specifically. As it stands, the subject is a failure of both INDISCRIMINATE and of SIGCOV, among other things. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, Games, Toys, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an exhaustive list of elements in a clearly notable fictional franchise that do not appear to be individually notable, so meets WP:CSC point 2. It's possible to break this down further into lists by generations and have this article be a list of lists. I see no reason this couldn't be cleaned up to look something like List of Magic: The Gathering sets, which is relatively visually appealing look at an arguably marginally more notable CCG franchise. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CSC is a guideline for what common types of list exist; just because a list of a similar type already exists does not mean other lists of similar types are (Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF). CSC does not override notability criteria, which is outlined at Wikipedia:LISTN: "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." Given nothing at Wikipedia:SALAT applies to this list, and I have already discussed how there is a strong lack of SIGCOV, there is still no indication this list meets LISTN.

I will also note your linked list suffers from identical problems to this one (A reliance on PRIMARY sources and a lack of demonstrated SIGCOV), which does not address several points I made in my nom, so it cannot even be used as a positive example of a list like this. It's why I linked Hearthstone in my nom, since that AfD illustrated actual SIGCOV for the topic, which justified a standalone split. There is nothing like that here, from what I have found. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 07:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You're making two arguments (this is a separate topic from the Pokemon TCG, this topic is not per se discussed by RS'es) that are both, in my opinion, overstating consensus for their conclusions ("reaching") and at odds with the other lists we actually keep. We'll see what others think. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Pokelego999 points in letting this stay, along with the need for a bit more polishing and formatting(e.g. more illustrations of the card icons etc. ), it can be a potentially good complementary article to the more general Pokémon Trading Card Game main article about the CCG. As it does feature significant milestones of the CCG History Villkomoses (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am working on a better version of this article and plan on making incremental improvements. Mark999 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. As it is one of the TCGs and one of the most relevant franchises in the world, it is natural for WP:FORK to emerge with more specific themes. Svartner (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and Stubify. If possible. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it utterly bizarre that this is being flagged for deletion. This is an important page that documents a lot about the TCG. The list of sets is an essential resource for understanding all manner of things about the TCG from the meta, rotation, different eras. Lukerichards88 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if it is a notable subject, WP:TNT is merited as it currently has no relevance for non-fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This is important for trading card games. A very notable subject. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 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.

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 Withdrawn‎. by nominator, who decided to redirect. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KOER-LP

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

Recently defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Religion, and Christianity. Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close as redirect. Chuterix (talk) 18:20, 8 March 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.

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 draftify‎ overwriting the existing stub at Draft:Next papal conclave. Several of the Delete !votes misapplied WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL here. Others seem to be driven by a repulsion from anything involving a future death. "Just wait for the Pope to die" is not a valid deletion criterion, and we routinely keep articles about notable future events that will verifiably take place, be it elections or solar eclipses. That said, I see a broad support for the view that the article and its sourcing, in their current form, are not quite ready for mainspace, leading me to close this as Draftify. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next papal conclave

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

Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. I am making this discussion in response to a challenged ProD, which four editors, including myself, endorsed. I believe that this article is too speculative; this page essentially details the next papal conclave, which we don't know when it will happen. Additionally, I believe this page was created because of the reports that states that Pope Francis was in critical condition, which I believe contributes to the speculative nature of this article. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Christianity, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Might as well get a start on it. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in general, the next election for the next head of state of a country is something which usually has an article because it is known for certain that it will happen, even if it is not known when. There are more than enough reliable sources covering it to justify an article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are more than enough sources for it. I don't think TOOSOON or CRYSTAL applies here, bcs next does not necessarily mean 2025. Draftify as an alternative, bcs speculation has a small chance of not been sustained if and when the pope recovers. DWF91 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or delete). While this subject will sadly probably be notable at sometime in the foreseeable future, at this point it's all just speculation. Once official announcements are made and we can write something more substantial it can have a page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Chessrat, it's usual for unscheduled elections to have pages, e.g. Libya, Sudan, Palestine and Ukraine. As for an election triggered when the incumbent dies, the only one I can think of is Iran's Supreme Leader. The page has enough reliable sources and I think it should exist regardless of the Pope's condition. Khronicle I (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources clearly indicate a WP:GNG pass now, and it corresponds with similar pages on upcoming expected elections and so passes the WP:NOPAGE test of GNG. This conclave will take place, provided (as they say in my part of the world) "the good Lord tarries and the creek don't rise." It's not WP:TOOSOON because reliable and independent sources are already talking about it in significant depth. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An event that is expected and has GNG coverage does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. There is information about the voters and how the conclave will be organized. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the papacy becomes vacant? this article can easily be recreated, with the year included in the title. Until then? there's no need for it. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GoodDay above. Article can easily be recreated under a more plausible title, unlike the current one which is speculative and unhelpful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have both a critical health episode that would be certainly be present in the eventual episode and we have sources naming papabile, however distasteful that may be, so TOOSOON and CRYSTAL would not apply here. The threshold of certainty and verifiable information that we would want has crossed into the zone where an article can be created. At the very least, the article should be kept as a draft. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chessrat, Khronicle I, and Patar knight. Even before pope Francis' illness we should probably have had an article on the next conclave, given the importance of the papacy and the wealth of other articles we have about upcoming elections without a set date. WP:CRYSTAL says that "future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" and that if preparation "is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented", both of which this article seem to pass. Morbid as the cause of those new sources may be, they are emerging left and right, which only solidifies it to me that the time has come for this article. 87.49.44.28 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure this does pass GNG - the only sources are "here's how a conclave will work." SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just wait for the Pope to die. This isn't comparable to "next election" articles because the Pope's death doesn't happen on a regular schedule. The equivalent would be having an article titled "Next coronation of the King of the United Kingdom". Like others have said, the article can easily be recreated with a more precise title once the Pope dies. Keeping this as a redirect after that article is made is more justifiable but in my opinion not preferable as the redirect will be way "too soon" right after the next conclave is complete. Yue🌙 01:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify because it is better to have something for when an article is needed imo. Alexeyperlov (Complain) 14:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - my initial reaction was that of Yue and WP:THISISMORBID. But upon further reflection, the stoic and/or Christian would say, be ready. Memento mori. Genesis 3:19 (NRSVA) says, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Bearian (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be a morbid thought, but it's well been established that the Pope is not in good health, that the many sources indicate at it passing WP:GNG, and that a Conclave will happen upon his death. The next Papal Conclave is in effect what Khronicle I said, an unscheduled election. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 05:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What this article purports to cover belongs in papabile if it belongs at all. If the title were more definite, then a redirect would be appropriate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 16 March 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.

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 merge‎ to Hizb ut-Tahrir (Bangladesh). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baitul Mukarram South clashes

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

This is not a notable event and does not meet the general notability guidelines. The clash occurred just a few hours ago, lacks historical significance, and does not satisfy the WP:EVENTCRIT criteria. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hizb ut-Tahrir (Bangladesh). Not a very notable event & better suits as a section in that article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason to delete it, now it's edited One21persons (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the WP:GNG. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 00:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: agree with Ahammed Saad...

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 17:50, 15 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to 2019–20 American Athletic Conference men's basketball season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 American Athletic Conference men's basketball tournament

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

Cancelled due to COVID-19 before it ever started; redirect to 2019–20 American Athletic Conference men's basketball season as a plausible alternative to deletion. Taking this to AFD instead of boldly redirecting as this is potentially controversial and also to get a precedent for some of the similar tournaments. There was coverage of its cancellation but this was not WP:SUSTAINED. Hog Farm _talk 16:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Texas. Hog Farm _talk 16:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - we definitely don’t need an article of a tournament that didn’t happen. No encyclopedic value. Rikster2 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an ATD. There is definitely no need for articles on canceled tournaments due to COVID to not be explained through the main season. Conyo14 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It is a unique situation but the tournament never happened. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:50, 11 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ullekh NP

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ullekh NP has at least two books that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: Mad About Cuba ([12]) and Kannur: Inside India's Bloodiest Revenge Politics ([13], [14]). As such, the author meets WP:NAUTHOR#3. Ping me for questions/comments. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the original contributor, removed the peacock details that crept in the time of construction. Y Eko Log (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though barely. Technically, he's the author of three notable books (though neither of these books was a best-seller, far from it afaik) so he just passes the WP:NAUTHOR bar. Y Eko Log created the articles on the author and his three books, so there's a walled garden concern. In its current form, the article's tone is fine and I've removed the {{peacock}} cleanup tag. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Previous books have SIGCOV. Meets NPAUTHOR. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes though WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:03, 15 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Finolex Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finolex Cables

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finolex Group and keep that There's a related article, Finolex Group, which is in a similar stubby state with not much substance. However, when I looked for sources, I found a bunch of news pieces talking about corporate infighting between the company's founders, with the police getting involved (eg: [15], [16], [17]). I can't imagine why the now blocked creator of the article didn't think to mention any of this, though.... There's also this dedicated obituary for the group founder here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finolex Group: per above. Taabii (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finolex Group: As per nom.Each product can't have a separate Wiki article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finolex Group as an WP:ATD. Yuvaank (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finolex Group.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 15 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers India

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like signing MoA, winning foreign contracts, getting awarded with some status, setting up new plants etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a Navaratna, the second highest class of public sector enterprises in India, and if deleted would be the only one to not have a page. Analyst commentary can be seen in - [18], [19] and [20] among others. There is detailed coverage about the history of the company in this Khaleej Times article which shows its notability extends even outside the country [21] besides coverage in [22], [23], [24] and [25] and [26] (this one is from 2002 when most of India did not even have internet access, showing continuous coverage). Warrants a keep. Jupitus Smart 02:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references shared by Jupitus Smart provide enough information about the company. A friendly suggestion to the nominator: please refer to WP:BEFORE. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 15 March 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.

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.

List of schools in the Netherlands

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Dajasj (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this article is better replaced by Category:Schools in the Netherlands Dajasj (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Dajasj (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Lists, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 March 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BGR Energy Systems

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, although I'd rather redirect to an appropriate target. I'm not a certified expert in energy law, but I have written a few articles about it. There are hundreds of Indian energy companies in the largest capitalist economy in the world. If there were an appropriate target, I'd suggest a redirect, but the only one I know of is Indian Energy Exchange. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ministry of Power (India), State Electricity Board#India, or Energy policy of India are about public entities, not utilities. Please ping me if you have ideas to rescue this mess, or redirect it, or create an Indian energy law article. Bearian (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sourcing fails WP:NCORP. Also currently the article is just one huge mess where it would be more time efficient if we go WP:TNT on it. - Imcdc Contact 05:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is so problematic that deleting it and rewriting it properly is better than trying to fix it. I haven't personally searched for sources, but the sources already in the article are insufficient to prove notability.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : as per WP:TNT. Too much information in the article without any reference. Not enough sources for notability. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharekhan

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Mirae Asset Financial Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sharekhan is among the top ten retail brokerages and a pioneer in online retail brokerage. There is sufficient secondary coverage to build an encyclopedic with. These (Business Standard and Economic Times) respected financial news sources address Sharekhan in detail. Additional sources from Hindustan Times, Livemint, and The Economic Times (like regulatory fines and fraud cases) shows the article isn't just promotional. They can be used to expand the article and ensure a neutral perspective. Sharekhan and its analysts are frequently quoted by leading business and financial publications regarding the Indian stock market The Economic Times and LiveMint, which shows its industry influence and peer recognition. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has enough WP:SIGCOV for a page. From here, and this so many other publications. The subject meets WP:NCORP. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few references that support Bakhtar40's valuable dig, such as 1, and 2. I am not sure how reputable these journals are, but having some references is better than none. Charlie (talk) 17:59, 15 March 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.

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 merge‎ to List of DC Comics characters: W. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Man (DC Comics)

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

Name of three DC characters: an obviously non-notable one from a single story, and aliases of two more notable characters. Not sure of this should be redirected somewhere or become a disambig. Or just deleted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 8 March 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What we have here is a completely non-notable one-shot character, an alias very briefly used by another character who has their own article, and an alternate universe version of Wonder Woman who is already described in the appropriate section of the main Wonder Woman article. Searches are turning up no significant coverage in reliable sources on any of them, making them fail the WP:GNG both individually and collectively. At best, this could possibly be a redirect to Wonder Woman#Earth 11. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crazy case of Wikipedia:SYNTH given it's grouping up a bunch of unrelated characters together, and none of them are notable, being all one shots. These are super minor characters, to a point where there's no real need to preserve any of the information at one of the lists, per Rorshacma. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: W in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This takes three separate characters and pretends they are related in some way. Usually I support merging but in this case I support deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of DC Comics characters: W as WP:AtD. There are some secondary sources on the character, like this one discussing all three versions, which don't establish notability but in my view are fine for inclusion in the list. As three or as one section, an editorial decision. Daranios (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would be happy with a merge to List of DC Comics characters: W. Lacking notability. I'd guess the CBR article was written after reading the Wikipedia one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for such a minor character I don't think an ATD is needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and possibly violates WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 15 March 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.

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 14:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Hadaftimo

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

Lack of Notability WP:N and failed reliable source WP:RS QalasQalas (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Somalia. QalasQalas (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article seems to be orphanage, what is written and source are different WP:Notability Dhool Geelle (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The first source listed does not mention a "Siege of Hadaftimo" and does not verify any of the material in the article. The second source is a dead link, but the title also does not describe a siege. Yue🌙 22:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the two sources not even mention the subject. Complete misleading references give. Fails notability. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Green (writer)

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

I can't see that any of the citations serve to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone - thank you for your long work on Wikipedia. I did not receive any sort of compensation for this article, but I probably should have disclosed that the subject was known to me as a friend-of-a-friend sort of thing. I thought based on the coverage in mainstream US media (Washington Post, Business Insider, Bank Rate) that the subject met notability requirements, and tried to write the article as well sourced and neutral as I could. I'll accept the decision of this page. 37and7 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written in good faith but with a massive COI the sources are either primary, the subject's own web site, or articles written by the subject in the course of his employment as a journalist. Searches do not turn up any other RS with significant coverage. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only possible deep coverage is one review, which is not significant coverage. I routinely disclose conflicts of interest, whether in my user space, on the talk page of the article (for example, Talk:Mark Zaid), or the AfD (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Durant III). Bearian (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Great writer but much has not been written about him. I’m willing to change my !vote if some credible sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Matter of COI. Articles found written by the subject himself which doesn't add to the notability of the subject. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 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.

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 merge‎ to Green Lantern Corps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Power ring (DC Comics)

AfDs for this article:

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

Long article, nearly a hundred footnotes - but it's 100% plot summary (there is not only no reception/analysis, but there is no usual list of appearances or out-of-universe design/creation history). My BEFORE failed to find anything else. As such, WP:GNG seems non-existent. Not sure where this could redirect (DC universe does not seem to have the equivalent of Features of the Marvel Universe...). PS. Prior AfD from 2011 had an editor list 6 seemingly good sources, but they were debunked as SIGCOV-failing/irrelevant/just plot summaries by another editor. That said, I looked at the first one, and there are tidbits that might be useful. This has non-zero potential, but right now we are lookign at the WP:TNT case, since what we have is 100% plot summary and 0% of non-WP:FANCRUFT content :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 8 March 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:GNG isn't met here. I do see some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and non-independent sources that are affiliated with the publisher/authors, and maybe those could be cited in another proper article. Green Lantern Corps might be a good redirect target, per WP:ATD-R. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Green Lantern Corps as WP:ATD. I don't have time for search myself, so please ping me if secondary sources should be found after all. The target is one of the few cases of a fictional topic which in my view could actually use more plot summary, so a few bits from here might be warranted. But at least the one sentence base on The Science of Superheroes as a secondary source should be merged over. This is certainly a topic at least deserving a redirect (with possiblities). Daranios (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Lantern Corps for now. Since the Green Lantern Corps, other Corps were later formed and wielded similar power rings. As there is no Features of the DC Universe page yet and no other sources have been found, we can have the page redirected there until we can find another worthy redirect to cover all the known power rings. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legion of Super-Heroes items

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

Short list of niche comic book items, referenced solely to said comic books. Fails WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of random non-notable fictional items. The only sources being used are primary, and there are no reliable sources being used to demonstrate that this passes WP:LISTN. The majority of these "items" are essentially just minor pieces of trivia with no real notability either in real life or within the in-universe lore of the Legion, and the very few that do have overarching significance to the Legion mythos (i.e. the Flight Rings) should simply be mentioned on the main Legion of Super-Heroes article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. Complete failure of notability in every possible way. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. Not enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Maybe some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of the items could be added to another article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Rorshacma has stated the case persuasively. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with Rorshacma. Failure of notability. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Lasso of Truth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Girdle of Gaea

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

Pure plot summary, poorly referenced. Not mentioned in Wonder Woman. My BEFORE yielded nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Cited source number #1 [27] is theoretically reliable and does in fact provide a single sentence of analysis, although it seems sourced to a defunct fanpage (which does not even seem to contain the quoted text, at least in the version I found in IA). But I am afraid that's too little to rescue this. PS. This seems related to Lasso of Truth (predecessor object). But this would be a good redirect target (and the source mentioned here would be relevant to that article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 8 March 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE also didn't reveal enough WP:SIGCOV to discuss its real-world reception. A redirect can always happen later, if a good target is found. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker Isn't Lasso of Truth a good redirect target? No need for hard deletion, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That target makes sense to me. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lasso of Truth - Minor fictional item that does not have close to enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, but it is already mentioned at the Lasso of Truth article, so I agree that redirecting there is a valid WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lasso of Truth. Should be covered in the context of that notable item. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 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.

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 14:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Bingöl attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, I'm doubting this has WP:LASTING and for sure that this has no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Turkey. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
most of the sources cited aren't considered reliable for the topic area given close affiliation with the Turkish govt. (t · c) buidhe 14:35, 8 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Green Arrow. ^Complex/_Rational 14:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowcar

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is more niche than Supermobile and a few others we recently redirected; it is a pure plot summary, with not even the usual list of appearances (outside mention of a single animated TV series). Sources used are fan pages (or official version of these). Could in theory redirect to Green Arrow but it is not even mentioned there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 8 March 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Green Arrow – The car clarly fails in WP:GNG, but its basic information could be added in a section of the main article. Svartner (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow. Clearly fails WP:GNG. I agree that the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs could be cited in the main article somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Arrow per others. No standalone notability, but could warrant a mention at the parent article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence of notability. Unlike others, I don't see anything worth moving to the Green Arrow article. There was toy Green Arrowcar produced in 1976, but that doesn't persuade me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow where the name is already mentioned. There is nothing else in the article to merge. Rhino131 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow - Non-notable, pretty trivial element of Green Arrow's history, and there is nothing in the article to merge. While I can't really imagine this being a particularly common search term, as it is at least mentioned on the main Green Arrow article, I have no objection to redirecting there as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 14 March 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.

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mental radio

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

Niche gadget from comics. Pure plot summary. No footnotes. My BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. There are generic 'References' but given the pure plot content, this would need to be written from scratch assuming there is anything of use in them (the references are mostly broken anyway, 404 etc; the one that opened for me did not contain any mention of this concept - [28] - and yes, I clicked through three pages). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 8 March 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV that can provide real-world context, and very little to WP:PRESERVE. Perhaps the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs could be cited and mentioned in some other article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Could perhaps be added as a brief mention in the Wonder Woman article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor piece of comic book trivia that fails the WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, the references listed in the article that are still available do not mention the device, and searches are turning up nothing but the most trivial of mentions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG. The references don't add to the notability of the subject at all. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 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.

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 keep, in light of the sourcing provided by BennyOnTheLoose. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holly (Red Dwarf)

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

Long plot summary and next to no relevance to the real world. No reception, no analysis, just a brief section on actors who played that role. My BEFORE yielded nothing useful (character's generic name does not help...). Per WP:ATD-R, this could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Red Dwarf characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Powers, Tom (2016). Gender and the Quest in British Science Fiction Television: An Analysis of Doctor Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf and Torchwood has a decent amount of coverage. There is also some background in Howarth, Chris (1993) Red Dwarf: Programme Guide. Red Dwarf Smegazine (April 1992) has an interview with Hayridge. There are also briefer mentions in Tobert Llewellyns' autobiogrpahy; Dessau, Bruce (1992) Red Dwarf; Nazzaro, Joe (1994) The Making of Red Dwarf; and in some other issues of Red Dwarf Smegazine. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Could you add a few sentences to the article, and cite these sources there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Found another source mentioned in the Powers book, but I'm not sure if I can get hold of it: Helford, Elyce Rae. "Reading Masculinities in the 'Post-Patriarchal' Space of Red Dwarf." Foundation: The Review of Science Fiction 64 (1995): 20–31. .Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The index entries for Hilly and Holly in Powers are: Hilly 109, 113, 116; Holly 35, 108–9, 111–13, 115–19, 126, 130, 133, 137–38, 145, 251–52. Howarth pages 40-43 are about Holly specifically and there are other mentions in that book. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for the edits. Can we add a reception or analysis section? Because right now it seems all we have is just some commentary on different actors playing that role. The article "Reading Masculinities in the 'Post-Patriarchal' Space of Red Dwarf" seems to be on ProQuest, and that's should be easy to get through WP:The Wikipedia Library. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sufficient sources identified by BennyOnTheLoose to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILMCHAR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 14 March 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.

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 keep‎ but with no prejudice against a merger. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diving at the 2009 World Aquatics Championships – Women's synchronized 3 metre springboard

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

Unreferenced stub with zero readable text, surely this and the dozens of similar articles could be merged to the main article on the subject? -Samoht27 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. -Samoht27 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Procedurally dubious to pick a random event when there are many other similar ones, for instance from the 2009 World Aquatics Championships. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for two reasons: (1) this singular article from the series shouldn't be singled out (2) the nominator asks for a merger, which is a different discussion Geschichte (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The results list is archived on the Wayback Machine ([29]), and follows the standard of many other swimming events. Svartner (talk) 10:18, 10 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of Sanrio characters#Pekkle (1990). ✗plicit 14:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pekkle

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

Unpopular character with a lot less popularity than others. Merge to List of Sanrio characters. JustAWaddleDee (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears, prima facie, to be an article that would be perfect to redirect to List of Sanrio characters#Pekkle (1990); all the sourced information currently at the article is also at that list entry. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is, because i moved everything there when i nominated it. I am JustAWaddleDee (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sanrio characters per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 15 March 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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Croatia

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

Per source assessment table here, none of the sources have demonstrated WP:GNG notability of this subject.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bri
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://theperfectmiss.com/miss-universe-croatia-2024-zrinka-coric/	Fansite, impossible to determine true independence	SPS fansite is presumed non-reliable		✘ No
https://www.cromoda.com/ovo-je-andrea-erjavec-miss-universe-hrvatske-2023	~ Probably independent media, published by "CMD Media" with what appears to be a legitimate physical address in Zagreb.	~ Difficult to assess reliability of "online fashion portal"; article referenced is unsigned by any author.	~ The source discusses one year's event directly but with light detail.	~ Partial
https://www.jutarnji.hr/scena/domace-zvijezde/arijana-podgajski-19-je-nova-miss-universe-hrvatske-pogledajte-veliku-fotogaleriju-s-prestiznog-natjecanja-15201330	Jutarnji list is legitimate medium	Presumed reliable	Photos and light bios of some contestants in caption format; no significant detail wrt notability of the contest.	✘ No
http://www.croatiaweek.com/photo-miss-universe-croatia-2017-crownedcrowned/	Presumed independent online media	Presumed reliable online media	Merely photos and captions, max 8 sentences. No significant detail wrt notability.	✘ No
https://tkop.org/2016/04/15/barbara-filipovic-miss-universe-croatia-2016/	Fansite, impossible to determine true independence	SPS fansite is presumed non-reliable (see consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources)		✘ No
http://www.index.hr/xmag/clanak/miss-universe-2010-lana-obad-u-las-vegasu-pokazala-isklesano-tijelo/506831.aspx	Media source presumed to be independent.	~ Index.hr "online tabloid" not a first choice for encyclopedic reliability.	Four sentences about the pageant, three sentences about the country's contestant's "chiseled body". No significance wrt notability of the pageant.	✘ No
https://www.croatiaweek.com/miss-universe-croatia-breaks-arm-runner-up-off-to-vegas/	Presumed independent online media	Presumed reliable online media	Tiny article about one contestant replacing another due to injury. No significance wrt notability.	✘ No
https://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2016/03/18/miss-universe-croatia-2016-meet-contestants/	Fansite, impossible to determine independence	SPS fansite presumed non reliable		✘ No
Miss Universe Croatia instagram (source #7, #9 through 29, and #31 through 49)	Org's own social media about the pageant they own	Social media presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF statements such as factual note of year's pageant winners.	No Instagram post is detailed enough to support notability.	✘ No
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}}.

The vast majority of the sources are the pageant's instagram or fansites; only two or three sources are legitimate media, and of those, there is no in-depth coverage. I have relied on some machine translation to assess, but it's apparent that most of the legitimate media stories are just photo spreads of attractive humans. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Almost every country that has a Miss U. Beauty pageant has a page. See category. Plenty of coverage on this, btw. -Mushy Yank. 15:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Can you provide 2-3 examples of the in depth RS coverage that you say exists? Without it, the closer will probably treat your reply as a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is non-persuasive. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so because I am not saying Other Stuff Exists. What I am saying is: this is part of a whole. But OK.

There is a lot of coverage on individual wins (See numerous News results in Croatia Week (in English), for example, or coverage including but not only consisting of interviews), example 1: https://www.croatiaweek.com/video-miss-universe-croatia-reveals-her-national-costume-and-evening-dress/ or this on the pageant 2024 https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/ovo-je-nova-miss-universe-hrvatske/2562658.aspx (the penultimate paragraph mentioning a trend in those pageants, that now include married contestants can be judged of interest from a sociological point of view).

There are articles in the people/fashion press that list the winners (addressing the subject as a set) example 2: https://www.tportal.hr/magazin/clanak/ljeto-je-pred-nama-evo-gdje-ce-ga-provesti-najljepse-hrvatice-20160620 (see also https://www.tportal.hr/tag/miss-universe-hrvatske).

There is also regional Croatian coverage such as the articles listed here (from Slobodna Dalmacija ) https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/tag/miss-universe-hrvatske

Yes a lot of that coverage uses interviews and profiles with pictures but I don't think you can avoid that.

This article in Gloria about the 2020 pageant: https://www.gloria.hr/gl/scena/zvjezdane-staze/izbor-bez-publike-poljubaca-i-suza-pobjednica-miss-universe-hrvatske-je-mirna-naiia-maric-10090528 Example 2, is decent, though.

Other (numerous) bylined articles that can be considered acceptable sources (although not great journalism) include things like https://www.nacional.hr/foto-finalistice-natjecanja-miss-universe-hrvatske-u-kupacim-kostimima/ (In Nacional) I will make that Exhibit 3.

There is coverage in 24sata, Jutarnji list, Narodni list and so on, so I suppose this is can be considered a nationally significant event.

That's in English and Croatian.

But you have also Croatian sources in Italian: https://lavoce.hr/cultura-e-spettacoli/mia-e-miss-croazia (for example).

There is in other words a lot more to source each and every information in the article (and/or to have those that will remain unsourced removed). Cleanup might be required.

You can also consider this as a list (that has a navigational interest). -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/croatia/item/6626-ivana-trump-visits-croatia-for-miss-universe-pageant: and Miss Universe Croatia too had Trump for president. -Mushy Yank. 00:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comment above, — Maile (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as dubrovniktimes and croatiaweek, croatiaweek etc. Drushrush (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is WP:SIGCOV demonstrated with some ease. Svartner (talk) 10:22, 10 March 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.

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 14:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidsguide

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

Could not establish WP:GNG. Sources I could find are interviews with the owner (1, 2, 3). I found the magazine online here which seems to be a free tourist/activity guide. Was previously tagged PROD so I didn’t go that route. Nothing links to page besides 2 redirects. Matthew Yeager (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source in the article are two broken links and a blog. Searching further, there's this article from a local paper, this from what I think is another local paper. These seem to be the same sources the nom linked above, and I'm a little confused why they're being glossed as just interviews, but given that they both seem to be local papers I think this is insufficient for GNG regardless. It was founded in 1986, so it seems plausible there are offline sources that a good search in newspaper databases could pull up, but as is delete. Rusalkii (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources provided by the last user aren't nothing, but are local and brief. Not much else found other than the magazine itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:14, 8 March 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.

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 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Prodromou

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

Fails WP:GNG. Promotional content. All of the sources are not adequate for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. According to the article history: AProdromou and Papastavrou are violating CoI guidelines. Please examine A Prodromou's talk page (Sophia Papastavrou). Therefore, I doubt that there is a violation of CoI policy here. Regards, Kadı Message 12:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cyprus, and Greece. Kadı Message 12:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:25, 12 March 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.

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 12:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Noelle Mogavero

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Coverage provided in article is insufficient. This article was originally a draft that a user self-promoted with significant formatting issues that I PROD'd, but the PROD was removed so I'm upgrading to a deletion discussion. seefooddiet (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. seefooddiet (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hatting UPE comments

Keep: Whitney Noelle Mogavero meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG) through significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. She has been cited in multiple independent media sources, including New York Post, Cottages & Gardens, and Mansion Global, for her work in designing luxury homes in high-profile locations such as The Hamptons, Palm Beach, and Upstate New York. These publications are independent, reputable, and widely recognized in the real estate industry:

Gould, Jennifer. New York Post (June 2023) Giordano, Anne. Cottages & Gardens (July 2023) Cary, Bill. Mansion Global (July 2023) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slshlee (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Mogavero co-founded Refoodee, a non-profit initiative aimed at empowering refugees through the hospitality industry. Refoodee’s launch at the UN Headquarters on World Refugee Day further solidifies her notable contributions in the nonprofit sector. She founded Conejo Student Outreach, a nonprofit benefiting at-risk youth, covered in The Acorn (July 2003).aaronlewis3207 — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT. If this was paid for, the subject was ripped off. There are typos, no allegation of notability in the lead, poor formatting that's stylistically a nightmare, and poor sourcing with all the classic deprecated sources like the New York Post and PRWire. If this was written in comic sans, it would make more sense. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 8 March 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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaur B (Singer)

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are from unreliable sources and demonstrate that the subject has been to Niagra Falls, bought a car and performed at a wedding. Searches (in English) could not find anything better. The current version has been draftified twice by experienced editors and returned to mainspace by its author with no improvement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources about her, many from the Times of India at https://www.google.com/search?q=kaur-b+-cricket ash (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this article was kept, kindly move this page to Kaur B as this current title includes unnessesary disambiguator. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. 3 sources on the page, one is about picture with some newlyweds, second about buying a car and the third is unreliable source. No secondary independent reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the musician and career. No coverage if any single or album made it on any country's national music chart. No notability about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article certainly needs work but a quick google search as well as an Apple music search suggest notability could be established. Ash (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article revised to add a career section and some details of career, and 8 sources. ash (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having reviewed all the new sources provided, I cannot see that they add anything significant to notability or alter my view that the article should be deleted. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything will then. Because I addressed all the issue in your original comment (i) the new sources aren't fatuous like the original three (ii) I've noted there are numerous mentions about her in the Times of India over a sustained period and (ii) in 30 minutes, I beefed the article up where you said two other experienced editors hadn't. But, in any event, why was this article AfD'd the same day it was created? ash (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis.
- Source 1 Tribune India. Non independent routine news about "quarantine’ sticker pasted outside house".
- Source 2 TOI. Non independent about Subject posting in her social media about "Buys New Wheels".
- Source 3 india.com. unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
- Source 4 TOI. Non independent with subject sharing on her social media "Shares Cheerful Pictures And Video With The Newly-Weds".
- Source 5 sbs.com.au. Non independent routine news about subject's allegations "mistreated and “humiliated” at a recent meet and greet session in Melbourne".
- Source 6 TOI. Non-independent announcement news, sharing subject's Instagram post, on "Kaur B to sing a Haryanvi song".
- Source 7. TOI. Non independent announcement news, sharing subject's Instagram post, on Kaur B and True-Skool coming together for a single.
- Source 8. Newspapers com. Promotional poster image.
- Source 9. Fusion festival. Promotional poster about an event.
- Source 10. TOI. YouTube video of subject's song.
- Source 11. TOI. YouTube video of subject's song.

Reviewing shows that the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the subject with no secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RangersRus and Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per User:RangersRus Subject does not meet basic criteria for WP:N; No significant contribution to their field. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variety312 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 March 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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gray (athlete)

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

Declined prod. Could not find in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. I could find a one lone mention which is probably him as an athletics coach. [30] LibStar (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Belize. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as there is no WP:SIGCOV. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An also-ran who trailed a minute behind the world elite, did not even belong to the Central American elite, no significant coverage which is an unequivocal requirement. Geschichte (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my improvements to the article. With great respect, significant coverage linked in the article has never been an unequivocal requirement. The reason why we have WP:NEXIST is because if the sources are out there, which tend to exist even for third-rate Olympians, then an article can stand. In this case, I've found lots of relevant information and improved the article accordingly. Subject was a Hunter College hall-of-fame athlete and national record holder with numerous articles in the NY press about him. I know there's more out there than what I found, for example we know for a fact that the WNYW (Channel 5) news station covered the subject in video interviews somewhat recently per Olympedia but I can't find that yet.

Pinging User:ScrabbleTiles and User:Geschichte to take a look at the new sources. --Habst (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the excellent work done by Habst. It seems he may have also been the president of the Belize Athletic Association (per the linked article, which describes an "Ian Gray" being named president in 2010) and his (apparent) presidency received a story in The Guardian, but it looks to be a deadlink now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the excellent WP:HEY efforts. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:HEYed by Habst. Svartner (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Good worker done by Habst. The person looks notable after WP:HEY. Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahr Kendor

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

Declined prod with very weak reason "Sounds a notable athlete". Could not find coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sierra Leone. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD was declined by what seems like a good faith IP editor who, by evidence of their contributions, seems to have some knowledge of global athletics. Why did they consider the athlete notable? Do they have access to sources? I would oppose deletion until these questions are answered at least. --Habst (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you support keep, please provide sources as per normal practice in AfD. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a normal practice, but not a necessary one. I searched for sources when this was PRODed and couldn't find any, but as with many of your recent AfDs I doubt the sources that covered the subject are digitized. --Habst (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As shown in other AfDs, articles are kept when sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics. Yue🌙 23:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics where his "did not advance" heat result is noted. A stand-alone article can't be supported here because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62, that only describes what's necessary to fulfill WP:NSPORT, not WP:GNG. There's a policy, WP:NEXIST, that would make a keep !vote theoretically justifiable if a good case for why coverage exists can be made.

In this case, I would say qualifying for the Olympics in three different events (or earning selection by SLAA in three events) is pretty exceptional, especially for a Sierra Leonean athlete. There are newspapers in Sierra Leone that likely would have covered that. --Habst (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. The one-SIGCOV rule (WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5) was overwhelmingly adopted by the community in direct response to long-term conduct by Lugnuts in mass-creating tens-and-tens-of-thousands (80,000 if memory serves) of one-sentence sport bio sub-stubs sourced to nothing more than a sports database. (Sahr Kendor is one of those Lugnuts sub-stubs.) The new one-SIGCOV rule established an exception to the pre-existing rules whereby sports biographies now "must" have at least one piece of SIGCOV present and accounted for in the article. The language is clear, mandatory, and unequivocal. These mass-created sub-stubs were deemed an embarrassment to the project and especially to the hard-working editors of substantive sports biographies with actual encyclopedic content. A redirect preserves the sub-stub content so that it can be revived if and when someone finds and adds SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits -- I am one of those hard-working editors of substantive sports biographies with actual encyclopedic content. A lot of my most substantive biographies have actually been created from stubs like this that I would not have noticed if they were redirects, because redirects tend to have much less visibility.

On the policy -- if you're referring to WP:NSPORTS2022, I'm persuaded by the argument that "SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule.", as said by the creator of that consensus. Every article is judged on its own merits -- you are free to disagree that the NEXIST rationale is convincing, and in most cases (to be frank) it isn't. But it's still a valid policy rationale for exceptional cases and I think this could be one of them.

I say this with great respect for your contributions, by the way. --Habst (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspect you know, I didn't "create the consensus". The community reached the consensus -- and did so by a significant margin. As for the Vehmeier AfD, my comment had nothing whatsever to do with your contention that NEXIST can somehow "trump" SPORTBASIC. To the contrary, it had to do with a massive rewrite by BeanieFan who found mutliple borderline SIGCOV sources such that the article could suvive under BASIC. I stand by that rationale. But in this case, there is zero SIGCOV and not even any borderline SIGCOV that has been presented. In such cases, "delete" or "redirect" are the only outcomes that are consistent with the community consensus. I favor "redirect" over "delete". Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. BeanieFan found abundant sourcing (over 25 of them) with real substance to expand the Fred Vehmeier article, and it is now rated as a "Good" article. My "keep" vote there in no way supports a similar result for this one-database-sourced substub. If you or someone else is able to find similar sourcing for Sahr Kendor, I will gladly change my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, when I was linking that I didn't put two and two together realize that you were the one who actually said that. So you can take your deserved "do you know who I am?" moment and I'll take the WP:TROUT on that one. And I should have said "creator of the proposal" rather than consensus which of course is never created by one person.

I still have difficulty squaring the two guidelines, especially for Olympians whose primary impact is sometimes more political / diplomatic in nature than sport-related. For example, one could imagine a case where Alan Turing could be written up as a sports figure – would that mean a harsher set of rules applies to him than other scientists who never participated in sport? And likewise for some Olympians who are known primarily for being slow rather than for their sporting accomplishments per se? I'm interested in exploring these scenarios further some time. --Habst (talk) 21:08, 13 March 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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banksathi

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

Falls well short of WP:NCORP. The sources provide only trivial coverage and fail to meet the significant coverage requirement. Yuvaank (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed, no sign of notability. Previously draftified, and subsequently moved back to main space by the author, so bringing this to AfD was the only option. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. Even the reference from Entrepreneur is unreliable as its contributor content. Was going to take to AfD myself but was waiting on COI clarification from page creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given sources are not independent in my opinion and lacks. Article appears not written from NPOV. Nothing more than Deletion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BankSathi meets the criteria for notability under WP:NCORP. The company has received significant coverage in reputable financial news sources, including reports of a potential acquisition by InsuranceDekho, indicating market significance. BankSathi's $7.63 million in seed funding, with investors such as Kotak Securities, LetsVenture, Kunal Shah, Nithin Kamath, and Gaurav Munjal, is documented by Tracxn and multiple news articles, demonstrating substantial investment and industry recognition. Furthermore, its operations, involving a network of over 700,000 financial advisors and its role in financial product distribution and literacy, are discussed in sources like CXOToday, providing evidence of its impact and scope. These elements collectively establish BankSathi's notability through significant coverage and industry recognition. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a case for inherent notability. Instead, please point out which sources are available that meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BankSathi meets WP:ORGCRIT through sustained, independent coverage in reliable sources:

Acquisition & Growth – Covered by Economic Times^[1], Business Standard, Inc42^[2]. Funding & Investments – Reported by Tracxn, LiveMint^[3], The Hindu Business Line^[4]. Industry Impact – Analyzed by CXOToday^[5], CNBC^[6]. These sources offer significant, in-depth coverage beyond routine mentions, establishing the subject's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalwakchaure1992 (talk • contribs)

References

^ Rag, Ajay (2024-06-04). "InsuranceDekho in talks to acquire credit marketplace BankSathi: sources". The Economic Times. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2025-03-09.
^ Paintola, Bhupendra (2024-06-04). "InsuranceDekho In Final Talks To Pick Up Majority Stake In BankSathi: Report". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2025-03-09.
^ Ramarathinam, Ashwin (2021-05-17). "Fintech startup BankSathi raises $200K in seed funding from angel investors". mint. Archived from the original on 2023-07-24. Retrieved 2025-03-09.
^ Bureau, Our (2021-05-17). "BankSathi raises $200K in seed round from angel investors". BusinessLine. Retrieved 2025-03-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Raju, Narasimha (2022-07-21). "Fostering financial literacy by Banksathi". CXOToday.com. Retrieved 2025-03-09.
^ "Startup Digest: Meta preparing for large-scale layoffs: Report, Twitter fires over 90% of India staff: Report & upGrad to invest $30M to launch 10 global campuses - CNBC TV18". CNBCTV18. 2022-11-07. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

It can be difficult to assess ORGCRIT as an editor with very little experience on Wikipedia so hopefully I can provide some insight on the sourcing you provided.

1. The Economic Times is a good source but it is churnalism. It is a routine announcement which does not meet ORGCRIT. The headline is the most telling when it start with "InsuranceDekho in talks to acquire credit....." This indicates that an announcement was made and that The Economic Times is simply regurgitating what was in the release. This can be confirmed by using the term "insurancedekho banksathi" is Google where you will see dozens of the same on the same date regurgitating the same.

2. Inc 42 is the same as above. Same date, similar headline, and just more churnalism.

3. Mint, questionable source but let's assume it is reliable. The article talks about funding and is routine, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. They also raised $200K which is not only insugnificant, but kind of embarassing for a company to report such a minor amount. If companies were notable for raising $200K, just about every company would qualify for a Wikipedia page.

4. The Hindu Business Line, falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is not bylined and clearly churnalism as it duplicates the announcement is reference 3 above.

5. CXO Today is a blog with no editorial oversight. It is also an interview so not WP:INDEPENDENT. That aside, the opening prior to the Q&A is something that looks like it was provided directly by the company.

6. CNBC TV 18, this is absolutely a routine announcement. The entire article is about things that took place on that day in the market. There are three paragraphs that discuss the company and it is just an announcement of adding languages. It is also churnalism as a search found all these sources which regurgitate the same announcement.

Unfortunately, these do not come near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41Banksathi demonstrates potential notability through the operation of its financial product distribution platform and backing from investors such as Kotak Securities and Kunal Shah. The company has received coverage in prestigious sources including The Economic Times, Livemint and BusinessLine. To confirm notability according to WP:GNG, these sources should be examined to ensure that they provide independent, significant coverage beyond routine announcements. The company's large network of financial advisors suggests a significant presence in the fintech sector. Further analysis of the sources is necessary to determine whether they meet the criteria for reliable, independent coverage, and provide significant coverage of the topic. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a full analysis of the sources, including the ones you supplied above. None of the sources I find (or that you presented) add up to significant coverage via WP:ORGCRIT. On a side note, can you show me in WP:NCORP where is notability is established by "the operation of its financial product distribution......?" That wording alone is promotional and looks like it came direct from the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Regarding WP:ORGCRIT, the article cites coverage from reputable financial news outlets like The Economic Times

(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/fintech-firm-banksathi-raises-4-million-as-pre-series-a-round/articleshow/96847019.cms),

Livemint : (https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/fintech-startup-banksathi-raises-200k-seed-funding-round-from-angel-investors-11621230431214.html),

The Times of India : (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/kotak-securities-invests-rs-5-cr-in-fintech-startup-banksathi/articleshow/96890438.cms),

and BusinessLine (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/banksathi-raises-200k-in-seed-round-from-angel-investors/article34579863.ece), which provide substantial information on BankSathi's funding rounds, operational scope, and market position. Specifically, funding rounds involving investors like Kotak Securities, alongside coverage of their business model and market reach, contributes to demonstrating notability. For Example, the Economic times articles detail the funding rounds and the companies market position.

As to WP:NCORP, notability is established by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not solely by the nature of the company's operations. The phrase "financial product distribution" describes the company's core business, as confirmed by these independent sources. The wording is derived from information within the cited articles. The articles cited provide information about the companies core business, and funding, which are the primary drivers of notability. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I have never seen a company page kept at AfD simply for its financials. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your experience, WP:ORGCRIT explicitly includes financial impact as a notability criterion. Therefore, dismissal based solely on that premise is inconsistent with the guideline MH-wiki2025 (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MH-wiki2025, which line mentions that? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira🐉, WP:ORGCRIT states, 'The organization's products or services have had a significant and demonstrable impact on the economy...' Financial impact is a subset of economic impact. While the guideline doesn't use the explicit phrase 'financial impact,' it is implied within the economic impact criterion MH-wiki2025 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is implied here and you have just contradicted yourself. If you want to change the guideline to include "financial impact as a notability criterion", you should start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We only have interviews and sources about funding and acquisitions related to the subject. Nothing independent nor WP:SUBSTANTIAL about Banksathi anywhere. Existing sources fail the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 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.

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 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date and time notation in New Zealand

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

Article is just original research except for one government style guide. I can't find any good sources for this article except for a few style guides but they represent what their organisation does instead of the entire country. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there doesn't appear to be anything beyond surface level information such as what is used, no sources discussing the history, changes etc. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 12 March 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.

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 12:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boulder Creek (Idaho)

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

Article about a small local creek, not properly sourced as passing WP:GEONATURAL. As always, geographic features don't get automatic notability freebies just for existing, and have to have some substance that can be written about them, with WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it. But this just states that the creek exists, lists a bunch of fish and is supported entirely by primary sourcing that isn't support for notability.
Also, this has already been sequestered in draftspace by an established editor for not being good enough yet, before being moved back into articlespace by its creator without significant improvement -- but "this creek exists and has fish in it" is not, in and of itself, "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to say a lot more than this, or from having to cite better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a run-of-the-mill creek. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that I have turned up so far has turned out to be about either the Potlatch Lumber Company or the Clearwater National Forest. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 9 March 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.

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 redirect‎ to Mafia (video game). ✗plicit 12:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Angelo (Mafia)

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

A fictional character with no proven encyclopedical notability. Possible alternatives are redirect to Mafia (video game) or draftify. FromCzech (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. FromCzech (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the game. There is some coverage of casting/recasting this role, but it does not seem very reliable/in-depth. And this is just a stub (substub, even). Neither the content nor sources cited make a good case for this needing to be a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. The sources don't make the case for a stand-alone article, and this fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mafia (video game) per Piotrus and others. No indication of notability, and no illustration of it in sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Mafia (video game) has notability, this sub-article/character doesn't. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus. Fails WP:GNG Gauravs 51 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 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.

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 keep‎. The sources haven't been contested, and a current lack of citations isn't a reason for deletion (WP:NEXIST; WP:ATD-E). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Kids (album series)

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#For the Kids (2002 album). Article was subject to a BLAR in May 2024, and is completely unsourced. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no references could be added. Jay 💬 09:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the nominations claim this was not completely unsourced. It had two allmusic reviews, one was broken but I have updated it. Add the Billboard source from the Redirect for Discussion and you have coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And add [31] and [32] and [33] and reviewed in the Daily Oklahoman 29 November 2002. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 5 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!} 05:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Why was this relisted? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there are "still" no references in the article. Probably move to draftspace where it can be enhanced with duffbeer's sources. Jay 💬 10:50, 14 March 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.

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 14:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Al-Asaker

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability.-- فيصل (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 8 March 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.

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. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 14:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Possession (film)

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

Unreferenced film article. Tagged since 2019. Not clear this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources covering this film. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 07:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the page. -Mushy Yank. 09:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Keep, as Mushy Yank has found reliable sources and has added them to the article. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 10:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added things about production and reception, rapidly. More exists. -Mushy Yank. 09:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 09:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thank you Mushy Yank.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Čokor

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

No references found even on searching the google. I think it's not AFD'ed till now because it is an older article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately found two hits on Google (both from the Serbian newspaper Politika ([34], [35]). Also this Croatian encyclopedia: [36]. Based on the way he's described (compared to Tesla by one source), I would be shocked if there weren't more sources on him (perhaps in print). Keep unless a better argument for deletion can be presented (the claim that there are no sources has already been refuted). — Anonymous 03:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. — Sadko (words are wind) 05:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 22:54, 3 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!} 02:54, 8 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Al Mansoori

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability.-- فيصل (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources and info. There is coverage from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021. She is young, but she meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article support notability via WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 8 March 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Abdullah Al-Jaber

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any obvious problems with the sources. Am I missing anything? Bearian (talk) 14:59, 11 March 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.

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 keep‎. asilvering (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vimazoluleka

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- film reviews, evidence of noteworthy film awards, production coverage, that sort of thing.
But the only footnotes here are an article about the director's death which briefly namechecks this film without being about the film in any non-trivial sense (and doesn't even support the statement about the film's postproduction that it's footnoting), a press release from the film's own production studio, and a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get the film over GNG all by itself.
Further, even though the film was released in 2017 according to IMDB and the dating of the footnotes agrees with that, the creator wrote about this as if it were an "upcoming" film slated for release in 2024 -- and although I've corrected that nonsense already, there are other statements here (some completely unsourced, and the postproduction claim that isn't supported by the director's obituary) that may also be in question if they can't be properly verified. (I've also had to remove two other footnotes that had nothing to do with this film at all, and were present solely to falsely assert, because of the misrepresented release date, that it would be a "posthumous" work for cast and crew who died after 2017.)
As most coverage would likely be in Spanish, and the film actually came out long enough ago that the very low number of GNG-worthy Google hits might not be the whole story, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with good access to databases of Venezuelan media coverage from the 2010s can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but especially given that the article contained significant falsehoods that just IMDb alone was able to smoke out, it really needs much better sourcing than it's got right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz. The article needs cleanup. I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En. -Mushy Yank. 05:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it is about a play (or a musical? This is not clear), but the infobox is a film infobox showing the date of the film's release, and full of incorrect info, if this is an article about a stage work. The article is a mishmash of useless and conflicting information, if it is about a stage work, and it contains a bloated table showing the entire film cast, but little information about the stage work's production. It would be better to delete this article and write an article about the play (or musical?) instead that makes some sense. I tried to do some rewriting on the article to reorganize it and try to make sense of it, but all my edits were reverted without, apparently, considering any of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afds are not for cleanup and I am the one who reverted your single edit to it because it was imv detrimental to what I thought was an improvement of the page; I thought that especially during this Afd your edit was making less clear what the page is about and how it is notable. The musical play is notable, and I have, since nomination, made it the primary subject of the page, which your edit made unclear; the film being its adaptation, the fact that it's covered in a section with an infobox does not seem to be a problem that deserves deletion. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think you can argue whether the sources pass sigcov thresholds, but to me it seems like the play meets GNG. The movie might not, but I don't think that's relevant to whether the adaptation is covered or not here in relation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see bunch of online articles in Spanish which are not included within the article and I assume it at least fulfills WP:NBASIC. Here are few examples 1 2 3 4Instant History (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently added sources, and to address the question of whether factual inaccuracies are serious enough to warrant deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recently added sources from @Mushy Yank and @Instant History appear to have enough significant coverage to meet notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can see here that the article was initially started for the musical film and not the theatre play, so it should be treated as such. The sources added in the reception section discuss only the theatre play, not the film and one of them also mentions that the film was not released to the public.
But beyond a few local screenings, such as the one in Puerto Cabello in September 2017, the feature film has not been shown to the public.

From what I can see, the director, Levy Rossel, and the play, Vimazoluleka, are very much notable. If either of those articles are created in the future, information about this unreleased film can be added there. But the absence of those articles at this point does not justify hijacking this article to make it about the play. The film fails WP:NFF and GNG as there are no reviews and insufficient independent sources with significant coverage of its production. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please note that the shift of focus of the article was perfectly clarified (from the start, by me, fwiw) and that the film is based on the play (whose notability seems to be agreed upon) by the same director. Arguing it should be deleted because of such a shift and then recreated (with the same title, I suppose??) is pure and extreme bureaucracy, especially if it is to add a section about the film at the bottom (ie to recreate the article exactly as it is now!!!).-Mushy Yank. 10:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following and enforcing policies and guidelines is not extreme bureaucracy. There is a reason why we have attributions and logs for everything, so it makes no sense to hijack the article in the middle of an XfD and completely rewrite it with a different topic, which also sets a bad precedent. Either way, no one is stopping anyone from creating an article for the play.

Your comment above, Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz and especially I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En, comes across as ignorant of the film's notability. Instead of evaluating and searching for sources for Vimazoluleka (film), you took the easy way out by completely changing the context of the article and making your arguments support the changes you made. Sorry, but this XfD wasn't about the theatre play. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the easy way":D, "hijacking":D "ignorant of the film's notability":D. Etc.....If you say so. It's not as if I had explained myself nor edited the page with a dozen references from books to improve it, is it? "Following and enforcing policies and guidelines is not extreme bureaucracy." What guideline says that if an AfD about a work shifts its focus from that work to the original work it adapted (and that is, on top of it, by the same director and writer) it is "hijacking"? None. It's rather a common and good practice: when findings presented at an Afd allow to understand that an article should be improved and refocused, users can agree upon that. Inviting the closer to have a look at the following recent AfD and pinging @ReaderofthePack, who had precisely contributed to other AfDs in that spirit:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventurer at the Door. The act of refocusing the topic of an AfD (and the present case is not even extreme in that regard) is common practice and not a violation of any guideline; it is also why some AfDs can be closed as Merge/Delete/Rename. And what would set a bad precedent is to delete this and force (me, I suppose) to rewrite it just as it is. That would be bureaucracy of the most extreme and vexatious sort. "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination", says the guideline (only advising rather not to move pages). If users who improved articles or provide sources see that their efforts are discarded with an outright bureaucratic delete, that would be a very bad precedent. (And I did search for sources for the film and check the sources, :D by the way, and only said what I said out of humility, as I did not do so as thoroughly as I would if I hadn't seen the play was very notable). -Mushy Yank. 11:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of this XfD, if the community is okay with an editor changing the focus of an article in an ongoing XfD that is meant to determine whether a topic is notable or not, then I am absolutely fine with it as well. But what’s surprising is that you previously mentioned, "AfDs are not for cleanup", and then proceeded to do exactly that with the entire article. Right now, you have split the article with citation spam in the reception section for the play while the other half focuses on the film. This will likely remain in poor quality for years unless someone with an obscure interest in this topic decides to improve it. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? My (as everyone else's, I assume) references to "AfDs are not for cleanup" are about not nominating/arguing for deletion for cleanup reasons. Cleaning up the page during an AfD, which I do ALL THE TIME, extensively, is normal editing to help improve pages and demonstrate their subjects are notable, and it is, again, a recommended course of action and is even mentioned in almost every AFD template!!!! So that the latter is widely considered one of the correct responses, that demand a lot of efforts, to what a number of users think is an incorrect approach, and the inconsistency you seem to be keen to detect in my input does not appear to be real. The rest of your comment seems to be speculation. If you think the article needs improvements, feel free. If you are not interested in this topic, don't. I will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 13:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have been good to mention the change on the AfD before making it, but ultimately I think Mushy Yank had the right idea here.

I've been searching for the film and offhand, it looks like it was never actually released. It was created and there were plans to release it, then Rossell suffered a stroke in 2017 and died the following year. This article about the death mentions it as not yet released. Now, one of the stage performances was theatrically broadcast but that's a different beast than a film adaptation. A search with the play's name and the actors (but not Rossell's) doesn't bring up much. I found this 2023 article about another film, which briefly mentions the movie. It comes across kind of like it has yet to be released, at least from what I can see via Google Translate.

So this is likely one of two situations: one is that the film was shelved and never released. The other is that it did release, but to no true fanfare. I'm aware that Google doesn't always do well with non-English language sources or non-US/European sourcing, but I feel like there would be some mention somewhere if it released, given the play's popularity. Whichever way it goes, it looks like the film doesn't pass NFILM as it hasn't received enough coverage of the production (that can be found) to show how it passes NFF or if it's released, it doesn't seem to have received any sort of reviews or other coverage to show how it passes NFILM. I think that making this page about the play is the right choice given that otherwise this would likely have ended in a deletion. I do think that Mushy Yank should have mentioned this on the talk page and gotten a thumb's up from another editor first, but I think the end result would have still been inevitable. Of course there's the chance that someone could pop in with a ton of sourcing that makes this pass NFILM, but even in that situation the play seems to be the more notable of the two and should be the one at the non-disambiguated name. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the 2023 source you found refers to the same film but has misattributed it to a different director. You can cross verify the other information about the film here and fwiw, all the latest sources confirm that the film was never released to the public. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alright, what we now have is an article about a play, and its film adaptation. That's fine; the article is entitled Vimazoluleka, not Vimazoluleka (film), and we can hardly call this a hijacked article if one is an adaptation of the other. So: does this play (and/or the film) meet notability guidelines? Is this all such a confusing mess that we need to get out the WP:TNT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Answer to first question. Yes. Even D !votes seem to implicitly admit the play is notable (which would be hard not to admit). Answer to 2nd question: clearly no!! TNT applies when the article content is "useless". -Mushy Yank. 10:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of Mushy Yank's improvements. More information on the play would be extremely useful, but there is (just) enough there to get it over the notability bar. The relation beween the play and the film (whether or not released) is now clear and the film is still dealt with, which preserves continuity with the original poor article (to the extent to which that matters). There is not so much content that it is difficult to treat both in one article, and to do so seems entirely appropriate. TNT is not justified now. Difficult to believe (then again, perhaps not) that anyone could actually interpret "AfD is not cleanup" to mean that articles should not be improved during AfD - nonsense. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though related to the topic, entirely changing the article from a film to a play during an ongoing AfD isn't cleanup but rather a desperate attempt to keep the article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't, at the very worst it's overloading focus on production inspiration at a film article, but since it's been rewritten while keeping content focus you can't even claim that. Being so negative towards not only valid and much-needed, but also well in scope and DUE, improvements to an article is just a desperate attempt to delete the article. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the quality now. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 11 March 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.

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 no consensus‎. If it was up to me, I'd redirect this but I don't see a consensus for any particular action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Saeluzika

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

Declined prod with vague reason "contest based on pure context'. Normally it is best practice to provide sources when contesting. A search for sources only identified databases. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metres where her sixth place finish in heat 2 is recorded. A stand-alone article can't be supported here because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. I think the PROD decliner was referring to the context of over 100 articles being PRODed last month with the copy/pasted rationale of "Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY" with insufficient research or care for individual articles. The last time this happened, they were all procedurally kept because it was impossible that someone could accurately assess that many articles in that little time.

To expand on the NEXIST rationale, subject was the first ever Olympic women's short sprinter from Malawi. Even though (to my searching ability) the Malawian newspaper archives from the 70s haven't been digitized yet, when they are, we can expect that this would have been covered. WP:N, including NEXIST, has always been senior to subject-specific guidelines (i.e. NSPORT is subordinate to the general notability guideline), so this is a P&G-compliant approach to take. --Habst (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created eight years ago and remains a one-line substub without the required SIGCOV. A redirect will preserve the article history. If SIGCOV is later discovered, from Malawian newspapers or other reliable sources, the article can easily be restored and expanded. Unless and until that happens, the substub fails to comply with SPORTBASIC, prong 5, and should not remain in main space. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62, with lots of respect, this is a common misconception about P&G. NSPORT was only ever intended to be an indicator or minimum standard for which coverage is likely to exist that applies for most sportspeople. But no checklist can ever account for every case, including the first ever Malawian Olympic sprinter. If we can show that the subject meets WP:N (via NEXIST), then NSPORT and NATH will always be subservient to that guideline. This was true both before and after NSPORTS2022.

On a redirect, the issue with redirects is that it's much more likely that a new contributor will edit an existing page versus converting a redirect back to an article. This is of particular importance because Wikipedia has less editors in Africa so the ones who might know the most about the subject will probably be new editors. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The speculations about Malawian media are preposterous. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I have great respect for your contributions but it isn't preposterous at all. Per List of newspapers in Malawi, at least seven Malawian newspapers were operating during Saeluzika's prime including The Daily Times and Malawi Government Gazette. Do you really think that none of those seven newspapers would have published stories about their first ever women's sprinter to qualify for the Olympics? --Habst (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metres : I'm not finding anything that would suggest the WP:GNG is met for this athlete. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've seen a lot of these athletics stubs. Ordinarily I wouldn't say appearing at the Olympics would be sufficient but you don't just go to the Olympics without a backstory. In addition, this appearance might have been particularly notable for her country. I would recommend inviting an interested project (eg. related to Malawi, Africa, African women) to update the article, particularly if more local sources exist. ash (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back your keep !vote? LibStar (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise I had to justify my vote but a quick search reveals that 1972 was the first of only 12 Olympics that Malawi has competed in, she was one of 16 athletes that represented her country that year, and the country has never won a medal. Do you think it might have been notable? ash (talk) 10:58, 12 March 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Ibrahim

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It is highly unlikely that a 2007 Asian champion player would not have WP:SIGCOV in Arabic sources. There is material about the Iraq title even in other languages. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? as per requirements indicated above. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Nothing is Mesopotamian Arabic or Farsi? I don't trust your nomination, I feel it's probably a bias one and I doubt you will even be able to find sources due to language barrier. With the multiple nomination you're doing. I will simply say Procedural keep because I don't trust your process. I am simply going to post on this one. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 AFC Asian Cup squads#Iraq. Giant Snowman 13:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no coverage for this athlete. There is likely some in the native-language media, but I am unable to search them... Happy to revisit if a native speaker can present some sourcing that would help. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From a quick search I have identified a number of sources in Arabic coverage for this player, which I have added to the page. Considering this is a player who has won the AFC Asian Cup in 2007 which is one of the top honours in international football, it would have made much more sense to add a "Sources exist" or equivalent template to the page rather than nominating it for deletion. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is strong coverage of Khaldoun Ibrahim in Arabic sources, which supports his notability. Wikipedia accepts reliable non-English sources, and available coverage clearly shows his importance. Rimesodom (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NSPORT. Herinalian (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by NSPORT, Herinalian? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:07, 8 March 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.

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. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinyere Almona

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

Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Definitely a good LinkedIn business person, but not Wikipedia-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She definitely meets the GNG and SIGCOV criteria. The article just needs improvement. Based on what I found online, she has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in reliable, independent sources, so she easily qualifies. Afro 📢Talk! 12:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly provide the sources you think make her meet GNG, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces will, as I mentioned, "Based on what I found online," as soon as I get back from the health center. Afro 📢Talk! 13:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed! This is an encyclopedia not a LinkdeIn profile therefore, being the Director-General of Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not inherently notable without significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there's been some coverage, it's mostly just unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of significant, independent, and reliable sources. The content relies mainly on self-published materials, promotional sources--LusikSnusik (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry: From a relatively brief search online, there are quite a few sources that mention Almona, including several from publications regarded as "Generally reliable" according to WP:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources (for example, this article from Independent Nigeria, as well as this one from The Nation—although the latter does feel a bit promotional). However, the vast majority of sources only refer to Almona in her capacity as director-general of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), and any interviews (such as one with The Guardian (Nigeria) referred to in this article) only seem to discuss matters related to this role. Her LinkedIn profile lists several other positions and published books, but none of the independent sources I could find mentioned any of these, so it strikes me that she may not meet WP:GNG. Given the extensive coverage of her role as director-general of the LCCI, I think it would be worth merging this article into Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, per WP:WITHIN. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss sourcing identified by Pineapple
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks independent reliable sources. I have found some recent articles which are mostly mentions. Yolandagonzales (talk) 18:51, 8 March 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.

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 Move to draftspace‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyla Avinash

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

Non-notable cricket player, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS on a WP:Before. DWF91 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. Fails to meet WP:NSPORT. No significant coverage about the subject and career in multiple published non-trivial secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The best I found was this [37] and this [38] Also a few sentences here [39] in New Indian Express. These more or less are all written from the single event of him being signed to play for Punjab Kings at the Indian Premier League auction. [40] He may have the potential to get significant coverage soon as the 2025 Indian Premier League starts in just a few weeks, so draftify might be an option here if significant coverage and BLP1E concerns can't be addressed at the moment?Canary757 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Those sources are not enough to pass notability as they are not significant coverage and we cannot keep an article based on assumption that the subject might get significant coverage by participating in an event in the future. Better to delete and in future if the subject gets significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT, then page can be recreated. RangersRus (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus looks clear-ish, but the nominator is now blocked so giving it more eyes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Draftify. New articles published in last few days. This one is clear SIGCOV [41] also [42] a little here [43]. I definitely oppose delete, especially with the 2025 Indian Premier League starting very soon. The article does look like a draft and needs some TLC so I would not oppose a move to drafts if that gets further votes. Canary757 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. It would be better to draft it so that the creator can take more time to improve the article. Baqi:) (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:35, 15 March 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.

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. The merger target has not been created, but if it is happy to provide the history for merger. Star Mississippi 00:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1902 American Medical football team

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This was created as part of a passion project by User:Murphanian777 to create season articles on every team that ever played a football game against Notre Dame. Unfortunately, in the earliest years of the program, Notre Dame scheduled games against non-notable patsies. Such was the case here as Notre Dame beat American Medical by a 92-0 score. Neither of the two sources in the article represent anything even remotely approaching SIGCOV about the American Medical team. Nor did my WP:BEFORE search find any. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should expand the redirect for the Chicago College of Medicine and Surgery. According to this, it looks like it was the medical school of Valparaiso University (actually preceding Valparaiso's football team) until it was purchased by Loyola University Chicago in 1917 and merged with Loyola's medical school (Stritch School of Medicine). There is a picture of the 1903 football team in the 1903 Spalding Football Guide ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom rationale; non-notable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the four American Medical seasons into American Medical football. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOriginal-9, that's not a possible action for an AFD closer as this is the only article that has been tagged for a deletion discussion. Articles can only be merged to an existing article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 11 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Saraswati Secondary School

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

Not a notable school. The only source provided is website of school. Rahmatula786 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I can't find more than one reliable independent source for it. Ultraodan (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources. Note that searches for this will have lots of false positives, since Saraswati, the Hindu / Jain / Buddhist goddess of wisdom and education, is the namesake of many schools across the subcontinent. Ping me if you find independent reliable sources about this school. Bearian (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete but I'm worried that we might be missing coverage in Nepalese sources, since Nepalese uses a non-latin script. If this one is deleted, we may need to take a closer look at Category:Secondary schools in Nepal which contains quite a few articles that have similarly weak sourcing, e.g. Himalaya Higher Secondary School, Damak, Jhapa or Damak Model Higher Secondary School. Pichpich (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor one source on the page that is not secondary independent. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 12 March 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE/flex

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

This computer program does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT. Of the five sources in the article, one is written by the article creator, Robert van Engelen, and thus not independent coverage; another is a brief passing mention; and the three book sources have no mention of the program since they were published before it was created. My WP:BEFORE does not turn up any better sources. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Software. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's mentioned in a few papers, e.g. [44], [45] (note the second one is a bachelor's thesis which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) but this doesn't amount to significant coverage. I note that the project creator has made arguments on the talk page that are not based on our notability guidelines. Being used in other non-notable software systems is not an indicator of notability, same with Github stars. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:08, 8 March 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.

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 Closed. This is a mess, and it's not going to be closed as anything other than that. I've re-started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south with all of the seemingly relevant latitude articles tagged. Meridians will be a separate discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Parallels and Meridians

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

Fails WP:RELIABLE and WP:NGEO. As a note this discussion is to serve as discussion for deletion of all parallels and meridians ~~EXCEPT for those that do not fail RELIABLE and NGEO~~. Previous discussion occurred here.

Please note that I have added the AFD template to one parallel and one meridian, each picked at random, as adding the templates to every page would be quite onerous. If someone with the appropriate tools to do so could add the correct templates, that would be immensely helpful.

Delectopierre (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep While some of these integral lines of latitude and longitude are less important than others, taken as a whole, this collection of articles provides a useful almanac of geographical information.

Per WP:NGEO, "legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable". All of these lines have population living on them, and all appear in countless atlases and globes. Many of the lines are used to define international or subnational borders, oceanographic regions, and treaty lines.

Integral lines of latitude and longitude are mentioned throughout Wikipedia, and the ability to provide context to that text by wikilinking to these articles is invaluable. Deletion would leave a lot of red links in its wake. Some examples:

Iraq: "Iraq lies between latitudes 29° and 38° N, and longitudes 39° and 49° E".

Tuna: "Thunnus are widely but sparsely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, generally in tropical and temperate waters at latitudes ranging between about 45° north and south of the equator."

Hellas Sat: "...an Astrium Eurostar E2000+, which was launched successfully on 13 May 2003 to the 39th eastern meridian orbital position in the geostationary satellite orbit."

Are the articles unsourced? No. Although many do not contain normal references, each contains coordinate links (e.g. 38°37′N 65°0′E / 38.617°N 65.000°E) which point directly to Geohack, itself linking to numerous reliable mapping services. Note that some of these articles used to contain a reference to MSN Maps (now Bing), but I was persuaded that this didn't meet WP:EL criteria and qualified as spam (though I disagree somewhat with that latter point). The Geohack links remain as indexes to reliable sources, although I admit that they don't really look like references. Suggestions for addressing this would be welcome.

Are the articles WP:OR? No. All of the information is verifiable from commonly available reference material, i.e. atlases or on-line mapping sites. The information was translated from one format (cartographic) to another (textual). However, it's certainly not original thought, analysis or synthesis.

Do the articles need some attention and tidying up? Yes, but that's not a reason to delete.

The arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east by User:Nyttend and others may provide further context for keeping the articles. See also here, here, and here.

Bazonka (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these lines have population living on them Does this argument hold up under WP:COMMONNAME? For example, there's already an Iraq article, as you know.

Delectopierre (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of the relevance of WP:COMMONNAME to my WP:NGEO argument. They don't seem to be related. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up common name because of your point about e.g. Iraq. Yes, people live between latitudes 29° and 38° N, and longitudes 39° and 49° E. And that's one way to describe their ___location. But the common name of their ___location is Iraq, is it not? Delectopierre (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq article is titled by its common name. I still don't understand the relevance of this to the discussion. The reason I quoted from the Iraq article was to give an example of references to latitude and longitude articles which would become red links if they're deleted. Bazonka (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: this discussion is to serve as discussion for deletion of all parallels and meridians EXCEPT for those that do not fail RELIABLE and NGEO. No, it doesn't, because WP:MULTIAFD has not been followed. Only one article has been nominated, only one set of editors has been informed. There is no list of affected articles in this nomination, so we don't even know which articles you deem to "fail RELIABLE and NGEO". This is an AFD for the single article 113th meridian east and no other article, and if you want to delete other articles you'll need to get consensus for that separately. Kahastok talk 21:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: the point added to the statement later. I don't care if it would be onerous. If you want to delete a batch, you needed to template every single article and you need to list them all per WP:MULTIAFD. We still don't know which articles you think are affected by this AFD. And if the question is whether we should delete a random list of articles without knowing what articles we're deleting, the only possible answer is strong keep. Kahastok talk 22:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, my apologies for editing after you left your comment. It wasn't intended to be a stealth edit or anything like that, I just wasn't yet done adding all the information.
    Second, I'll clarify that this AFD is intended to include all pages in the category titled in the pattern "xxnd/xxth meridian east/west" and pages in the category "xxnd/xxth parallel south/north". Delectopierre (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the meridians and parallels in those categories are clearly notable and sourced, e.g. 49th parallel north and 100th meridian west, so they presumably fall within your "EXCEPT for those that do not fail RELIABLE and NGEO" exception. But how are we to know which others this applies to? Bazonka (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was imprecise in my language, my apologies. I retract that part of the template. I was trying to anticipate something that may or may not happen and got sloppy. Delectopierre (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the proposal is now worded to encompass all latitude and longitude articles, including those that are undeniably notable. There's no way that this will be agreed. Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep this is a malformed AfD and needs to be closed and re-opened. I'd also support keeping when it does. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would you suggest it be opened, correctly? Delectopierre (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll need to identify all meridians and parallels that fall within the scope of your argument, and tag each of them. You could list them separately, or it would probably be better to follow WP:BUNDLE. Bazonka (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: This may well go down as yet another example of how not to bundle AfD. In addition to the tagging and notification failures (another bundled nomination in a different topic area, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPBJ, ended in procedural keep just a week or so ago in part for that very reason), I'm compelled to point out that Category:Circles of latitude contains 186 articles, and Category:Meridians (geography) contains 399. Even factoring out those articles that clearly would not fall under the nominator's all pages in the category titled in the pattern "xxnd/xxth meridian east/west" and pages in the category "xxnd/xxth parallel south/north" criterion, even a "proper" bundling, with all the tags and notifications done, would appear to still mean a single nomination for well over 500 articles. That would inevitably present a procedural keep in and of itself just for being a trainwreck. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoral elections, which netted a rather unique result that effectively translates to "procedural keep", proposed deleting 241 articles—fewer than the entire meridians category alone—and was too enormous for XfDcloser to handle). I'm not even getting into how the header implies this is a nomination for Parallels and Meridians, an article that only ever existed as a (completely unrelated) G11'd spam article in 2016. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the creation of these articles without consensus or any evidence of notability (or in most cases even any reliable sources) was, in itself, a "trainwreck" which has been sitting there for the past 15 years.

Do you have some examples of successful bundled deletions of hundreds of non-notable stub articles, so that the submitter can make the appropriate procedural fixes? –jacobolus (t) 04:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good argument these might be notable/encyclopaedic, though, and they've never been deleted as far as I know at AfD, though that was over a decade ago now. I certainly will !vote keep in any discussion as I think these are acceptable articles you'd find in a gazetteer or almanac. SportingFlyer T·C 05:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you to find a gazetteer or almanac with entries like this. –jacobolus (t) 06:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of books and other sources exist that contain this information. They are called atlases. The only difference is that these represent the data cartographically, whereas here we're representing it textually, but it's exactly the same information. Consider accessibility: a blind person may not be able to interpret a map, but they could use a screen reader to access the information via these articles. Bazonka (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, "cities by latitude" or "cities by longitude" bring up many different sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of books and other sources exist that contain this information. They are called atlases.

WP:NGEO plainly states A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps

Aren't atlases just collections of maps? Delectopierre (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but you could also look at them as being collections of geographic information in cartographic form. Bazonka (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like calling a calf's tail a leg gives it five legs, rather than four. Delectopierre (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unusual and amusing analogy, which would fit the situation better if maps didn't actually contain geographic information. Bazonka (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd catch-22 – you can't nominate just one article because it's part of a large set that shouldn't be incomplete, and you can't nominate the set because there's so many articles in it and is inherently a trainwreck. No, we can absolutely discuss hundreds of closely related and structurally similar articles together, a trainwreck is when the pages are dissimilar and have clearly different content/sourcing/levels of notability. Regardless of the nominator's difficulty in properly setting up the AFD and that many people may obviously vote to keep on the merits, this is a topic that can certainly be discussed, though perhaps better with merge/redirect targets proposed. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There does need to be a better process. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer I, too, believe the process isn't great. @Reywas92 Thank you for recognizing the catch-22 introduced above.

To both (and to anyone else reading this): if you have a suggestion for a better way to have this discussion, I'm all ears. I attempted to create it to the best of my ability without going through hundreds of pages individually. Delectopierre (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:AutoWikiBrowser to tag them all. I suggest you come up with ways to improve List of circles of latitude/Meridian (geography) so you can recommend a redirect or merge vote and the responses aren't all over the place. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 Thank you. I haven't used WP:AutoWikiBrowser but will take a look.

Regarding the second sentence - I don't think I understand what you mean about ways to improve those articles. Could you please clarify? Delectopierre (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trainwreck is how cumbersome, or apparently impossible, it is for Wikipedia procedures to handle batch deletions. People who don’t routinely open AFDs (or any referenda) don’t know how to deal with the bureaucracy despite doing their best to interpret instructions and so, by default, waste their own time, waste other people’s time, and lose the battle by default regardless of the battle’s merits. If the intent is to maintain a poor status quo, I can’t think of a more effective method. Strebe (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Frankly, the alternative would probably be a bigger train wreck. Imagine if someone were to take the time to tag each of the pages individually and there was discussion across hundreds of individual articles. That would be a real train wreck. Delectopierre (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anti-bureaucratic DELETE the lot The example article is utter trivia, as is to be expected of imaginary lines drawn arbitrarily on the surface of the planet. Yes the equator in notable, as are the two tropics, because they are defined by astronomic motion; and the 0 meridian has a notable history. The other integer-valued meridians and parallels are not any more important than the values between them, and these are perfect examples of the kind of space-filling articles that get written because they can. And as for all the procedural stuff, WP:ISNOTABUREAUCRACY. This is good enough a venue to discuss the whole set as a group; fussing over the niceties is coming across as an attempt to ensure that the matter cannot be discussed at all. Go ahead and discuss things on their merits and ignore all the time-wasting legalism above. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not - the entire purpose of AfD is to advertise the potential deletion, which has not happened here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delectopierre, why have you listed Parallels and Meridians as the subject of this AFD, this article was deleted in 2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My choices were to leave the subject as 113th meridian east, or give it a more general title. Neither seemed 100% correct, but I felt that the general title better represented what this AFD is for. I've tried to follow the instructions to the best of my ability, but if changes need to be made, please let me know. Delectopierre (talk) 02:33, 11 March 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.

[1] Rag, Ajay (2024-06-04). "InsuranceDekho in talks to acquire credit marketplace BankSathi: sources". The Economic Times. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

[2] Paintola, Bhupendra (2024-06-04). "InsuranceDekho In Final Talks To Pick Up Majority Stake In BankSathi: Report". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

[3] Ramarathinam, Ashwin (2021-05-17). "Fintech startup BankSathi raises $200K in seed funding from angel investors". mint. Archived from the original on 2023-07-24. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

[4] Bureau, Our (2021-05-17). "BankSathi raises $200K in seed round from angel investors". BusinessLine. Retrieved 2025-03-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[5] Raju, Narasimha (2022-07-21). "Fostering financial literacy by Banksathi". CXOToday.com. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

[6] "Startup Digest: Meta preparing for large-scale layoffs: Report, Twitter fires over 90% of India staff: Report & upGrad to invest $30M to launch 10 global campuses - CNBC TV18". CNBCTV18. 2022-11-07. Retrieved 2025-03-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]