Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 16	March 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Impact Direct Ministries

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

Created by a single purpose account. Could not find sources in google news or books. Supplied sources are insufficient this is a 1 line mention, the other 4 sources are all dead links. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Christianity, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C. Frederico

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

An early career researcher who doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Has some research output through their early training; good for their career stage, but with H-factor of 6 is a long way from demonstrating impact. Contested PROD, which is why I've now brought it here. Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising this issue @Klbrain - I'd like to counter that while this early career researcher may not meet WP:NACADEMIC they certainly meet WP:BIO criteria as they have several secondary sources (Fox News, Post and Courier, The College Today, PittWire) that are independent secondary sources that are reliable, describing their scientific contributions. An additional note is that there are other researchers with similar h-indexes with wikipedia pages. Baseballandbrews (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage was about Folds of Honor, with Frederico being used as an example of a studentship recipient; so, not the primary topic, so insufficient for establishing notability. However, I'll let other express their views. Klbrain (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A working researcher, not notable. Student of the year and a Daily Point of light award are not notable, the rest are about receiving fellowships, which aren't awards, more like scholarships. I don't see that this person warrants an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Border Inn

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

Motel that fails WP:NBUILDING, other than a cute fact that the motel is in both Nevada and Utah, I don't see anything else significant about this motel. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Utah. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Business, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Nelson

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

Taking the article to AFD since a PROD was contested. I won't sugarcoat this; the primary (if not sole) reason Debbie even got any publicity at all is for family affiliations, namely being Eminem's mom. Being related to him or anyone else doesn't by itself entitle someone to a Wikipedia page as WP:BIOFAMILY notes. When there's little to no indication the subject was noted for anything of her own merits, I'm sure this fails WP:BIO, especially when lots of the sources that do mention Ms. Nelson (aside from obituaries) are more centered on her son. Yes, I know he often has often brought up his mother's name within songs (and faced controversy for it), but that's not enough to warrant a separate page either. It seems all the details on her worth nothing are already in articles for those tracks and/or Em's main bio anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement. Instead, she should have a section describing the lawsuit and disses, not her own page. Lemans917K (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's ignore the fact that she's recently died; all sources from before this event (going back years) are all passing mentions in articles about Eminem. Had she not died, she wouldn't get an article. There is nothing showing notability for her, she had a non-notable career. I can't see that she passes AUTHOR, the books she wrote have their own articles. There is perhaps an article about her relationship with her son, for which we have lots of coverage. Notability would be more about the relationship, not the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meemo (company)

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

No establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources were now added. Does it still fall under 'no establishment of notability'? Abcsomwiz (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collective (organisation)

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

Insufficient third-party coverage i.e. not meeting notability requirements. The page has four third-party sources. Of these, one only mentions Collective a single time in passing, another is an opinion piece (see WP:RSOPINION) and another is the World Socialist Web Site, of which there is no consensus regarding its reliability. The other is a Greek source with unknown reliability and unlisted status on WP:RSPS. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting a wildly different subject from the title and the nomination. Nonetheless, I had a look around. The first stop is all of what has been taken out of the article since its creation. It seems that editors have been wielding the sword of verifiability well. The sources originally cited were either entirely speculative things from 2024 that made zero factual claims, or sources about a different political party, currently with one person (they say) where those sources seem to have obtained their information about this political party from that one person, who claims that xe is being supported by some unspecified entity named this. The Greek source is based entirely in turn upon these speculative sources, and looking at the purported WWW page of this purported organization and assuming that what it reads on the WWW is true.
But it gets worse than the false sourcing. As one editor observed, the original article had a fake address for this supposed organization. (It turns out that Progressive House is not any building in London that I can find, but rather progressive house.) I also observe that there were hyperbolic claims to membership figures unsupported by any source and assertions of facts not stated anywhere, not even on the dubious WWW page.
There are a couple of unreliable personal WWW sites to be found, but ironically the thing to observe about them is that they talk of a shadowy organization, that they found was incorrectly registered at Companies House, taking their money and then saying that they are not to be let into "secret" meetings, and of Jeremy Corbyn denying being involved in new political parties at all in a TV interview. (Just for fun, I looked up the Companies House listing. The corporate address is a place that rents out office rooms by the day. So the personal WWW sites seem to have a point.)
I'm half suspecting at this point that this is a wholesale con and that a Wikipedia article is part of it. We can do something about the latter, at least. It is unverifiable from any source, reliable or no, that this is a real thing at all. And the unreliable sources want to know where all this supposed money is going.
Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too new to have had much coverage. I can only find coverage about different collectives, nothing about this outfit. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping parade

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

WP:NOTDICT. This is just a fancy term for a line of shops; there is nothing to say on the subject. TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that there is nothing much to say on the subject. And, in any case, it is term that would be readily understood by the majority of readers. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote on this one then, since I may not be understanding the full picture. I personally still do not understand how/why this topic warrants its own page. I just don't see why the colloquial term for a bunch of shops in a row warrants its own page, even if it is mentioned in a lot of sources. jolielover♥talk 03:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY jolielover♥talk 17:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Delete -- violates WP:NOTDICT (see below). Mrfoogles (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep, see below. Delete, WP:NOTDICT. Additionally, Redirect + Merge with Strip mall. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but do not redirect to Strip mall; this is just a name used in England for a street with shops along it, which is not a strip mall. I₂Overcome ^talk 18:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, shops came along later and aren't fundamental to parades, according to the book that I finally found. But yes, going by what the book says, U.K. parades and arcades and promenades and esplanades are definitely not strip malls. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree this should not be redirected to Strip mall Mrfoogles (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's false anyway. That's not at all how "parade" comes to be used like this. ISBN 9781119881032 pp. 144–145. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that you have another independent reliable source about parade's of shops. That looks like another reason to keep Neonchameleon (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is about parades not having shops in the first place, so it is a reason that what you are inventing is unverifiable against an expert-written source. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're claiming that a claim sourced to a reliable source was something I invented? Not only are you using reliable sources that demonstrate notability in some bizarre argument to delete, but wp:AGF springs to mind. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm using a source from an expert in English language socio-linguistic history who explains that parades are actually railway and seafront things, and shopping is incidental. This does not in any way demonstrate notability of assertions that the source flatly contradicts. Are you going to invent shopping arcade too? The expert explains that those are arcades with shops, and that's how we actually have them in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry. Are you literally accusing me of inventing the terms "shopping parade" and "parade of shops"? When between the two terms there are already approaching a couple of hundred uses on Wikipedia with only a tiny handful of them being near railways or seafronts? We have another example here of someone who doesn't understand the term, thus further refuting the idea it will be understood by an overwhelming majority of readers. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the nominator thinks there's nothing to say on the subject is beyond me and looks like a clear failure of wp:before. Multiple reliable sources on the subject are part of the stub, thus passing wp:N - and at least one of the sources goes into the history, making it subject to the wp:WORDISSUBJECT exception for the notadictionary policy. The idea that "the term would be understood by the majority of readers" would have a whole lot of pages eliminated (like strip mall) and is nothing more than wp:IDONTLIKEIT; the deletion standards are far higher than "the majority" while the fact that one of the contributors thinks it should be merged with strip mall demonstrates conclusively that even among Wikipedians participating in this AfD not everyone understands what a parade of shops is. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for proposing a merge with Strip mall, I should have paid more attention. I have struck that part. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any of the chorus of deletes do a WP:BEFORE on this topic? It's patently false that "there is nothing to say".
- The Historic England source already in the article is a thorough assessment of the history and architecture of shopping parades: [1]
- The "Parade of Shops" source (again, already in the article) provides excellent, thorough coverage of the topic in the modern era.
- The London Assembly report "Cornered shops: London's small shops and the planning system" also offers SIGCOV of the topic from an urban planning perspective.
- Scholarly articles such as "Behind the Scenes: Participants and Processes in the Development of London’s Interwar Suburban Shopping Parades" and "Planning for Sustainability: Lessons from Studying Neighbourhood Shopping Areas" also offer SIGCOV of the topic in terms of architectural history and urban planning, respectively.
Astaire (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". As the expert explains, parades were railway (and also seafront) things in the U.K. that evolved into long social-activity streets, and shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct any more than xe supports all of the U.K.'s Station Parades as distinct singular concepts. Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres, had you but read its abstract, which is a bit ironic given what you are calling out other people for. You're clearly doing superficial research by mere title phrase matching. After all, if you had even got as far as reading the executive summary of the London Assembly report you would have seen it in reality cover corner shops (not unexpected given the title), shopping centres, supermarkets, and small businesses. Further on it goes into town and country planning in the United Kingdom under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. This is the usual oft-seen at AFD poor show of throwing title phrase matches into a discussion, accusing everyone else of not doing the work, without actually doing the work of reading the things that are matched. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. You have shown no such thing, beyond vague gesturing at a source that in reality contradicts you. The Social Life of Words explicitly acknowledges that a "shopping parade" is a real phenomenon with a distinct definition.
  - "However, the young people on monkey parades also paraded along SHOPPING PARADES in the sense of ‘short urban or suburban stretches of shops’. The Oxford English Dictionary conflates both these senses under parade, n. 1 4.: ‘a public square or promenade; (also) a row of shops in a town, or the street on which they are situated’."
  - "The reason parade developed the meaning ‘short suburban stretch of shops selling basic necessities’ was due to the building boom of the second half of the nineteenth century caused by the advent of rail travel."
  The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". The report uses the term "shopping parade" more often than it does "neighbourhood parade", and in context "neighbourhood parades" is clearly a synonym for shopping parades, given that the report is entirely about retail shops.
  
  shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct Again, see the two quotes above. This is a stunning misrepresentation of the source.
  Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres Please do not selectively quote from the source when we can all read it. The article makes it clear that the primary function of shopping parades is shopping, not socializing.
  - "Thousands of shopping parades were built on suburban high roads and in estates, providing the residents of these new communities not just with a local place to shop for their daily (or more major needs) but also offering a center for local activities and interactions, both informal and formal."
    
    "Interwar suburban shopping parades remain today in their thousands, providing a highly visible material record of a time and place where changes in retailing, in consumption and in investment practices gave birth to new retail environments and transformed the street scene. In an era of mass consumerism that facilitated shopping for pleasure as well as daily needs, these smart and welcoming new buildings were a characteristic element of many people’s everyday environment."
  Astaire (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astaire and Neonchameleon. Also, I was able to find a bit more coverage of shopping parades in Innovation: The History of England Volume VI by Peter Ackroyd. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are entire books about the history, architecture and sociology of shopping parades I don't think we can brush them off with a quick WP:NOTDICTIONARY; indeed, on that basis, we would have tens of thousands of articles defining everyday things which fell into that category. Yes, the article is a stub; yes, it can and should be improved, but AfD is not for that. At the very least, I think the material could be merged into Shopping center. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Convinced by the sources offered by "keep" !voters above that this topic meets WP:GNG on both sourcing and the test of a standalone page. It appears to be sufficiently distinct as a concept from strip mall, neighborhood shopping center, shopping mall and shopping arcade not to warrant merging into one of those pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This complete shift in opinion is unusual. @TheLongTone, Mike Marchmont, Jolielover, Mrfoogles, and CF-501 Falcon: Could the "delete" proponents please comment on the sources proposed by the later "keep" proponents? Sandstein 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking in here. Will change, there are multiple compelling arguments. Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The list of sources is longer than the text of the article. This is a padded DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources listed in the AFD, though, it could be expanded a lot (look at the Historic England source specifically, and the paper about interwar shopping parades) -- article notability is not based on the current content of articles at all (yes, it's currently a DICDEF) but what they could be, which based on the sources now available is a different thing altogether. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The paper seems like a good source at first, but then it says this: "Within existing policy and research on neighbourhood parades there is a common ambiguity of terms and definitions. The available research makes reference, interchangeably, to ‘neighbourhood retailing’, ‘local shops’, ‘small shops’, ‘local centres’, ‘convenience retailing’, ‘parades of shops’, ’secondary retailing’, and other typologies"

So I don't know if this supports this having its own article.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/cornered-shops-londons-small-shops-and additionally just uses the term while discussing local retailing. I think that these sources could be used for an article for local shopping, definitely, though.

Looking at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20507828.2017.1399760, though, presents a stronger argument for shopping parades as their own phenomenon. And https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-shopping-parades/heag116-shopping-parades-iha is additionally a strong source describing shopping parades specifically.

Overall, I'm voting keep given that there are two sources describing these things in detail now. The opposing argument is centered around the sources given being wrong, which I don't see, or stating that they are a social phenomenon, which wouldn't disqualify them from being an thing worth talking about. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dry text

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

WP:NOTDICT This is a lump of very possible ephemeral slang. TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- multiple reliable sources, and this article discusses a style of texting, rather than just a specific word. Possibly it could be merged into another article discussing texting styles. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more sources & info on the topic Mrfoogles (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is kept, I think it should be moved to "Dry texting" -- the phenomenon described. Not sure why it's currently titled "Dry text". Mrfoogles (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merge: Texting has a section on etiquette, but I am unsure if there is a main article. Linked this article from there. Overall, unless there is a full article on texting etiquette I am unaware of, I would oppose of a merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment by nominator I would have thought that texting etiquette is certainly a noteworthy subject (and given the sive of the article on texting worth a separate article) and coud usefully include this article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to withdraw the nomination, then? —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mrfoogles's sources. Several high-quality sources discussing the subject over the course of at least two years seems sufficiently sustained to cover. Rusalkii (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zorro Ranch, New Mexico

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

Notrhing notable about this chunk of real estate apart from the link to Epstein; WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd redirect to the dead criminal, but I don't think there's a mention. TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- WP:GNG requires that multiple reliable sources cover a topic in detail, and the sources on this article clearly show that this is true. Whether they should devote so much attention to such a topic is something that can be debated, but they clearly do, so it passes the Wikipedia notability criteria, which require it to be possible to write a well-cited article on it -- as has been done. Additionally, I'm pretty some of the articles discuss why he chose New Mexico. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attention is all down to the Epstein connection. As above, see WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what NOTINHERITED means. It doesn't mean anything notable for being connected with something else can't be notable, it means they don't get that without their own coverage. For comparison, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete It is telling that every single reference is a news report with Epstein's name in the title. I'm hard pressed to think that people have an interest in the place for its own sake, and in case we get into arguments about not saying the magic words, notability is not inherited. Mangoe (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epstein per AtD. No independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Production of RuPaul's Drag Race

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

WP:COATRACK for RuPaul's Drag Race trivia and miscellania. No idea what "recurring challenges" have to do with "filming" or an article about the production in general, and why e.g. the unsourced "The recurring "She-mail" (a play on "Tyra-Mail" on America's Next Top Model) segment was discontinued." is included (or why the play on "she-male" isn't mentioned).

We have "Members wear "modesty cups" in their underwear to hide the silhouettes of genitalia." or "Willam was disqualified for violating rules while taping season 4" or "RuPaul's outfits are often inspired by the episode's main challenge or popular culture." or "RuPaul ends episodes by saying, "If you can't love yourself, how in the hell are you going to love somebody else?" The phrase was inspired by his mother." as if they somehow create a narrative and tell us something about the "Production" of the show.

If the production of the show warrants a separate article, it would be best to WP:TNT it and start from scratch, not from this hotchpotch of, well, whatever it is. It's probably quite telling that nothing in the lead is about the production of the show, and nothing in the lead is repeated in the body either. Fram (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge This has some decent information, but I'm confused why it's on a separate page. RuPaul's Drag Race should just have a production section with much of this content that isn't already duplicative (who the judges are, that "reading" and Snatch Game are recurring challenges, etc), obvious (does it really need to be pointed out that contestants must follow rules or that Ru helps select lip-sync songs?) or overly wordy/detailed (Sentences each naming non-notable crew members, one of many creative Emmys received). As a reader who sometimes watches this show, I'd want to learn about this organized with related context on the main page rather than pushed into an overlapping subarticle. No other such production pages exist for reality shows (Production of Sense8 appearing to be the only one for TV but obviously with much more content), and prose length does not warrant a split here. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic. Article is not a COATRACK and nom doesn't say anything about secondary coverage. I also strongly agree with comment re: merge to parent article; I'd argue the opposite, that RuPaul's Drag Race is long enough to justify moving content over to the Production page. All of these sections need to be expanded, but I couldn't even be afforded 24 hours from page creation to work on expansion before being summoned to AfD. Conception and development? More to say. Casting? Emmy noms. Music? Way more to say: Lucian Piane, Leland, Freddy Scott, etc. Directing? Emmy noms. Host? Emmy noms/wins. Choreo? More to say: Candis Cayne, Jamal Sims, Emmy noms, etc. Make-up artistry? More to say: Mathu Andersen, Raven, Emmy noms, etc. Hair design? Delta Work, Emmy nom. Costuming? Zaldy, Emmy wins, etc. Overall, the series has received 70+ Emmy noms, many of which have to do with production. There's so much more content to add, what a shame editors are discussing an underdeveloped page which should be expanded via collaboration and not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The show is a notable topic. This is inherently a subtopic of it, or a collection of several subtopics, not an independently notable topic, and should only be split when warranted. However, the main article is not too long to include more content. It's only 3551 words readable prose size, or about half of what WP:LENGTH recommends to justify a split – and most of the season summaries are formulaic repetition that just duplicate the judge and season tables as prose, and the international adaptations section can be trimmed since there's a whole article that covers this info. I somewhat disagree with nom in that much of this (but not all) is worth keeping, just not on a separate page.

The most similar show (non-scripted, multiple seasons) at WP:FA is The Masked Singer (American TV series), which is a great example of how the main article can have a production section that includes thorough subsections for conception and development, casting, design, costumes, set, music, and filming, as well as all the same other sections. None of these need a separate page. At all. You can even put some prose on List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants for casting and List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race for the Emmy noms (and the Accolades section that's just two sentences). There's a reason why other shows don't have separate production articles – it's relevant content that ought to be included for readers of the main article! It's so weird for all this content to be partitioned from the rest of the topic – do you want people to read your work or just hope they notice a see also link? And you'd ought to use WP:Summary style anyway, which would of course result in more duplication. Please don't give us "couldn't even be afforded 24 hours", you know perfectly well how to use draftspace – or just write in the underdeveloped main article that can use more relevant content ("expanded via collaboration") and split when actually needed. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like Reywas9 said, "a collection of several subtopics". If the costumes of the show are a topic which has received lots of attention which would overwhelm the main article, then an article specifically on the costumes may be warranted. An article on the awards and nominations already exists at List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race (but strangely is not categorized in the Category:RuPaul's Drag Race tree). But an article which lumps together costumes and subchallenges and competitor behaviour and random trivia like "The main challenge of the ninth season episode "Makeovers: Crew Better Work" tasked contestants with giving makeovers to members of the Drag Race film crew." (why is this specific challenge of one episode in one season worthy of a special mention here? No idea at all) is not workable or useful. Much of this belongs in the main article on the show, and should only be split off if and when a specific subtopic gets much more detailed and would overwhelm the main article. What we have here is not a specific subtopic though, but a bunch of subtopics under a generic title. Fram (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm moving on. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is completely a COATRACK. Aside from the article, I’m not sure that the production of Drag Race is a notable topic (this article certainly isn’t evidence that it is), and beyond that I’m very skeptical that the topic wouldn’t be better served as covered on the article for the show. Selective merge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable as the production specifically has received its own coverage. This show must have consumed at least 500 million US$dollars in production costs over the years - so coverage of the production is not surprising. Of the many possible keep arguments, a great one is that the production itself has won many awards, such at those at List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Primetime_Emmy_Awards. Information about awards for hairstyling, picture editing, casting, and other production topics are not appropriate for typical articles about the content of the show because it is WP:UNDUE. While the articles about the content of the TV show are popular, only a small percentage of readers care about the production. Because there is so much production content from many sources, it makes sense for this to be its own article.

Also, help streamline Wikipedia AfD discussions by increasing access to information about awards, by developing d:Wikidata:WikiProject Award! If the world had better access to data about all the awards ever granted, and which awards were more legitimate, and what exactly the awards mean, and how the recipient qualified for the award, then sorting out the notability of topics would be much easier. Consider editing Wikidata today! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many TV shows have won many Emmys and Creative Emmys, and any TV show has many sources about production, but that does not mean the production or the awards won for that are their own separately notable topics, otherwise there'd have to be hundreds of articles about TV production. It's part of the main topic of the show as a whole. How is money spent (and a cable reality show doesn't cost over $2 million per episode) relevant? There can be a lot of content in any article that not everyone cares about, but why would you shove it in another page that maybe people find? E.g. I might not care much about hair and editing, but as a viewer I am interested in the set and challenges! WP:UNDUE is about maintaining a neutral point of view for competing viewpoints and not an issue here. Discussion of integral information about the show is not undue or unbalanced. The Masked Singer (American TV series) does a great job, was that inappropriate to give a FA star when it has whole sections on costumes and filming? The Crown (TV series)#Production won lots of awards and has lots of coverage specifically for production, but that's not basis to split the section even if I find the casting info trivial. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That a TV show has won awards for aspects of its production (as expressed in the final product of the TV show) does not at all suggest that the show’s production is an independently notable topic. This argument would allow for “Writing of [title]” for every multi-award-winning book. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is notable is that journalists write about the production industry, generating many reliable sources to cite. It is extraordinarily notable because there is so much journalism and interest in this that there are multiple major awards for this field.

I could be wrong about the US$500 million for ~400 episodes, but at the least, I do not think it is debatable that the low end of production costs must be at least $50 million. The production of the show is also interconnected with a RuPaul Drag Race industry and institution outside of television. Regardless, any money in the tens of millions is an indication of a complex production system which would attract documentation.

The reason why WP:UNDUE applies is because typical readers expect the article about the show to be about the content of the show. If this production content where merged into the main article, then that would be surprising. Wikipedia does not lack space; if we have content on production and it is not appropriate to put it all in one article, then we have capacity for a new article.

We could have articles on the production of books or anything else which gets awards, if of course we had citations. We have citations in this case, but for books and many other awards, we do not. Producing a show takes a crew of 100 to do anything, and almost all of that crew is connected to 100+ year old labor unions, connected to media reporting for nearly as long, and part of media industries in urban centers which churn out mass documentation.

I see that The Masked Singer (American TV series) has a production section in the main article, and that is fine, and it passed WP:FA, so good example. It is also okay for other articles to do other things. In the Masked Singer, the production section has 70 citations and is enough content to be a stand-alone article, especially if there were enough sources and content to expand it. Wikipedia has a lot more content for RuPaul, as can be seen by comparing the 100s of articles in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race to the 15 articles in Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series). There is an order of magnitude more content for RuPaul, so again, it is not surprising that this is based on many more media sources about all facets of the show, and a much bigger, much more attention-grabbing production. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how production information on a TV show's article would be surprising. It's part of the show and how it's covered. Many films and TV shows have sections on it. The Shining's production is far more notable than RPDR's in terms of secondary coverage, and that's still just a section of the film's article. @Reywas92's examples of The Crown and The Masked Singer are good, as would be Saturday Night Live, the most Emmy-awarded show in history, whose production is on the show's article, not a separate one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: The factors that make the difference are having enough content for a stand-alone article, having lots of citations to represent different perspectives and facts, and having so much content that merging it all into the main article would unbalance it.

In the case of The Shining, it is already 12,000 words, so by WP:SIZERULE, the article "probably should be divided". If anyone wanted to add more good content to the production section of that article, or even if someone just felt like it right now due to the size, then we could summarize the production in that article and split it into its own article.

Currently we have the Shining production section citing 50 sources, and Saturday Night Live citing 20, and the RuPaul production article cites 112. The trend and bias in Wikipedia is going to be for more media to be available for more recent sources. Saturday Night Live started in the 1970s and the Shining is from 1980, but Wikipedia is mostly citing recent digital sources about them. If we had access to contemporary paper other non-digitized media, then we might have longer production sections for those. With RuPaul's Drag Race, not only is it from a media age with a lot more documentation, but also the media is much more accessible now, and also the show itself is explicitly designed to attract media attention. There just will be more media content with more detail about some topics rather than others. Wikipedia is not a book that fills up. We have the space for any topic which passes WP:N. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way bigger than necessary because it’s filled with trivia relevant to the topic as well as coatracked content that doesn’t belong. This topic is not independently notable nor so extensive that it should be spun off of the main article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge with RuPaul's Drag Race. I tend to be in agreement with User: Reywas92. I know that popular British television series often have more than one article in Wikipedia, but they seldom have one solely on their production. I don't know what's so special about this series to make it an exception. YTKJ (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Race is among shows with the most Emmy Award wins in television history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero of the other 29 shows on this list have a separate page for production, though many have nice sections in the main articles about it, so not sure what the point is here. It's unnecessary to split this way. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an argument for a list of awards won by RPDR, but it does not imply notability of the show’s production (however defined, which this article does not make clear). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : with the article about the show itself. This isn't so much about production of the show, it appears to be another attempt a writing an article about the show. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. All of the information is specifically related to the show's production and none of the text is an attempt at rewriting the parent article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry E. Squire

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

Non-notable cinematographer who worked on notable movies,WP:NOTINHERIT ^{themoon@talk:~$} 14:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 14:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider the current sourcing to be not good enough? Speedy Keep unless a better rationale is given. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, unsure why you're bringing up sourcing when the issue brought forward is that he's simply not notable.

The sourcing is good insofar as the sources say a cinematographer by this name has existed and worked on Cinerama.

However, working on notable movies with notable producers does not make one notable. All of the 4 sources do mention him, but only one (which has become unavailable, that's a separate issue) is about him, which is necessary to establish notability. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 10:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme I am not finding a mention of Harry E. Squire in the first source (nor "Harry Squire" or "Squire", and the one "Harry" is someone else). I also want to note that Nicholas Cavaliere's article says that he was a cinematographer for the same film (not that one film cant have multiple). This [2] source seems to say the most about him and would be amazing but I don't think this counts as a valid source (please please prove me wrong) since it was produced by the company he worked at as promotional material. Moritoriko (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you're correct that this source is primary and can't be used to establish notability, but it could be used (and is used in the article currently) for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes were he notable. However, a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing about him. I'll grant that contemporary internet sources are impossible, but a notable creative with a lasting legacy would continue to be mentionned today, and that has not happened. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 12:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cineramaadventure article is definitely about him but is not independent [3]. The Evening Independent article has multiple mentions and it still available [4]. The New York Times article appears to be about him "THE man behind the Cincrama camera, Harry Squire, is a stocky, gray-haired, ruddy-faced, bouncy Irishman in his sixties." and is still available [5]. The book source is still available [6], well over 100 libraries, but like the first has independence issues and I didn't find any mentions of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliana González

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

Subject does not have significant news coverage and fails WP:TENNIS. RolandSimon (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RolandSimon (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She was getting news coverage literally just last year for going on her third Olympic run (which isn't currently mentioned in the article, by the way). What news search did you make if this first page of Google results didn't show up for you? Silverseren^C 06:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the same as mine. Using the above "find sources" without using any tricks that I have up my sleeve and usually employ, I get an actor, someone in Colombia, someone from Argentina, and accounts with this name on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and SoundCloud. Welcome to Google Web search! ☺ Google News has several people with the wrong name, someone who stabbed someone, and the actor again. Bing News has a volleyball player. Google Books has a member of FARC and someone who thought that this was a good pseudonym choice for an account of a torture victim. Search results are not identical for different people. The full name certainly helps, but the article creator didn't put it in the article. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, it's a common name, sure. That's why a search shouldn't be done with just someone's name, but also the subject they're relevant to. In this case, table tennis. And since this is a Peruvian player, one should be using Spanish, hence "tenis de mesa". Use that with just her regular name above, not even needing the full name, and you'll get plenty of news hits. Now, as for whether there's also coverage from her events back in the 90's, that's going to require a deeper dive into Spanish language sources. Silver seren^C 21:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, Tennis, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Depor source found above is already SIGCOV #1 – note that this athlete competed mainly in the offline era. The odds that a multi-time Olympian like this would not have any further coverage in Peruvian sources – when we have not looked at any newspapers from her time period – is very slim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage about this athlete that I can find. Gnewspapers has several hits on the name, but it's common enough that you get stories about a variety of people. The one source now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Oderin

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

Non-notable nobleman with a biography that hundreds of Czech medieval lower nobles had. The sources used are only Trivial mentions. FromCzech (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is the same and my arguments are similar to those found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petr Píšek. To sum up, this was a politically important individual during a politically important time, as stated by the sources. The subject ruled from a notable castle. He was an early patron of what is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. His portrayal in recent media is not irrelevant. This is a 600 year old figure, and there are undoubtedly undigitized sources or those I missed in my initial search. Mbdfar (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat myself, but WP:SIGCOV is missing, so I don't even need to write any more reasons. He is from a councilor family, not a noble family. "Politically important" is not in the cited sources. He did not rule from a notable castle, but he just owned rural fort in Ratboř, as [3] says. Among the donors of the Church of St. Barbara were many town's burghers, as the source says, so this does not make him notable either. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite my understanding. I did not cite this work because I didn't want to incorrectly translate Latin or German, but Borový 1927 mentions the subject several times (see further reading, make sure to search for Latin name conjugations). My understanding is that the subject is much more than a simple church donor as you'd suggest, and that he was an important figure in the early days of St. Barbara's Church. See page 125 for example. I'd welcome your interpretation or translations. Mbdfar (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please provide significant coverage in IRS when it comes to royalty? It has been a long time since I got familiar with them. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "politically important" comes from the cited source, where it states "Odreinové patřili k nejstarším radním rodům ve městě a svoje postavení si udrželi až do husitských válek". The phrase "councilor family" does not have any meaning. I read this as more akin to a patrician, similar to the cs:starý patriciát. I think my paraphrasing was apt, but please correct me if you still disagree and it can be rewritten in the article. And for what it's worth, the old castle in Ratboř seems notable, certainly notable enough to be a wartime target, and is now dedicated as a cultural monument (also interestingly it was later owned by other notable people such as cs:Bernard Mandelík and cs:Hubert von Czibulka, but I digress)[7] [8].

That stuff doesn't really matter, but I also disagree that the sources are as trivial as you mention. I think further translation should be done to improve this article, but I do believe the number of times the subject appears in Čelakovský (1916), Vaněk (2011), and Borový (1927), supported by the other sources and context push the subject into notability. Mbdfar (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant burgher family, if you don't like the term councilor family. Local political importance is not a carrier of notability, if there is no SIGCOV. The fortress in Ratboř was no different from the others in the area, so I don't know how you judge the notability. Its modern history is more remarkable. There were at least 19 such fortresses and castles in the vicinity of Kutná Hora, and due to their medieval origin, all of them are protected as cultural monuments. Because these are defensive structures, they were of course a target of attack during the wars. But even if Oderin owned Prague Castle, it wouldn't be enough on its own page without SIGCOV. The sources are not enough, as evidenced by the form of the page, which is just a collection of small fragments instead of a coherent biography or a description of some notable act he performed. FromCzech (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said that stuff doesn't really matter. But if you're going to keep bringing it up, I don't think burgher is a good description and the other fortresses are probably notable to. I believe there is enough coverage to satisfy SIGCOV. If you don't want this article to be a collection of small fragments, help me with the translation of the provided sources to improve it. Mbdfar (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, add context. From my perspective, these facts, along with the lasting coverage over 600 years, indicate that the subject was more than a WP:MILL local politician. Mbdfar (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Píšek

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

Non-notable nobleman with a biography that hundreds of Czech medieval lower nobles had. The sources used are only trivial mentions. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote this article as I believe the subject is a politically notable figure from an important family. The subject held royal appointments and was the ruler of several notable castles/villages. The sources I've found are brief, yes, but are clear that this subject was notable during a politically and militarily unstable time in the Kingdom of Bohemia. The subject is 600 years old, and I presume there are many sources that are not digitized or I have missed on my search. I also do not want to discount the modern depiction of the subject (even a characterization) in the recent video game referenced in the article. While not proof of notability on its own, I do believe it supports the above assertions. Mbdfar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the content of the article, he was the equivalent of a local politician, and ruled only the villages of Perštejnec, Vysoká and co-ruled Suchdol. His family was only a wealthy bourgeois family, not a noble family. There is no article for him or his family on cswiki, which would be very unlikely if him or his family was important like you say. You need WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate his notability. With all due respect, it seems that the main motivation for the creation of the page is the appearance of the character in the video game based on him, not the merits of the real character. FromCzech (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He ruled "only" three towns/castles. Respectfully, the cswiki has 7% of the articles that the enwiki does and is not a qualifier of subject notability. I learned about this historical figure through his portrayal in recent media, correct. My motivation for creating this page was improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable subjects found in this time and place. Mbdfar (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should not have written that last sentence. Cswiki is of course not qualifier of subject notability, I wrote this just for comparison. The existence of SIGCOV is decisive. FromCzech (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to share a comment by Bigvadrouille549, where a source was provided "from the historian Emmnuel Leminger on the Italian Court. You can see that Peter of Pisek was mintmaster between 1391-99 [9]". The referenced text seems to be on page 169.

Another trivial mention in the list of burghers who held this clerk position. FromCzech (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite more than a list of names as you insinuate. Perhaps the position is important enough to have such biographical records collated and published 500 years later. Mbdfar (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a quite prestigious position if I am correct in equating it to Nejvyšší mincmistr [cs], an article which does mention the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1995 United States elections

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

Copy/Pasted from other articles without proper attribution. Mostly unreferenced. Editor refuses to communicate and has repeatedly reverted the redirect which this article previously had, saying to send it to AFD instead. Well, here we are... Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I am the creator of this article - the nominator decided not to ping me perhaps because they didn't want my input. There are dozens of year articles for American elections, many of which are also off-year election years. They serve a mostly navigational purpose, as far as I can tell. I know the formatting isn't like the other year articles, but that is an issue which can be fixed with editing and not a fundamental flaw. I could understand if it was something like, I don't know, a couple of ward elections, but there were multiple gubernatorial races and a few House seats on this year. The mayoral list is also not complete -- there were more elections that year than are listed in the article. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got an AfD notification on your talk page. Complaining about not also getting a ping is contemptibly precious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this doesn't address the substance of what I said and hones in on a single off-hand sentence I wrote. I can't be "Here, There, and Everywhere"... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault that you distracted readers from the substance of your own post by opening it with a really dumb "off-hand" complaint. For whatever reason, you seem bent on self-sabotage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a mish-mash of information copied from other articles. WP:TNT seems applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user has reported me to the ANI noticeboard because of this article. I don't think their opinion should be discounted, but they obviously have a COI due to their ongoing dispute with me. Billclinton1996 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No COI at all. I resent your cheap attempt to discredit my opinion. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. --John B123 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to familiarise myself. I am correct. You have a dispute with me (the article creator) over this exact article, therefore there is a conflict of interest if you vote on a deletion nomination for this article. I would regard it the same way even if you had opted to keep, for whatever reason. I won't discuss further, because I can sense that this discussion will devolve. Thanks. Billclinton1996 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not correct. That is not what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Cambridge Dictionary: "a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result". I think this is applicable here. I did not say WP:COI as in editing about people whom you have a relationship with, there is a difference. Please don't try and nitpick. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. WP:WIKILAYWERING won't get you anywhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIKILAWYERING, is the intended target, there's a typo! :)
MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not "wikilaywering", just facts. As expected, this conversation has devolved and has become utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not responding further unless this is pertaining to why this article need to be deleted or not. I think my ANI "horse whipping" has become a fully-fledged "flogging and pillory". Shame. Billclinton1996 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. Delete it, nuke the copy/paste violations, and if someone wants to start over fresh and create the article properly, they are welcome to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This feels like a TNT scenario. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and restore redirect as copyright violation, being a cut-and-paste from several different other Wikipedia articles without attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After complaints, I have substantially rewritten the article, including attribution and sources where necessary. Any potential copyright violations can be revdeleted. I will leave it to participants in this discussion as to whether my changes are considered "substantial" enough or not. And FYI, TNT is an essay and not a policy; I could cite WP:TNTTNT and it would have the same weight. Billclinton1996 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, nobody implied TNT is a policy. But keep digging that hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that anyone believed it was. I just think it's an important thing to note. I'm not very good at digging, unfortunately. Billclinton1996 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Brotherhood Militia

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

The links on the page are not reliable sources, and none appear to exist online, beyond possibly the ADL hate symbols database which mentions a "Southern Brotherhood", but that appears to me to be a different organisation. I am not 100% convinced that this militia even exists as such, though there are blogs which claim to represent the group. In any case, no WP:SIGCOV exists in any reliable source I am aware of. BTW, I am 100% that the article was written largely by somebody close to the subject Boynamedsue (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and no unambiguous online information about the group could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proplyd 133-353

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, has no substantial coverage beside the discovery paper. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on SIMBAD it appears to be catalogued as COUP 540. But yes, there's nothing in the way of additional useful resources. Nowhere in the paper does it say this is a likely sub-brown dwarf; all it says is that "Proplyd 133-353 could be a planetary-mass object". Praemonitus (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure/Honey

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD found consensus to redirect to the album's article, per lack of demonstrated notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killah (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. That guideline's text also suggests in an explanatory note to the word "multiple" that more recent songs need more sources to establish notability. The two cited sources of which "Garden of Eden" is the subject are trivial reports that a new single has released. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect for You

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True Story (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. That guideline also suggests, in the footnote for "multiple", that the number of sources needed to establish notability is increased with more recent songs—I count only a single source whose subject is "True Story". The rest is coverage of its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Sunshine (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruvimbo Samanga

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

Fails to meet notability threshold. Being a member of the MILO Space Science Institute appears to be greatest achievement. Tescoid (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Spaceflight, and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuckuckskind

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

Unlike Wiktionary, Wikipedia (English) does not generally include foreign-language words, and none of the article's citations is actually dispositive on the question whether—or even supportive of the idea that—this word has any currency in English:

[10] is a news report that mentions what the German word is, and it reports the word as German, while also mentioning, by way of explanation, an equivalent British term.
[11] only asserts that the German word was untranslatable (which is somewhat contradicted by the existence of the equivalent British expression).
[12] does not mention the German word at all.
The other, thrice-cited print source is German. (I do have the sneaking suspicion the article's creation might have had something to do with the publication of that book, but I have absolutely zero evidence for that hunch, nor have I even tried to search for any. If somebody wants to look into this – it's a thought. It may not be worth it though; IMHO there's already ample reason for deletion, and I generally hate Deletionism and tend to favour inclusion.)

Also, the German word is not in OED. A Wiktionary entry does exist, but it only recognises the word as German. Besides Wiktionary, I have not seen any English-language dictionaries that include this term. I have not looked very hard, but I have not been able to google any evidence this word is in any way a thing in English or in the English-speaking world. Multiple pages on cuckoldry already exist, as do several words for the children produced thereby, from the pejorative bastard to the fanciful love child – these besides the perhaps more British than American milkman's child. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Germany. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder what people who create articles are thinking, sometimes. The concepts are cuckoldry and nonpaternity in English, with false paternity/paternity fraud being related ones. For some reason we have tacked on "event" and have nonpaternity at non-paternity event, although the formal literature on the subject (e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Infidelity or the Springer Genetics and Ethics in Global Perspective by Wertz and Fletcher or the HUP Fatherhood: Evolution and Human Paternal Behavior) generally goes for just nonpaternity and talks of "nonpaternity rates" and suchlike. Nonetheless, we have had this subject under (sort-of) the right name for 17 years and didn't need it restarting under a German name in 2023. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fournier

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

Non-notable hockey player for which significant coverage does not exist. His six games in the AHL and 30 in the EIHL are the highest level he has ever played. I could not find coverage of his professional career beyond basic stats. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tower restaurant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete, This is not an actual category as far as my searching found. It feels like 'Castle restaurants', is it a nice feature of some restaurants. A more extreme example is 'patio restaurants' because that's an actually established term. I think rooftop bar is a poor merge target as well because rooftop bars are generally open air which these are usually not. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitória school attack

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

WP:not (old) news. Seems like a relitivly trivial incident. TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this topic has, as shown by sources cited in the article. Whether the incident is trivial is completely irrelevant. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are multiple sources, they are all more or less concurrent to the event. WP:NOT is a pillar policy, and this is a clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS 4.37.252.50 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources linked in the article span all the way until May 2023, 9 months after the attack, closely monitoring his trial until it was eventually sealed by the court. This indicates that his attack was still notable nearly a year later, especially given how he was in direct contact with the perpetrator of the Barreiras school shooting.

Keep - The article references substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources spanning around 9 or so months of constant news updates, demonstrating its overall notability. Walking Spellcheck (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2025 (BRT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school attacks in Brazil – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons listed above. BadVibesAllOver (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Only a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Alam

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected. WP:BEFORE search made slightly more difficult given this is a common name, but nothing found beyond their social media and election stats. Almost all cited statements fail verification. Previously deleted a couple of months ago, but as a non-admin I can't check if it is G4able. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Jharkhand. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Article was moved prematurely by the creator after being declined by nom. Fails WP:NPOL at the moment but he is still relatively early in his political career and there is a non-zero chance he will be elected to a state or federal position in the future. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Fair enough, delete. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sophisticatedevening: draft space is a place to improve an article, but no amount of editing will make a non-notable individual notable. It isn't meant to be an indefinite place to store drafts. Certainly not until the person potentially becomes notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also willing to change to delete as G4 if an admin can verify it is eligible. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely borderline G4, I think it would likely come down to the reviewing admin. Looks like the only difference between the current version and a previous version looks to be things tagged with {{failed verification}} tags. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basu Gautam

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

Lacks Notability. Fails GNG. 4 out of 2 sources are written by subject himself ( can’t be used for notability). One is press release and another one is a blog written by his friend. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to respectfully clarify a few points and highlight the efforts already made to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG).

I have invested significant time and effort researching and compiling information about Basu Gautam, and I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. While it is true that some of the initial sources include self-authored content and a press release, these were added to provide context rather than to establish notability.

However, I want to emphasize that my work did not stop there. I have actively sought and included additional sources, and I am in the process of further expanding the references with reliable, independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage. These sources aim to address the notability concerns directly.

I deeply value Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, and I am fully open to constructive suggestions for improvement. If you are aware of specific independent sources or ways to enhance the article's compliance with GNG, I welcome your input.

Please note that I am committed to improving this article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies. I kindly request time to make these updates, as I believe the subject has contributed in ways that merit encyclopedic recognition.Please revisit page again GlobalEmpathy (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD discussion isn't intended to evaluate whether the article is currently good enough -- just whether it is possible to find multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the article subject (whether they exist at all), regardless of the subject's importance. Essentially for the article to be kept it needs to be shown that there are reliable sources describing the subject in some detail, or that they can be assumed to exist (mostly the former). If you're planning to find better sources later you could also propose it be draftified (moved to Draft:Basu Gautam), where it can be worked on without having to be in the main article space. See the policy on suitability for inclusion for details. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz F.C. (Colombia)

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

Does it really meet the criteria for notability? It's an amateur football club and there are no recent news about it. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Colombia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FARC sounds best given the 1E coverage in RSes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no point in keeping an article from an amateur club just because of its connection to a drug trafficking group. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak? keep This does have a lot of coverage in a variety of sources over a long period of time and likely passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer, there's probably enough sourcing. Giant Snowman 18:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clealry notable team in Colombia. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can any of the "keep" supporters identify the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Das osmnezz, this article needs improvement, not deletion. The notable sources include The Guardian and Al Jazeera. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet at least WP:BASIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, The Guardian is just a pointer, had people only looked. There's a paragraph that can serve to expand the article in Watson 2022, p. 239 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWatson2022 (help). There's other information, helpfully itself built from news coverage, in Wells 2022, pp. 148–149 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWells2022 (help). ISBN 9781509854257 p. 121 is a glancing mention, but is the sort of source that could be used for an introduction. (Unfortunately, the Alberto Lati book that has more is not, as Ediciones Plan B is a self-publishing outfit. For goodness' sakes, Alberto!) In Boniface 2018, p. 57 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoniface2018 (help) is found the fact that this was three teams in one club: men's, women's, and under 20s. I didn't look much further, because then I reached Rodríguez López & Estupiñán Osorio 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRodríguez_LópezEstupiñán_Osorio2022 (help), which is over 40 pages on this subject and must be good for at least another paragraph, not least on the mixed reception to the idea. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Watson, Peter J. (2022). "Conclusion: #OneCountryOnAPitch". Football and Nation Building in Colombia (2010–2018): The Only Thing That Unites Us. Liverpool Latin American Studies. Liverpool University Press. pp. 225–240. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2nnv514.12. ISBN 9781802070927. JSTOR j.ctv2nnv514.12.
- Wells, Audrey (2022). "Forgiveness After Civil War: Yogislavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Colombia, and South Sudan". The Importance of Forgiveness and the Futility of Revenge: Case Studies in Contemporary International Politics. Contributions to International Relations. Springer Nature. ISBN 9783030875527.
- Boniface, Pascal (2018). L'Empire Foot: Comment le ballon rond a conquis le monde (in French). Armand Colin. ISBN 9782200623135.
- Rodríguez López, Julián David; Estupiñán Osorio, Juan Diego (2022-09-19). La Paz F. C.: Un equipo que sirve como canal para la reconstrucción social en Colombia (comunicadores sociale thesis) (in Spanish). Universidad Santo Tomás. hdl:11634/47238.
I don't like the relist comment as the sources are already in the article. The problem with this particular article is the club appears to be either a Colombian non-league team, or even a non league team in the sense they aren't even in a league. I'm not sure if that would mean they have to meet NCORP as an organisation or not? Still there is plenty of coverage, even if the article itself is a wee stub. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Adeyemi

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

Non-notable "physician", "politician", and individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said she's a politician? Ahola .O (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has some published papers in Gscholar, unsure what her h-factor is though... I can sort of access Scopus [13], seems rather low. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't mentioned or categorized that she's a politician or an author. She passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

Here are some reports about her on Businessday and Thisdaylive: Why I’m Mentoring a New Generation of Women – THISDAYLIVE, Lola Adeyemi, Founder and CEO at Mentoring Her - Businessday NG but i considered them to be interviews. For WP:BIO, she is a Nigerian cancer researcher that has presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and World Health Organization (WHO), has been recognized by Forbes, was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and a Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Nigeria. I hope this helps. Ahola .O (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addite Malik

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

The actress is notable, but the sources included in it do not pass WP:GNG. The attached sources are mentions in news about COVID, birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and restaurants. AShiv1212 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Maharashtra. AShiv1212 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To assert that the article subject is notable, as you just have, you must have found sources that demonstrate that. Why did you not cite the sources that you had found, instead of nominating the article for deletion? Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I watch TV, and I know this actress works as a supporting actor in a TV serial, which is why I mentioned her as notable. I looked for sources and found that Hindustan Times, Times of India, and Indian Express have news articles about her husband, her son, and her fashion. Can these gossip sources be considered reliable? AShiv1212 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 11 [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Hindustan Times. If these sources can be used to create a page according to Wikipedia guidelines, please try to do so. AShiv1212 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check all the above sources, sir, and determine if they are reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines for retaining the page. If they are, I can provide additional sources with the same news, such as those from Maharashtra Times, Loksatta, and Mumbai Mirror. AShiv1212 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "actress is notable, but the sources included in it do not pass WP:GNG" means. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned the actress as "notable" because she has worked in some TV serial. However, there are no reliable sources available for the TV serial she has worked in. All the available sources are gossip-based, such as those mentioning her husband, her pregnancy, her having a child, or her opening a hotel. AShiv1212 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense

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

This is just a lengthy plot summary and a neatly organized list of appearances in media. No reception/analysis. Publication history could be merged to List of Hellboy comics, since it is arguably better formatted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 10 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} 09:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is a candidate for deletion, but it does need to be refocus. It shouldn't be about the fictional organisation in the comics, but rather about the 140+ issue comics series, B.P.R.D. Hellboybookeeper (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but we still need sources to establish that series notability (reviews/analysis of or awards to the series as a whole). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given no comments, I'll ping folks who took part in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellboy Universe: @Shooterwalker @Pokelego999 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇan Svāmīji

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. C F A 11:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please let me know what I need to change to publish it and not to be down for deletion? Thanks YamunaIRE (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please let me know what I need to change to publish it and not to be down for deletion? Thanks YamunaIRE (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qezeljeh, Ahar

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. This article basically just says "this exists" without further clarification. Sources just state the administrative division of the place and the location, not much more JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. I'm unable to find any credible source. Ʀasteem Talk 08:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up the Anglicizations was a nightmare, produced at least one Anglicization that we did not have which in turn had a lot of false positives, and only yielded prose-free gazetteers with map coördinates, several different ones. Looking up the Persian name showed promise at one point, until it turned out to be a place in Iraq. This is a permanent substub, sourced to a dead spreadsheet, about which we can barely write verifiable prose at all. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Openstreetmap takes you directly to a small town at the end of a road which shares a Persian name with the Persian link for Qezeljeh. If we can locate that census, this would pass WP:NGEO. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can only verify this to Google Maps and Openstreetmap, but there is clearly a populated place at the point on the map using satellite photos. Google seems to think it's Anglicanized to Qezelje when you click on the addresses of one of the gardens in the photo. Still needs more work, though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Openstreetmap and Google Maps source data from WP, do they not? So setting aside circular referencing we have nothing; fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Elezarov

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

Declined prod. The added sources are just database listings and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, a regular Gsearch only turns up database listings and an Ask Oracle link. What's used here is simple confirmation of participation in various events, we're a long way from extensive sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage for an article. Jordano^5³ 17:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Bao

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

Casting directors are rarely ever notable. He has one producer credit and one associate producer credit, no significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Mooonswimmer 10:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions in film credits or articles about films are what i find, I don't see any articles directly about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzeena, Queen of Kong Island

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the 2 reviews on the German WP might be considered expert SPS. I will try to improve this. Worst case scenario: a redirect to Fred_Olen_Ray#Television(listed there) is a standard WP:ATD when the director is notable and the film released, with some notable features (Evan Stone, version of Tarzan, infamously "bad" film) -Mushy Yank. 19:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [removed bold of second suggestion; I strongly favour a K after having added more sources).-Mushy Yank. 10:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. This fails WP:GNG. There are a lack of citations that would support the existence of this article besides a couple of reviews. desmay (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 16:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred_Olen_Ray#Television. I am not seeing full length reviews or other sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (piper)

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

WP:SUBNOT. There is no indication from the article that this person is notable. Aneirinn (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What would be the benefit to anyone in deleting this information? He was noted in an apparently legitimate book about famous pipers, so is notable. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What benefit does it provide in its current state? There is no notion of any notability in the article. This person being mentioned in only one "apparently legitimate book about famous pipers" does not establish grounds for notability. See WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is the diffusion of knowledge, same as any article on WP. That's our goal. Now, I'm not particularly interested in 19th century Irish pipers myself, but if just one person in the next 20 years is, this article is worthwhile. It's not a hoax, it's not a lie, it's not promotional, it's not taking up valuable disk space, so there's a good reason to keep it but no good reason to remove it. If we do remove it, the knowledge will still be out there in the book, just harder to find. Station1 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Ireland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have exactly one source, which is indeed an on-point biography. But there appears to be no supporting sourcing available from anywhere else, at least that I can find; certainly none are being proffered in the article. The notability threshold that it is easy to exceed with truly notable historical figures is multiple sources. That way details can be cross-checked, and gaps can be filled. I am awash with search matches to things that contain lots of people named John, Moore, and Piper in some way. But all attempts to trim the noise in various ways have revealed nothing at all. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The indication that he's notable come from the fact he had a biography written about him by a notable academic nearly twenty years after his death; the average musician that passes the GNG isn't going to get that. There's most likely going to be offline sourcing, but given how common the subject's name is... good luck finding it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A single 400-word biographical summary (in a directory-style work seemingly covering almost every professional piper of the era) doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. As with other contributors to this AfD, I can find no other substantial sources. (This piece on galwaysown.ie is a passing mention which seems to be based on either this Wikipedia article and/or the earlier O'Neill source. Book and journal searches only returns other versions of the 1913 O'Neill source). Per WP:NRV, notability is based on the verifiable existence of significant coverage in multiple independent sources - not merely that there might/could be other sources (that exist only in potentia...). If this were a modern professional musician, who was covered in 400 words in a single source, we wouldn't even be talking about it.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides being a "piper of good repute" we have nothing else that talks about this person. We don't even know most of their life, where they were born. Travelled on a boat, went home and died at sea, is about the extent of the article. Zero claim at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

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

No evidence of independent notability are provided in the article or readily found ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Wake Forest University. No indication of notability independent of the university. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Wake Forest University. The three references are all published by Wake Forest and are therefore not independent, and independent sources are required to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Yunusovich Kuchukov

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

Unreferenced article. Subject has no credible claim of notability. Low rank, lowly decorations, undistinguished service in World War I and the Russian Civil War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, completely non-notable soldier. Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist - he's completely correct, NN soldier. Might I suggest however the text is kept accessible in some way for merging the regimental and school cadet corps data to other articles on the Imperial Russian Army that could be expanded with it? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no objection, I would like to merge some of the school and regimental information into Turkestan Military District. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No objection but it doesn't seem to be referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you check the ru it's gwar.mil.ru etc via https://ria1914.info/index.php/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%AE%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge? The latter requires attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Iranian colors

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is based on personal imagination and appears to be original research. The concept of "Pan-Iranian colors" does not exist, and no academic sources support this idea. The sources cited in the article discuss only the modern and historical flags of the country of Iran, which have no connection to other groups considered Iranian due to their language. Sikorki (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Tohi

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

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC. KH-1 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft deletion, this is the fifth reincarnation under this title. Let's go for a solid consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can furnish evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Tohi. Persian BBC did discuss his music but evaluating whether or not that coverage was significant would require analysis by a Persian/Farsi speaker. I suspect that this was a brief introduction to playing a bit of his music. Since he now lives in Los Angeles, English coverage might be expected, but all I found was one highly promotional non-independent item obviously generated by a press release or public relations activity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Guardian Tiger IV

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

Insignificant 1-2 day WP:ROUTINE operations, one of thousands of non-notable military operations. Almost 20 years later, no WP:SIGCOV indicating a failure of WP:LASTING. Only coverage may be simple listings of the operations in directories or from sources published by the U.S. military that are not thus independent, and not qualifying WP:RS to establish WP:GNG.

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Longhornsg (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor US military operations covered only by US military media outlets are by definition not notable. GlobalSecurity.org is just archiving coverage from the US military. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Marzouk

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

Declined prod. The one source added, although looks impressive is just a very small 1 line mention in a long list of فيصل مرزوق and definitely not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly where his 44th place finish in the preliminary heats (nine seconds behind the fastest time in the event) is recorded. A stand-alone article can't be supported, 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) 02:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When his name is searched in Arabic it appears to have a lot more hits, also hits in Newspapers.com. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“سباح كويتي”, the name you put in the article, is transliterated as Sabah Kuwaiti and it means Kuwaiti swimmer. His real Arabic name is فيصل مرزوق, ~~which also does come up with some results on Google.~~ Jordano^5³ 05:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Upon a more thorough search, those are not the same Marzouks, and indeed there really isn't coverage of him. Jordano^5³ 17:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MilkShake

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

Nominated this for speedy deletion but was rejected because one of the former members has a notable page. But beyond that there doesn't appear to be much notability to the girl group. GamerPro64 00:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. GamerPro64 00:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of trails in Brevard County, Florida

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

Subject does not appear to have significant, independent coverage of the grouping per the WP:LISTN guidelines, and wikipedia is also WP:NOTGUIDE Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, Lists, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies; trails are treated the same way as roadways, and they are government facilities. The state has the Florida Greenways and Trails System (FGTS), while coverage on county-level trails would no question have a lot of primary sources. What is the issue with the sources and coverage of the various sources? – The Grid (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]