Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

3 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 02	May 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Esteghlal Javan

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

Defunct newspaper that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Iran. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Imrul Hassan

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

BLP. Man doing his job. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Houng On Yee

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

Tagged with a note tag. Reference in dictionary of biography is the wife Myrtle Houng On Yee. References are slim, passing mentions. Potentially notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Costa

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

WP:LUGSTUB that has been returned to mainspace without any additional sourcing of the kind that would satisfy WP:NSPORT. The only assertion of notability is a team medal at the 1911 Turin Artistic Gymnastics Championships (note, not the official world championship, since these weren't held until 1931), and a silver for rings and a bronze for parallel bars at the same event.

The team medal cannot be an indicator of individual notability, since notability is not inherited from the team. For these individual "medals" (as is explained later, there were no individual medals at these games), only four people appear to have competed at the rings, three of whom received "silver", and as such this "silver" cannot be an indicator of notability since everyone received "silver" or better. Similarly, for the parallel bars, it appears that everyone who competed received a medal, so again this bronze shared with six other people cannot indicate notability.

Moreover the circumstances of the 1911 Turin gymnastics championships mean they can hardly be considered the equivalent of modern games: the competition took place in the dark with the competitors being allowed to use their own equipment. Competitors were allowed to "cheat" on the parallel bars. Officially speaking this was only a team event, with no individual awards - the "gold", "silver" , "bronze" designations were given post-facto.

Searching further I see that Costa (or at least someone with the same name) took part in the 1919 Inter-Allied Games, but again his performance in the horse riding and jumping does not appear to have attracted significant coverage. I don't see anything in the corresponding French Wiki article that would fix this. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a huge pain to search for sources, but I think its likely that he's notable. He could have been known by several names, e.g. "Costa Antoine", "Antoine Costa", "Antoine Seville", and French newspaper archives Gallica has many matches that are of him, but its very time consuming to search through them all and get them translated (a few coverage examples: [1] [2]). There's a brief piece on him here; apparently he and Louis Ségura were the sole Olympians of Spanish nationality in 1908. His accomplishments and the confirmed coverage make me feel like his notability is likely. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you search for names other than the name of this article, you find information about people with other names. Yes also, it is difficult to find sources for this article which is why it better to find the sources before the article is created. Giving time for these sources to be found was the reason why this article was draftified.
It is also time-absorbing to go through results that clearly aren't relevant to the topic under discussion and/or don't provide signficant coverage of him, but here we are, so:
I do not see what hits from the Gallica search are relevant here. The first hit is La Dépêche algérienne which does not mention any gymnast by the name of Antoine Costa: it gives three excepts, the first is about a shoemaker called Antoine Claver, the second is a death notice posted by Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa and their children, the third is a notice about the arrest of a man by the name of Rico Boras Antoine. The second hit is much the same except Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa are posting a marriage notice this time. What is it we're supposed to be looking at here?

The L'Écho sportif de l'Oranie article is not WP:SIGCOV of Costa. It simply makes a couple of bare mentions of Costa ("...Antoine Costa et Bensadoum sont egalement a admirer ... Costa Antoine 2e du championnat artistique ...", or in machine translation " ... Antoine Costa and Bensadoum are also to be admired ... Costa Antoine 2nd in the artistic championship ... "). This is not SIGCOV.

The Le Libéral article similarly contains no significant coverage of Costa. It simply mentions him as one of the six member of the French team, and then says "Nos felicitations aux champions d'Algeries et au professeur costa de notre excellente societe de gymnastique l'Oranais", or in machine translation "Our congratulations to the Algerian champions and to Professor Costa of our excellent Oranian gymnastics society". This is not SIGCOV - it is not even clear that "Professor Costa" is the same as Antoine Costa.

The Meyba article similar just says "Antoine Costa nació en Orán el 23 de octubre de 1884, también compitió en 1912. En su partida de nacimiento también figura la anotación espagnol" or in machine translation "Antoine Costa was born in Oran on October 23, 1884, and also competed in 1912. His birth certificate also includes the notation "espagnol". Again, this is not SIGCOV.
If you want more time to find sources for this, then simply reverting the mainspacing and re-instating the five-year count-down agreed in WP:LUGSTUBS is an option. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It appears this article was returned to mainspace a year ago? In any event, the subject appears to be notable. Guidance via WP:NGYMNAST is notability is likely to exist when an individual "Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition"; Costa received 2 individual medals (plus a team medal), which satisfies. The World Artistic Gymnastics Championships is the 2nd most important/high profile gymnastics competition (first being Olympics). Your personal feelings on the competition is a false equivalence; athletes and competitions are ever-evolving. Baseball played in the 1920's is very different compared to the 40's, which is different compared to the '60s, '80s, etc.

This feels like a WP:RUSHDELETE situation, especially as BeanieFan11 immediately found 100+ year old sources in a foreign language which also speaks to notability. To add on to what they've found, I'm not even good at research on non-American sources, but even I was able to find this in a different L'Écho sportif de l'Oranie paper, which details the team, including Costa, who qualified to participate at the 1911 World Championships. It goes to say that Costa initially placed 7th (the top 6 made the team), but we obviously know later he was sent.

Feels like a lot of smoke here for there not to be a fire. Between all of the mentions, plus what already exists, in my opinion we're good here. GauchoDude (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally just another bare mention ("Monitour d'gynastique: M. Antoine Costa"), and as discussed above, in 1911 there were no individual medals, only team awards. The first individual champion was only recognised in 1922, the “medals” were attributed post-facto. This is why the results shows three people receiving “silver”, and six people receiving “bronze” - apparently everyone who took part in those events got a "medal", which is a specific exception under WP:NOLY and by extension for lesser events also. To go even further, these were not even officially the world championships - the first wasn't even held until 1931. At the time what is now called FIG was then just FEG (i.e., the European gymnastics federation, not the world one) - the name didn't change until the Americans joined in 1921 (see p.41 here).

Additionally, it really has to be emphasised that articles are not "rewards" for a specific level of performance: the only reason that we generally assume that e.g., an Olympic medal winner is likely to have SIGCOV is because generally they normally do, but even in that case, a WP:GNG pass must eventually be shown, which requires multiple instances of significant coverage, not bare-mentions simply of the name of the subject in local newspapers. Asking that this happen six years after the mass-creation of this article by Lugnuts is in no way a rush to delete.

TL;DR - no individual "medals" were awarded at this event, it was not the "world" championship, and anyway a WP:GNG pass is still needed. FOARP (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically per FOARP's reply of 06:40, 27 April. We don't have sources to pass GNG/NSPORT, and there is no reason to presume notability per the NSPORT guidelines. Can't see why this was moved back to mainspace without any improvement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sportsperson articles are required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. This has to happen regardless of whether the subject also meets NGYMNAST, which clearly they do not by any reasonable assessment of the criteria. We have no sources demonstrating notability, therefore this article cannot exist in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GauchoDude, per global consensus this article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV for us to have any presumptions from NGYMNAST of additional coverage existing. Zero sources satisfying this requirement have been identified, and the article was draftified with the expectation that it would only be moved back to mainspace iff such sources were added. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where he won a medal. Articles require multiple sources containing IR SIGCOV, not just one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships: No indication of notability is here for this subject to have a standalone article under the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri

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

I can find absolutely nothing about this individual on a WP:BEFORE search other than facebook posts and the like, and the article itself (along with being incredibly poorly written and overly long for no apparent reason) has absolutely zero sources. As such I don't believe this article meets WP:BIO. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Pakistan. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found from me either. Not sure this subject is verifiable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article would clearly need to be totally rewritten, and probably renamed, if kept, but there seem to be some sources here. Remember that South Asian names are often surrounded by honorifics and don't usually come with consistent spelling in a foreign alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXHAUST ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

--ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standard ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

--ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I located a single reference to him here, but it is unclear if it meets BIO because of it. Article needs degaussing; it is currently a hagiography, and his name should be Rakhyal Shah. Bennett, Clinton; Ramsey, Charles M. (1 March 2012). South Asian Sufis: Devotion, Deviation, and Destiny. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-4411-5127-8. Ogress 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be more sources with the spelling "Rakhial Shah" than with "Rakhyal Shah". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Spell Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri & this is not correct spell Rakhial Shah ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've now converted the article to a stub with hopefully reliable sources. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pires against Camargos

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

Note tag placed for more than a years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Engine

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2010 was not very convincing, with a lot of trivial coverage thrown around. Notability is not inherited, so a game engine is not notable because the games it was used in are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [3] and this [4] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [5] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [6], here [7], here [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [10], [11], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning delete as the article appears to fail GNG since sources only cover that the subject exchanged questionable texts with a married man and took a selfie at a Holocaust memorial which doesn't seem like significant coverage. I found a few small articles in her hometown newspaper including [12] but I still think it fails WP:BASIC, unless notability is via WP:ENTERTAINER but I don't see a case for this in the sources. I'm wondering if these same sources had different content if I'd see things differently which is why I'm not officially !voting yet. Nnev66 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Dream

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

Unfortunately obscure tabletop rpg. The only "source" is a listing in the Quebec Business Registry which won't work properly for me. Aside from that, I can only find forum posts. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - Two pieces of significant coverage: Review of two supplements in Backstab magazine, Review in Fictional Reality magazine. Of the two, only Backstab seems like a reliable source, Fictional Reality is a self-published e-zine. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a bit more coverage here if that helps at all. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I also found a review by Casus Belli magazine here: [13]. I changed the vote to keep. --Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Realm of Fantasy article doesn't provide much coverage aside from a basic summary of the premise. Backstab and Casus Belli look fine to me, though. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added three of the above sources to the article. Guinness323 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuger

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

Non-notable company. Covered mostly by WP:TRADES. The best article about the company is this but it is more about Alster fountain than the company. WP:SPAs editing history is also problematic. Overall, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references. --Trimax503 (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ATA. It would be better if you point out the references (that meet WP:CORPDEPTH standard) and why you are just interested in AfDs as a newbie? Gheus (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription machine

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

We probably do need an article on speech-to-text/text-to-speech machines, but this isn't a useful starting point for it and there isn't a decent version anywhere in the history. Please will the community authorise the WP:TNT of this content. —S Marshall T/C 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that this likely has merit as a topic, this current article is unsourced and made up of such interesting sentences such as "First, as a transcriptionist, one must learn the different types of goods and transcription machinery that is needed to become effective in what is going to be done." Completely unsalvagable in its current form so delete per TNT. CoconutOctopus talk 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dictation machine#Transcription. For those unfamiliar with this old technology, a dictation machine is what the boss used to tell his typist what the letter should say, and a transcription machine is what the typist used to listen to the recording. Back in the day, many of them used ordinary audio cassettes, so you didn't necessarily need a specialized machine. However, if you had a specialized machine, then the transcription end usually had a foot pedal, so the typist could pause the recording as needed without taking her hands off the typewriter. Alternatively, we could keep it and strip it to a brief stub, keeping the cited textbook. (The other "reference" can be seen at archive.org and is useless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect target is specifically about digital transcription, so I don't think it's useful without a substantial rewrite.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect - although it's a tricky one. Noted the redirect target above, but also S Marshall's comments about suitability. Additionally I question whether there was any such thing as a "transcription machine", the title of this page. What the archive.org link shows, and what were generally sold, were transcription sets. The machine part was the cassette player, with the addition of a pedal or means to pause. Did these then become transcription machines? I think we would need a secondary source that says so to support a redirect. Generally these were transcription sets. There was no mechanical transcription. The page itself, of course, lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. We don't appear to have any evidence that a secondary treatment of transcription sets has occurred. Yet it is not a stretch to think that there might be something out there - whether under this title or another. So then we have the nom.'s request to TNT this article. There is at least one AfD closer who will point out, if they see this, that TNT is an essay, and one that they believe is popular but not policy based. TNT is not a policy reason to delete, but WP:IAR is. If the removal of this article will allow a better sourced and better attested article to be written, then an IAR/TNT delete is in order. If that is the reason for deletion, the redirect will also get in the way. But the reason this is tricky is that one could argue you could just blank this and start over. If there is not consensus to delete this page, take this !vote as support for blanking the content and replacing it with something more accurate (even if that is initially much shorter). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asei Nakahara

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

Contested PROD, fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CURLING. Has played in the World championships and has medalled at the Youth Olympics. I'm sure there must be some reliable sources in Japanese that can be found.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found these in Japanese [14], [15], [16] but I'm not sure if they would constitute significant coverage although the third article is purely about him. Also it should be noted that he was only the reserve at the Worlds. Not voting at this stage, just putting out what I could find to hopefully aide the discussion. Shrug02 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources of IRS SIGCOV have been identified. The links above are to two trivial mentions and a press release reprinted by his own school. Fails SPORTSCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sources given above are trivial mentions. This guy doesn't have a JP wiki. I search JP news and found nothing except trivial mentions. I would vote delete but he and his team medaled on Curling at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics so maybe notable for that?. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a children's event though Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOLYMPICS does not mention the Youth Olympics in its criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are not at a keep here, but they are still active. It is at least possible they will become notable one day. Is there an ATF we can agree on that preserves page history? A redirect somewhere? Or is there any mileage in draftification? Draftify, however, won't do if there is no realistic possibility of new sources before the draft expires. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hamek

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

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soun Takeda

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

Note tag placed. I think its non-notable. References are extremly poor, some promo. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serretta Wilson

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

Lacks independent SIGCOV. I searched EBSCO database, archive.org, and Google News. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sayles

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

Lost 3 of his 4 official fights in the UFC before being released. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MMA or WP:GNG. Highest rank achieved on FightMatrix is #148. (https://www.fightmatrix.com/fighter-search/?fName=Matt+Sayles). I'd like to know what you guys think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything on Google to support WP:GNG. For notability for mixed martial arts, Sayles isn't in a top ten rank as suggested by WP:NMMA. Links to Fightmatrix and Sherdog. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in the Balkans

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

Reads a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic seems obviously notable. Why can’t it be fixed? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St+art India Foundation

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

The foundation does not meet WP:NORG. References 1 and 3 are not independent, and Reference 2 is about the founder's passing. Online searches return only trivial mentions with no in-depth, independent coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:GNG and not found any WP:RS. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician)

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

Seems like a great person, but does not appear to satisfy notability criteria WP:BIO with multiple significant coverage from independent RS. I’m no expert on WP:NACADEMIC but I don’t think the 2 reasonably cited articles are enough. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and New Zealand. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kunce

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. All coverage is related to his unsuccessful campaigns. Unless his military service is notable, this is individual has dubious notability. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Safety Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG, I did not find sources offering significant independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the network is notable in the UK. There are secondary sources about it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and even academic research recognizing it ([7], [8], [9], and more). But I recognize Eddie891's point so I suggest some of these references being incorporated into the article so it is better sourced and more complete. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt DuBois

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

Fails WP:GNG, all coverage of him is in passing.Practically, we have very little actual biographical information on DuBois, just a bunch of quotes he gave. BEFORE found little else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia

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

Bringing to AFD following discussion at what Wikipedia is Not regarding this page being a violation WP:NOTGUIDE. Proposal is to either selectively merge content from this page into the main Huntington, West Virginia page and ~~delete~~ redirect this one, or remove the travel guide fluff and move this article to a new page entitled "List of parks in Huntington, West Virginia". nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Sports, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you WP:MERGE content from one article into another, then we can't WP:DELETE the original, due to license requirements. So I think your proposal needs to be choosing between merge-and-redirect vs stripping it down to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, didn't think about the license aspect here. Modified accordingly. nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. It would be a pity to lose this material, but it clearly doesn't belong in WP. — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Re-direct Keep the referenced stuff, just de-fluff and merge into the main article and then redirect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both proposed merge' content to Huntington and delete this article as proposed or alternate proposal of reducing this article down to a bare-bones list of parks (which are tolerated for several cities). Keeping the referenced stuff won't work because a lot of that material is still classic travel guide material. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean merge and redirect or reduce, I hope, as merging requires saving the article history for attribution (unless you copy the list of contributors, which is cumbersome and less useful). I did link the version that was current at time of nomination from voy:Talk:Huntington (West Virginia), so that anybody working at that article on Wikivoyage can merge in useful parts as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per hike395. Ré union! 06:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Drean

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

Excluding primary sources and unreliable sources, there doesn't seem to be anything that meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Massachusetts, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly promotional, quite aside from that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, this reads like a sales brochure. Some of the [creator's other articles] look rather the same, and a question as to whether this is a paid editor comes to mind. Ravenswing 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

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

I don't see where this meets GNG, it seems like mostly primary sources and cruft, and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sigcov. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Salimkumar

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Byrne (baseball)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he arguably might pass GNG, but I don't think we need to keep historical biographies on baseball players who never reached the highest level unless the GNG pass is clearly non-trivial/routine, and he didn't get any significant coverage outside of his local area. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 of the Girls

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

One AllMusic review and some local news about one of the members from decades later does not seems like substantial coverage to me, and I didn't find anything else. Not sure if it'd be a likely search term, but I probably wouldn't oppose a redirect to "One of the Girls" if the votes land that way. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that there was a prior AfD in 2008 that ended in a keep, though it was a weak one with only two respondents, one of whom only said the article may be readded in the future anyway as their reason for keeping. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I found three good sources with relatively SIGCOV ([17], [18], and [19]). If can get plus ~1-2 sources it would a definite keep from me. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second presidency of Donald Trump, 2025, 2nd quarter

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

A WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Second presidency of Donald Trump. There is no reason for a split into a quarter of a year of a presidency, especially since there is nothing particularly different or independent from any other quarter or year. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 04:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason cited by nom. The "Tariffs" section is already written in great detail in the Tariffs in the second Trump administration article. Likewise, there's nothing in the "Cabinet changes" section that is not already covered in Second cabinet of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio#Tenure as secretary, and Mike Waltz#Signal app group chat leak. — Staniu lis ✿ 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toptani Shopping Center

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable shopping center. Fails WP:NCORP. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Indiana

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

A spot on the railroad just east of Newton, close enough that on Streetview you can see the structures of the latter off in the distance. This is now the site of a warehouse and nothing else; back in the late 1950s there was a different, smaller building and a single house, but hardly a town. Seems to have just been a rail spot, though at least it amde it onto the topos without the help of the highway department. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Mangoe. A quick Google search turns up nothing notable on the subject. Only two results relating to the topic. One result is this article, and the other is its entry on mapquest. Neither entries show anything notable. Editor113u47132 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though i added a source to a 1955 county history that calls it a "small hamlet", it appears to be the location of what was a grain elevator and a house or two, also called "Perkin's Switch". U.S. 24 bends around those buildings, it appears, so one can imagine the place name became Perkins but its a stretch to call it a "hamlet".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novotny

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined due to rationale of "many incoming links" so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. The PROD decline reason is not based in policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The existence of a few primary sources (all of which are official organization or club websites) and a single secondary source, (the Journal Inquirer; no other secondary sources were found) is not enough to establish notability. Although not an official policy, existence does not equate to notability. Neither the primary sources nor the secondary source provide detail sufficient enough to justify the subject having an article, regardless of the number of incoming links. — Staniu lis ✿ 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sewerslvt

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as failing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 2 May 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 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[20], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[21] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[22]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[23][24][25], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[26][27][28][29]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[30]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[31][32], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to !vote weak keep. The The Cloud piece is substantial enough to base an article on, and the other news mentions taken together help back that up. The Nataraja win is also an indicator of its significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recipient of national major awards: Nataraja Awards (รางวัลนาฏราช, a top-tier award in Thailand) [33], TV Gold Awards (รางวัลโทรทัศน์ทองคำ, should be the most prestigious TV awards in Thailand) [34]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources and awards provided here would be helpful in forming a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Reid

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

Largely not sourced, entirely plot summary. Character does not pass WP:GNG. From a search, lot of casting news, but that cannot sustain an article on a fictional character. Can redirect to the series or character article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The evidence doesn't really support notability, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criminal Minds at an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Journal of Legal Studies

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. It's a student journal. A merge to University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law would be ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I helped write the bulk of this and believe it passes WP:GNG:
1. It passes C2 of WP:JOURNALCRIT on its own. And though we shouldn't rely exclusively on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this journal seems to pass this more than other journals in the same space. See the remaining Canadian Law Journals, DJLS, or OHLJ.
2. There is good coverage from secondary sources via Canadian Lawyer and CBA National Magazine, passing WP:GNG.
3. Not sure the relevance of it being a student journal (see also the Harvard Law Review) but happy to hear this point clarified.
Ethamn (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C2 is satisfied through citation indexes, which as far as I can see this journal has none of. That is the main problem. The coverage is not enough to satisfy either GNG or NJOURNALS. Harvard is Harvard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to access Web of Science or Scopus and so use Canlii (citations by courts, since this is a law review) as a proxy. I count 8 cites by courts in the last ten years in contrast to 4 from QLJ, 0 from DJLS, etc.

Not sure you've demonstrated your point regarding this being a student journal. That is not relevant to its notability, as you can see from GLJ, HLR, UTFLR, MLJ, and the others in the category. Ethamn (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a correlation thing before, they tend to be less notable. Per the guideline C2 is passed through indexes, individual citations have not led to a keep result as far as I have seen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong-body narrative

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

Wildly pov article down to its title with only four primary sources supporting it, not at all sufficient coverage for a wikipedia article Snokalok (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Transsexual#Causes, studies, and theories. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's POV issues here, I'm not seeing them. I see an article that summarizes the perspectives of three academics and one memoirist on a valid topic in gender studies. No one's perspective seems to be given undue weight, nor presented as objectively correct. And even if that were the case, that would be an argument for cleanup, not for deletion. The sources already cited are enough to establish WP:GNG, and Google Scholar shows plenty more that are yet to be cited, e.g. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] just to take 5 from the first page of results. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoints on POV:

1. The term "narrative" as opposed to "theory", "hypothesis", "model", etc inherently carries the connotation of deception

2. We only see criticism listed.

These two things come together to form an article inherently opposed to the concept.

I agree however on your presentation of several more sources that GNG is probably satisfied, and believe now that the article must rather be upsourced (and have its name changed) Snokalok (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources use terms other than "narrative"? Are there reliable sources (enough to constitute due weight) that take non-critical views? At a glance all of the top sources on Google Scholar seem pretty critical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Response forthcoming, I had to take a breather. The UK court ruling has emboldened every terf on the island to try pov rewriting articles on women and trans people to favor a GC view, and that’s been a lot. Anyway, reading over your sources now. Snokalok (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeing this as a "GC view", I think you may need to step away from articles like this one for a bit, because that sounds like you're seeing ghosts. Most criticism of the wrong-body narrative comes from trans intellectuals, not TERFs. That's true both in general, and in the sources currently in the article; at least three out of the four authors are trans (not sure on Engdahl). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nono not this one, just in general I've been tired. I recognize this article is not one of those, but my energy has been sapped elsewhere and that means I had no energy to work on this section. Snokalok (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, tagging again @Tamzin since this is now my actual rebuttal -

"Wrong-body conception" [40]

"wrong-body model" [41] (Your #5 source)

"Wrong-body claim" [42] (Your #1 source)

These may seem like subtle pedantries, but "narrative" carries the connotation of deception from the start, whereas the rest don't. "Model" is better, imo. I would also place a higher burden on centering academic criticism, given that - one is not going to write a paper saying "I agree with the dominant idea" of this nature while one is absolutely going to write something disagreeing with it, so there will naturally be far more academic papers criticizing the idea. Snokalok (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a majority of reliable sources don't use "narrative", you should start an RM—but I don't see any basis for your reading of the word as implying deception. As to the rest of your comment, we write articles based on the sources that exist, not the sources we wish existed. And we don't reject critical sources. Lots of people write scholarly articles endorsing the dominant idea. That's what it means for something to be the dominant idea. But transmedicalist and binarist arguments for transgender validity have been out of fashion for a decade or so now. And see Breast cancer awareness and Shipping discourse for two existing cases where there's a critical scholarly consensus despite popular opinion being more split. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamzin; agree that an RM is due, I’d support “model”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Regional Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a region within a state and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ladakh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman and Nicobar Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin to the Trees

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

Fails the basic WP:NMUSIC criteria. This can easily be merged into Neil Young and expanded at Draft:Talkin to the Trees in the meantime. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production

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

Not finding enough sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. All of the sources listed in the article fail in significant coverage. Additionally, an internet search did not turn up anything else of note. Maybe a Canadian film editor knows of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. I am also nominating the following related pages because [of same reason as above]:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Turbans (music group)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#12 "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network". See BBC R6 2018, BBC R3 2018, and BBC R3 2019. ResonantDis_tortion 06:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leafcutter John

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No indication of a WP:BEFORE from the nominator. Quick search indicates significant coverage in The Quietus here, two staff reviews on Allmusic, [43]&[44], album of the month in The Guardian [45], and bylined gig review in the York Press here. ResonantDis_tortion 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherline

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

Article reads like an advertisement and does not cite any sources that are not connected to the subject. I could not find any in-depth discussion of the company by reliable, independent sources. Omnigrade (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sehgal

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Indian-American businessman. The sources do not support notability. We have:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE official bio or material by Sehgal ([46], [47])
Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWs ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]), often unbylined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA outlets.
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in lists of people ([53], [54], [55], [56],
Press releases from his companies or thin reprints of them ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61],
Three footnotes aren't about Sanjay Sehgal at all; they are about Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Gupta and Sanjay Kadaveru. Other sources don't mention Sehgal at all ([62], [63])

Nothing else qualifying came up in my BEFORE search, but if you search do note there are several other Sanjay Sehgals out there; this is the one who works for MSys. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Delhi, and Georgia (U.S. state). Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atibala

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Most of the detail is unsourced and possibly WP:OR (e.g. "He had been created by Ravana as a test-tube baby."). Only sourced detail "Atibala was a servant of Lanka king Ravana." can be added on Ravana page if it can be verified, but the current detail fails verification from the source - source says Atibala was Yama in form of a sannyasin. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

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

This was proposed for deletion by Catfurball (talk · contribs) last year, with the rationale When I did a Google search I found almost no third-party references and those that I found were only trivial, this proves to me that this article is not notable. That was contested by someone else who believed this was better suited to an AfD, but that did not happen at the time — instead, Catfurball today started a second PROD nomination. PROD is a one-and-done process, so I procedurally contested it with the intent of bringing the article here. While I agree with the prior deprodder that this would be best suited to a discussion, I am neutral and have no other opinion here; this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I did another Google search of this article and still there are almost no third-party references that talk about it. Those that I found were only trivial, so this proves to me that this article fails WP:ORG. Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) To any administrator that closes this discussion you will have to delete all of the redirects that are connected to it first. Catfurball (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some of this needs to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is barely mentioned there, but I would agree there is no reason to have a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous scholarly books discussing this topic on Google Books. Jahaza (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly doubt that. There may be discussions of the history of the SDAs which involve this body, but I doubt very much that there is all that much on the conference itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Land's Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists (2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015) has a 690 word article just on the General Conference as a whole[64]]. There are also numerous additional articles on related topics, such as individual sessions of the General Conference.
R. Clifford Jones's James K. Humphrey and the Sabbath-Day Adventists (U of Mississippi Press, 2006)[65] writes quite a bit about the racial policy of the General Conference and its establishment within the Conference of a "North American Negro Department".
Stefan Höschele's Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics (V&R Unipress, a Brill imprint, 2022)[66] covers the ecumenical policy of the General Conference.
Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-Day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging Religion (U of Illinois Press, 1999)[67] has a discussion of the General Conference as a whole and then info on various policies of the General Conference over time on gender issues. --Jahaza (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Mangoe for key info here to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity to preserve content of article at least, as the citations cited does seem too closely associated with the subject, for it to be standalone.Villkomoses (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I 100% agree with User:Mangoe that we do not need a separate article. Catfurball (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement with Jahaza's suggested sources, added after the most recent merge !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Afzal Abbas

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

Biography of an Indianpolitical operative; fails WP:NPOL since he appears to have held only party offices, not public offices. Fails WP:GNG since there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent, reliable sources. This article is exclusively sourced to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (government documents, file photos, Twitter posts, etc.) and thus violates WP:NOR. Has been in and out of draftspace and had a PROD contested, so here were at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matěj Havran

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

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Heart Productions

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

This film production company fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all the organization's own website(s) (not independent), IMDb (WP:USERGENERATED), or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. In this article, and in my WP:BEFORE search, I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Dube

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

As a city councilor in a midsize Zimbabwean city, this subject does not qualify under WP:NPOL. I do not believe he qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either, since the only substantial news coverage he received during his life (see VOA from my BEFORE search is related to his 2013 assault, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE brief mentions in the context of his local elected office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Zimbabwe. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:

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

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JT Pettigrew

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

Contested WP:PROD by Sophisticatedevening - subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Basketball, United States of America, and Illinois. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just gonna paste my orginal PROD rationale since there were no changes (or edit summary) given after it was contested: Subject has never participated in any professional or collegiate sports, not enough WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to satisfy WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and Conversion

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

There do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [68] also [69] Contemporary reviews [70] [71]... there appears to be a lot more [72]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xsnow

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Current article is unsourced. Sources that I have found are largely instructional on bloggish *nix sites (i.e. how to install xsnow) or are primary and cannot establish notability.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QSvn

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to be confused with “Quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic soft sets”, sometimes abbreviated “QSVN”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find any non-primary sources.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FileMan

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Ruby

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of sources and how-to books available that go into some depth about programming in ruby for distributed computing. However, notability is still weak as this program does not appear to be widely used for teaching and remains fairly niche. From an encyclopedic standpoint, there is not much more to say than this is a thing for distributed computing in ruby. Additional commentary appears likely to veer into how-to territory or a too-detailed look at the underpinnings of distributed ruby and wikipedia aims to do neither of these things.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ddoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found outside of primary sources specifically related to the D language. Sources are far too niche to be meet GNG standard. I would not recommend a redirect to D language in this case as the acronym DDOC has multiple meanings.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELMAH

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found any in-depth sources regarding ELMAH or how it is notable. It gets a fair number of mentions in sources focused on programming with asp.net, but it seems to be just one of many options for logging in that ecosystem.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EAccelerator

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in non-primary sources. Most sources are just passing mentions. It's a way to accelerate PHP. Nothing worth noting beyond that. Many sources are how-to style and would not be appropriate for establishing a longer wiki article.
Keep it is a notable topic of old class IT just like any theorem or experiment. Providing some sources including subject books mentioning it here, [73] [74][75][76][77], requires their addition only. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epydoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old and now defunct software for generating documentation in python. Available sources are mostly primary (2004 presentation at Pycon, software website). Most detailed additional mention I can find is in a bachelor's thesis from 2019 which does not meet GNG/reliability guidelines. Other sources are passing mentions or brief descriptions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyBeans

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete <10 academic sources from what I see with a quick search. Both scholarly sources and general sources appear to be primary. May have had some use in teaching, but widespread use does not seem common.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OJ (programming tool)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NSOFT 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently the only rationale is violating WP:NSOFT which is an essay not a guideline. The original conference paper for this programming tool[78] (when it was named openjava) has been cited 293 times according to google scholar. There are additional sources indicating this has been the topic of instruction in university courses. It appears to be subject of focus in some schools at least: [79]] which could mean it "passes" NSOFT despite the delete votes claiming otherwise. Given WP:PRESERVE and the lack of appropriate deletion rationale, this article should be kept until better research is done in favor of deletion at the very least.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSdocman

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything that would make this meet WP:GNG. The best source I found was here and that has a grand total of 57 words about it. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truss (Unix)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not finding reliable secondary sources that discuss the command in depth to meet GNG.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isurboi Protein

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

This reads like a resumé and provides no sources that actually discuss him, only articles which feature photos he modeled for. Searching myself (in English to be fair) I can find no sources whatsoever. His career seems fairly usual for a model, so I don't think there's a high likelihood sources exist at all. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Ghana. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a resume. Format and writing may indicate use of AI, but I'm not sure. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is most likely AI created no reliable sources either Scooby453w (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:A7 since notability is clearly lacking, and cited sources do not even mention the subject in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]