Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 April 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

< April 26	April 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Globalization of wine

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

This article mostly duplicates existing, better articles. It has featured various improvement tags dating back to 2008, and seemingly was PRODded in 2020 - which was only removed this week (I'm not sure how that happened). I think at this point it's fairly safe to say WP:TNT applies, as it's got very little reedeming it.

In addition the article seems largely to be an essay, failing WP:NOT. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Wine. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, Indiana

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

A "no there there" short-lived pre-RFD post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Amos

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, sources for notability are mostly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Three are articles from NASA, Amos's longtime employer; two are from LDS Church-owned outlets (Deseret News, Church News) shortly after she began her term as a mission president for the LDS Church; one is a deadlink to SpaceRef; and one is a local news article about luncheon at which Amos was among the attendees. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, Engineering, and Spaceflight. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve - I feel like she might meet GNG. I added a few more sources which just support the positions she held at NASA. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a profile of Amos and her spouse in The Advocate in 2020 and a brief one in the Salt Lake Tribune in 2021. I think we could use these to expound upon her activities as mission president. Best, Bridget (talk) ~~04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)~~ 11:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per the sources mentioned by Bridget but I also feel that the Desert News has enough editorial independence to contribute to notability in cases like this. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still undecided. The only source of length that I've found is from the BYU Idaho news about a talk she gave. Much of it is quotes from her talk so I think it should be considered similar to an interview. The other, from the Deseret News, is already in the WP article. I don't know if we can consider that latter "independent". Lamona (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on sourcing would be useful, keep !votes at present all prevaricate somewhat on the lack of strength and independence of sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Voice actors can certainly be notable per WP:NACTOR if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has voiced lead roles for many notable films, in a variety of languages. The main issue seems to me to be finding reliable sources to verify that she has voiced those roles. The sources currently in the article are not reliable or independent. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for sourcing to be identified (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Database Image

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep by criteria 1 and 3. No valid deletion rationale provided. WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline. Please provide clear + valid rationale for these nominations @Clenper.
I spent a large part of yesterday researching previous nominations that used NSOFT as rationale that were not eligible for soft deletion due to declined prod. At least 2 were likely notable due to use in teaching or common use in Java programming. The lack of justification in nominations is placing an unnecessary burden on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Two book hits, one in German, indicates this isn't a significant thing. The heck with NSOFT: it baldly fails GNG. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tit (Isis Knot)

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

This looks like a slightly changed copy of Tyet. I originally blanked and redirected, but I don't think the title is likely to be a common search so it might make more sense to delete. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalesija and Kamenica fighting (July – October 1992)

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source being used is the cia 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[1]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deseret News. That is where Catherine M. Stokes redirects at present. Given that the original AfD did not note the lack of independence amongst the sources combined with the fact that a search of sources via the Chicago Public Library and at the State Archives revealed that contrary to one contributor's assertion, there is not in fact a substantial amount of content from her time in Illinois. The articles gave her the title of manager and assistant deputy director in the state's Office of Health Care Regulation. The lack of being listed in the Illinois Blue Book at any point makes me wonder if Deputy Director was her final title or if they rounded up in her editorial biography. There is a reason that Catherine M. Stokes redirects to the Deseret News. This should too.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 25 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 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perkins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Cites one source which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Marvin Perkins and not a WP:RS. The seven external links are similarly neither reliable nor independent coverage. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 25 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 08:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop (album)

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

The various Kidz Bop album releases are not notable by themselves. They were all turned into redirects by WanderingWanda in 2019, with an explanatory note available at Talk:Kidz Bop#Pruning ✂️. All the albums that were recently raised up again from redirects should be returned to redirects. Even though the albums generally register on the Billboard charts, the topic of Kidz Bop albums can be covered much better at the central Kidz Bop page which has a list of albums and chart results. There is nothing remarkable about the individual albums. Even Sputnik says that nobody cares about these albums. Let's return them all to redirects, including Kidz Bop (album), Kidz Bop 2, Kidz Bop 3, Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop 7. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Redirect to Kids Bop: despite charting, independent coverage outside of AllMusic by volume is minimal. Any noteworthy individual achievement can easily be spelled out there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:34, 25 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 08:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mack (restaurateur)

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

I cannot find significant coverage on the person, but only on his family, and projects (resorts, hotels, etc) he is involved. Not sufficient media coverage for general notability for people. Unicorbia (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Restaurantguide 2025: Thomas Mack ist internationaler Botschafter" [Restaurant Guide 2025: Thomas Mack is an international ambassador]. Falstaff [zh] (in German). 2024-12-02. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Thomas Mack kennt das Food-&-Beverage-Geschäft seit Kindheitstagen. Für sein Taschengeld engagierte sich der jüngste Sohn des Europa-Park-Chefs früh im Familienbetrieb: Er frittierte Pommes, schenkte Getränke aus, half bei Banketts und arbeitete sogar als Nachtportier. Nach seiner Ausbildung an der renommierten Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern, die Mack als Jahrgangsbester abschloss, übernahm er eine zentrale Rolle im Familienunternehmen. Heute verantwortet er das gesamte operative Geschäft des Europa-Parks, einschließlich der 90 Gastronomiebetriebe, 5.800 Hotelbetten und 4.750 Mitarbeiter, die jährlich mehr als sechs Millionen Gäste aus aller Welt betreuen. 2012 eröffnete Mack das Fine-Dining-Restaurant »Ammolite«, das seit zehn Jahren zwei Michelin-Sterne trägt. 2022 folgte das immersive Dinner-Erlebnis »Eatrenalin«."
  From Google Translate: "Thomas Mack has been familiar with the food and beverage business since childhood. The youngest son of the Europa-Park CEO got involved in the family business early on to earn his pocket money: he fried fries, served drinks, helped at banquets, and even worked as a night porter. After completing his training at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne, where Mack graduated top of his class, he assumed a key role in the family business. Today, he is responsible for all of Europa-Park's operations, including its 90 restaurants, 5,800 hotel beds, and 4,750 employees, who serve more than six million guests from all over the world annually. In 2012, Mack opened the fine-dining restaurant "Ammolite," which has held two Michelin stars for ten years. The immersive dining experience "Eatrenalin" followed in 2022."
2. Hofer, Joachim; Buchenau, Martin-W. (2020-01-07). "Wie der Familienunternehmer den Europapark auch im Winter attraktiv halten möchte: Der Diplom-Hotelier und Juniorchef des Europaparks hat gerade erst sein neustes Hotel eröffnet – mit Erfolg. Ein weiteres dürfte schon bald folgen" [How the family entrepreneur wants to keep Europapark attractive in winter: The qualified hotelier and junior manager of Europa-Park has just opened his newest hotel – with great success. Another is expected to follow soon.]. Handelsblatt (in German). Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Sohn Thomas ist für Kost und Logis zuständig, ... Und nicht nur das: Mit dem „Ammolite“ betreibt Thomas Mack in einem der Hotels sogar ein mit zwei Sternen gekröntes Nobelrestaurant. Längst hat Mack bei seinen Ausbauplänen nicht mehr nur Disneyland im Blick oder das Phantasialand. „Unser Mitbewerber ist eher Mallorca denn ein anderer Freizeitpark“, sagt der Absolvent der Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern. 2007 stieg Mack als Prokurist in die Firma ein. Seit 2016 ist der verheiratete Vater von zwei kleinen Kindern als geschäftsführender Gesellschafter für Hotels, Gastronomie sowie das Marketing zuständig. Um die Leute rund ums Jahr in die badische Provinz zu holen, organisieren Macks Mitarbeiter fast jeden Tag eine Veranstaltung – ob die Achterbahnen nun laufen oder nicht. Momentan lädt er die Gäste Abend für Abend zu einer opulenten Dinnershow."
  From Google Translate: "Son Thomas is responsible for food and lodging... And that's not all: With the "Ammolite," Thomas Mack even runs a two-star gourmet restaurant in one of the hotels. Mack's expansion plans have long since moved beyond Disneyland and Phantasialand. "Our competition is more likely to be Mallorca than any other theme park," says the graduate of the Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. Mack joined the company as an authorized signatory in 2007. Since 2016, the married father of two young children has been the managing partner responsible for hotels, gastronomy, and marketing. To attract visitors to the Baden province year-round, Mack's employees organize an event almost every day – whether the roller coasters are running or not. He currently invites guests to an opulent dinner show every evening."
3. Ralph, Owen (2024-04-16). "Thomas Mack: why hospitality matters at Europa-Park Resort. The resort's managing partner knows how to wine, dine and accommodate its six million guests with style". Blooloop. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  Blooloop has editorial oversight. The article notes: "The middle child and younger son of Europa-Park founder Roland Mack, Thomas Mack worked as a teenager in the park’s hotels, cafés, and restaurants. He also interned at other theme parks, hotels, and hospitality businesses. After the success of Europa-Parks’ first two hotels, he was encouraged to study for a degree at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. ... Now aged 43, Thomas has been responsible for all the gastronomy, hospitality and entertainment operations at Europa-Park Resort since 2007. In 2016, he was made a managing partner." The article says that he is married to Katja Mack, "the founder and head of Europa-Park's Talent Academy".
4. Neubauer, Dirk (2021-07-10). "Europa-Park-Chefs Michael und Thomas Mack: Mit dem Skateboard in der Bobbahn" [Europa-Park bosses Michael and Thomas Mack: Skateboarding on the bobsleigh track]. Badische Neueste Nachrichten (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-08-05. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "They're mischievous stories, as if Michael and Thomas Mack had watched too many Michel from Lönneberga movies: The two brothers throw chestnuts from Balthasar Castle into the historic garden of Europa-Park. ... Also unforgettable is a competition between the Mack brothers: who could complete the most laps on the then-brand-new Eurosat roller coaster. After lap 34, Michael, the older of the two, gave up. "Thomas won, but he also had a nosebleed.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thomas Mack to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 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 08:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony T. Roberts

AfDs for this article:

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

Longstanding unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:Delete: This Article does not meets it's notability for mainspace and does not maintain reliable sources. Also it's has now 2nd nomination for Wikipedia:Article for deletion, therefore it should be deleted. Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is my first time in a discussion like this so I'm not too sure how this all works but I concur with deleting this article there are only 2 sources one of which is the subjects own website which isn't reliable and a idmb page which just lists credits. speaking of which the credits themselves don't confer notability either as they appear to be mostly minor roles. Scooby453w (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a side note I looked at the previous afd which resulted in keep however it seems to have been solely based on the fact that he had an idmb page which I disagree with as I stated above Scooby453w (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2007...

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
— L. P. Hartley in The Go-Between (1953)

Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah that is my point perhaps a simple idmb bio was enough for an article back then but it seems the standards have been raised. Im not too familiar with the procces of what should and shouldn't be kept but it seems to me that articles with poor sourcing tend to get deleted Scooby453w (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. Box Office#Main Cast: but if existing sources seem OK for GNG, not fiercely opposed to Keep (a lot of coverage like https://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140723/tony-roberts-brings-an-army-of-jokes-to-the-forum-for-komedy-xxplosion/ or https://www.royalgazette.com/other/lifestyle/article/20150402/comedians-will-have-you-in-stitches/ exists). (Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the other roles are minor or in not clearly notable productions) -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i could get behind a redirect Scooby453w (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. I'm ok with a redirect, but only conditional on finding at least one reliable source. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/bill-bellamy-jon-lovitz-vivica-fox-sitcom-keshia-knight-pulliam-gary-busey-byron-allen-321177/; https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/mr-box-office/cast/1000570817/ -Mushy Yank. 22:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough for WP:GNG - there's a full page article about him from 2014 in The Arizona Republic [2], and a good para from 2023 in The News Journal (Delaware) [3], and the LA Daily News article that Mushy Yank found does have biographical info in it, as well as bits of interview. Given that he's a stand-up comedian, redirecting to one show seems rather limiting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider sources found relatively late in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prody Parrot

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSOFT The page was recreated while still not meeting notability criteria. Clenpr (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this review in PC Mag, this piece in the Arizona Daily Star, this in Electronic Design, and this in the Journal of Commerce. There's also this article mentioning that it won an award from the Smithsonian and was included in the Smithsonian Permanent Research Collection. And there's this mention in Information Week, but I can only access a snippet. I also found quite a few recent sources that mention Prody Parrot as one of the earliest examples of a digital assistant, but none that provide SIGCOV of it. Together I think it's probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodaya (train)

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

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

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

Volt Poland

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sarbini

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

Wasn't able to find sources that would show that this meets WP:GNG. Someone who can understand Indonesian might have better luck. A previous draftification was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Gopalganj district

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This appears to be a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Just because this information exists, does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. Blackballnz (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast International Model United Nations

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

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you're the only user who has substantively edited the article. If you want the article deleted, you can tag it with G7. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue to seek help with improving it, but I'm not sure what is, although someone more familiar with cases like these may provide more meaningful advice. If you don't want to delete it but aren't sure it's ready for publication yet, it can probably be moved to your userspace or draft space to allow you to improve it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep gotcha. The thing is that I’m 60-40% on the fence for this. I kinda think that the subject is notable owing to the sources but this might be a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. So thought that an AfD would be the best way to ascertain notability quickly. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to List of model United Nations conferences. There doesn't seem to be articles for other conferences, even THIMUN. As for the current content, it reads somewhat promotionally, and with little that would apply to this MUN conference and not any other. That is not to say a MUN conference couldn't be notable, but if it was I would expect there would be more to say. CMD (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest vines

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

Unfortunately, this list fails on the guidelines for notability of lists. WP:NLIST I have not been able to locate any source that discusses longest vines as a group. In addition I have not been able to locate any sources that support the claims for notability/inclusion of most of the list items. For example "Longest monocot". "The longest parasitic vine." etc.

This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH with the editors doing original research. This would make a great article in a popular science magazine, but WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of original publication.

I discussed these issues with the article's primary editor on the talk page, but they have not been able to provide any source that would deal with the notability issue. I placed a synth notice on the page in October of 2024 and no other editor has responded on the talk page or provided a source.

I don't know that there is anywhere appropriate to redirect this article to. Maybe to matchbox bean (Entada phaseoloides) as the probable longest vine. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This looks like original research without a notable subject behind it. I agree that there are no clear AtDs at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and Mtbotany have set an impossible standard which I state categorically cannot be met. I know. I have been searching since 1969 for the sort of hard evidence which MtBotany insists on. It doesn't exist. Reports in botanical journals such as Treub's measurement of Calamus are the extreme exception. 56 years of stubborn research is evidence of that. MtBotany's suggestion of redirecting it is certainly better than nothing. If John Doe, having just measured his grape vine, begins to wonder "How long do vines get?", he should be able to get some sort of answer if he types in "longest vine". Here's another thought: You have a half dozen clones using your material for free. Why not let them earn their keep? Block it for Wikipedia per se, but continue feeding it to the clones. Just a thought. Treeenthusiast (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not much reference to the individual vines themselves, just the name of the species they are in. There is no article specifically about each specific longest plant, and iirc a list's purpose on wikipedia is to link articles about its content to the reader. I checked the very first entry (snuff box sea bean), supposedly the longest entry in the list, and the longest specimen length is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article about the plant in general. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark (newspaper)

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

Non-notable newspaper, does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or local in scope, a WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage of note. Author has a WP:COI and likely undisclosed WP:PAID interest. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies that I’m relatively new at this. I attempted to disclose my conflict that I’m the co-owner and editor of this newspaper. I was not paid by anyone to create this page; I did it in my free time on a weekend. The list of California papers ([[List of newspapers in California#Daily newspapers]]) is full of dozens of other weeklies with nothing exceptionally notable about them at all, and with circulation the same or smaller than ours. We’ve been named the best small newspaper in America several times by the National Newspaper Association (National Newspaper Association and California News Publishers Association (California News Publishers Association), which seems more significantly notable than than other non-daily newspapers with non-deleted wikis, eg the Salinas Valley TribuneSalinas Valley Tribune — with all due respect to my colleagues there! Thanks for your consideration and happy to answer any questions. Kzhessel (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kzhessel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions that newspapers qualify under the criteria for "corporations and organizations" is fairly absurd. Yes it's a product but so are films, video games, books, which we have our own guidelines for, or any other kind of media, which we do not - clearly NCORP is not meant to cover "literally any piece of media", because that is absurd and counter to the spirit of notability. Better to go by WP:GNG or the suggestions at WP:NMEDIA... under which this does not pass, if the sourcing is all there is. This page does have no independent sources at the moment and needs to be largely trimmed. If this is all there is I would lean delete but if there is more coverage from outside sources (as the award would indicate there probably is) I would be more sympathetic. This seems like a relatively significant local paper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing RfC about making Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability an SNG, so I would look to that for guidance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more citations. I'm not sure what kind of additional citations are needed though -- individual papers are typically the source of news, not the discussion of news. When they're not national newspapers and they get written about by other media, it's usually because something very bad happened, eg, the 5,000 circulaton Manteca Bulletin has plagiarism allegations. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW we do have other newspapers citing us as the source of original/breaking news, eg, https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/05/tiburon-ridge-nearly-doubles-open-space-size/ ; https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ex-boyfriend-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-12559393.php ; https://www.marinij.com/2018/09/18/michael-mina-to-open-first-marin-restaurant-in-tiburon/ -- but we have no reason to include it in the wiki. I have included some other outside sources for citation though. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- although I could argue that being a significant local newspaper is notable in some cases, but I do not find this one passing WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate that, I'm having difficulty with both the criteria and the notion that this newspaper would be deleted when other non-daily California papers smaller and/or less significant than ours remain, some of which also have substantial wikis: Daily Democrat, Whittier Daily News, Idyllwild Town Crier, Sonoma Valley Sun, Placerville Mountain Democrat, Paso Robles Press, Half Moon Bay Review, Palisadian-Post, Monterey County Weekly, The Mendocino Beacon, Madera Tribune, Larchmont Chronicle, Lompoc Record, Hollister Free Lance, The Healdsburg Tribune, Selma Enterprise, North County News Tribune, Del Norte Triplicate, Hellenic Journal, Inyo Register, Atascadero News.

(Disclosure: I'm the page author and owner-editor of the paper under discussion.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sigcov in this university press book [4], but it's entirely about how the newspaper got its name. There's also something here [5] that is sigcov from the google books preview, not that it shows it to you. Finding sources for newspapers is hard, they seem to be cited a decent amount. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahlita Buethke

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. Lower level amateur footballer. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources are independent of the subject, nor was anything I could find on Google. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:09, 21 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 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is simply no available IRS SIGCOV sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình

AfDs for this article:

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Nešković

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir

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

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.

The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. Silver seren^C 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.

It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.

I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.

Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion/dilution analysis

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

does not comply with, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC do not satisfy either Iban14mxl (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bascom Corner, Indiana

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

An intersection with some random houses around it, but other than Baker I have nothing on this barring a bald statement that it is an unincorporated town from a county history dating to 2021, so it could be dependent on us. Other book hits were exceedingly few and were all gazetteers. We really need more documentation than this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America West Airlines Flight 556

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Almost entirely unsourced, the two sources here don't help notability (unreliable, primary), I searched for sources and found none helpful. Also quite poorly written (the pilots over and over and over) PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Aviation, and Arizona. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here except an account of two pilots convicted of being drunk on the job. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sustained coverage of the incident. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America West Airlines § Accidents and incidents (where the incident is mentioned) and merge Flight 556's references to that page. This aviation incident is not much in terms of significance, and my WP:BEFORE search has barely found any of Flight 556's WP:LASTING impact. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Radio

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

Does not appear to be notable in itself given lack of coverage of the company that I could find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck (nickname)

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

Fails WP:GNG; little to no significant coverage. The Independent piece is the only one that contains any discussion about the nickname more substantial than "someone called Trump 'Donald Duck'". Even that discussion is limited to random online reactions, and is more about Christie than the nickname itself. The Politico piece shares Trump's reaction but contains even less coverage than the Indepdendent. I couldn't find better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is nothing more than childish name calling. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Also, it would need far more notability to warrant a page of its own; I would think a mention on Donald Duck would suffice, although as it is now I don't think it even has enough notability for that. jolielover♥talk 06:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2025 stock market crash

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

If this turns into a prolonged market correction, there may be a need for a broader article. As is, the 2025 stock market crash at best lasted for a week between April 2 and April 9 (?) and it seems unnecessary to have a timeline for a 7 day event. The article largely duplicates info from the fairly short parent article. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this should be deleted based on WP:TOOSOON. Right now a full crash on the level of the dotcom bubble or the subprime bubble or the great depression bubble has yet to happen.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm an Eventualist, but not that much of an Eventualist. kencf0618 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draftspace for now. It could be expanded on and potentially moved back to mainspace when/if a future crash occurs. Given Trump’s erratic economic demands a future crash is not out of the question. ApexParagon (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON applies here, no indication of lasting notability. Let'srun (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

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

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This really only had coverage at local level. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to either Transport in Auckland#Walking and cycling or Cycling in Auckland, which does mention a 1998 "Walking and Cycling Plan" in Cycling in Auckland#Attitudes. There does not seem to be an article about pathways in Auckland, which would be a good merge target. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cycling in Auckland#Facilities. I think the lack of coverage is being overstated, as there is more than "just news releases." I also would describe Greater Auckland as more of an urbanism-focused blog than an advocacy group and will point out that one of the sources from them was actually a guest post by a local board member (not that it really changes anything). Nonetheless, I agree that it's not enough to warrant its own article. Traumnovelle, if you're the one doing the merging, please merge more than just one to two sentences this time or let someone else do it (seeing as Gadfium also thought you didn't merge enough content on another article recently). Cycling in Auckland is probably a good merge target for now, seeing as it gets into the specifics a bit too much for Transport in Auckland. MangoMan11 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Highways Authority

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

Not notable, promotional article Loewstisch (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's notable or not I'm not sure (I don't know how we assess the notability of government agencies) but the article is not in the slightest bit promotional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ministry of Roads and Highways (Ghana) of which this is a department. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Loewstisch: Did you assess (WP:BEFORE) the extensive press coverage since 1974 to present? MarioGom (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government agencies are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Any luck? Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added sources and info from digitised newspapers (and a bit more info from the existing sources). A Google Books search shows that there is also some coverage in computer magazines, which I have not (yet) included - I will try to include this one [6] at least (though IT is really outside my areas of expertise or interest). I think there is just enough significant coverage for it to meet WP:NCORP (including the ISP Planet article - its age and the fact that the publication no longer exists are irrelevant.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RebeccaGreen, the InfoWorld article is based entirely on information provided by the company - that isn't "independent Content" - fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria, no sourcing available that is both in-depth and "independent content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically sources are all brief, routine business announcements, and I don't find anything more substantial. I will check back in case someone finds something better. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in the hopes of finding more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Yoshino

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

With 7 J3 appearances, [7], he doesn't seem notable, but as he played in Brazil briefly there may be stuff out there. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources from Targma seem to have significant coverage: 2020 and 2024. I'm just not sure if the source is reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [8], [9], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements do not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (apparently - AGF!) notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak delete.. changed course here after more recent considerations and especially in light of Sirfurboy's comments and further source review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:

1. & 14. [10] [11]- Primary / not independent -

2. [12] Listing, not SIGCOV. Primary?

3. [13] WP:SPS - blog. Not a WP:RS. Not SIGCOV - passing mention.

4. [14] - Interview. WP:PRIMARY per policy. Not independent.

5. [15] - This appears to speak about the subject, and have some relevant background, but it doesn’t look much like a reliable source. What is it?

6 & 7. [16], [17] - Club news is primary.

8, 10 & 11. [18] [19] [20]Reporting of team announcements - primary.

9. & 15. [21] [22] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further.

&

12, 13 [23] [24] - Team announcements - primary.

16. [25] - Reports an appointment - primary.

I will certainly consider a redirect as a WP:ATD - perhaps to a team? Or is he mentioned elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 6 and 7 are from GE (Grupo Globo), the largest sports portal in Brazil, so they are not primary. Svartner (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Miminity: Maybe you can help with the Japanese sources. Svartner (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found on JP name search is just primary sources and bunch of routine coverage. Here is the profile on Ultra Soccer, Gekisaka. JP wiki has nothing worth mentioning. The portuguese sources are beyond my scope so I cannot vote. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Sirfurboy's analysis. #5 (COJB) appears to be a club he belonged to ("I hope this will be the case for Yoshino and the other members who have left COJB.") and is thus not independent. #15 (Tagma interview) appears to be hosted, SB Nation-style, on the fan "web magazine" for YSCC. I can't find any info on editorial control, but it seems to be a one-man operation from the articles I can find. Doubtful it is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Of the sources listed, only #15 is possibly GNG-conforming (the reliability of the source is questionable though there is apparent significant, independent coverage). That alone wouldn't be enough to allow the subject pass GNG, which generally expects multiple references. Frank Anchor 20:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frank Anchor. Even only one significant coverage provided is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Yes, only Source #15 contains WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - @Iljhgtn:, should still be a weak keep at least... Idk how [26] ("a graduate of YS Academy. His calm tone and smile give this impression. But people like this always have something burning inside them. He left his hometown of Yokohama and honed his skills in Brazil. The language and culture are different. He survived in a country with a completely different security situation. Behind his gentle expression is a strong, courageous man. A fan of professional wrestling. He is fluent in Portuguese"), [27] ("After graduating from junior high school, he learned the language while playing in Brazil. In 2022, while he was undergoing rehabilitation, he also served as an interpreter for Brazilian player Rizzi, who was a member of YSCC's futsal team"), [28], ("went to Brazil at the age of 15 and played there for about six and a half years, and then built a professional career in Japan"), [29], ("Yoshino, who joined YS Yokohama in 2020, played in seven league games that season, but did not play in 2021 or 2022") combined with sources about his inuries and signings do ot and pro appearances does noit meet critria. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the Lucas Kubr AfD that the issue of Q+A interviews has already been raised with you (apparently repeatedly). These are Q+A interviews, and cannot be used to establish notability per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that Q&A interviews can be used on articles if there is large/significant independent analysis more than those. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is too long and meta to be discussed here, but there is certainly more to be said. Guidance is at WP:IV. But in this case, all we have is primary information that is excluded per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saks

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards.
But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Moderate Keep: It already has bare minimum of sources + this source from Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I seen worse cases where there's nothing to be done, and the deletion is reserved for these cases. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media source that is not about him in any substantive or notability-building sense. What bare minimum of GNG-worthy sourcing does that add up to? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. He hasn’t yet achieved enough coverage or notoriety to merit keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DeLeon (band): Changing my vote. Saks has coverage, but mostly in connecting with his bands. His podcast "has been recognized as a 2020 Webby Honoree and listed among Apple Podcasts' top shows in children's music education", but the article references a self-published source, and I couldn't find anything solid. Redirect to Deleon, because it seems more beefy with info, and The LeeVees potentially lack notability. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on this redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the addition of the official website as a source, while potentially useful for verifying basic facts per WP:ABOUTSELF, does not contribute towards establishing notability under WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and an organization's own website is inherently not independent (WP:IS). The core issue raised in the nomination – the lack of such independent coverage found during the WP:BEFORE search – remains unaddressed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total absence of sources. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach some kind of quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy Flashboards

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to Remedy Corp. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure we need a reference for a redirect, do we? I looked and found passing refs but nothing sufficient to establish notability which is why I’m recommending a redirect. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia redirects should have a mention in the redirected page, but there is currently no mention as there are no references. Otherwise fake redirects could be created without such control. Clenpr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a logical redirect target, but without a mention at the target it's likely to confuse people in a future RfD. Do we have anything worth saying about it at this target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Langford (politician)

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

Candidates for political office rarely meet WP:NPOL notability. This is no exception. Coverage is limited to sources that we would largely find marginally unreliable (moreso no consensus, but leaning UNREL), i.e. Post-2013 Newsweek, BoingBoing, and a variety of non-notable blogs. If he wins in November we can reassess, but as of right now, he is a minor candidate who does not meet GNG or NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom. All the refs fail WP:SIRS, so this fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not stellar, and coverage appears to only be a result of the subject's candidacy. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCup HTML Editor

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:38, 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]
Procedural keep Why does it fail that, @Clenpr:? If you don't expand any of these reasonings in your own words I will be NAC closing this group of nominations with the next couple days because I'm tired of these nominations you and others put forward where those voting are supposed to figure out why outside a WP: cite you're seeking deletion. And this is one of the more well-known consumer HTML editors; it will need sources but I'm not deleting without more information from you. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject is notable but I’m ok with the nomination’s terseness. If the subject is non-notable, what else would you say? “I looked and looked but found no refs” - that doesn’t add anything more. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar indicates there are sources out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference? Do you have references for all the page content? Clenpr (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m traveling or I would have added refs to the article. I’ll see if I can do that later this week. In the meantime, if you click the link I gave you, you’ll see what I mean. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Google Scholar results can be misleading - do we have sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer @Asilvering, there does appear to be sigcov available. There is at least decent amount of coverage of the software in a html "for dummies" type book: [30].

Further comment: @A. B. A reason that @Nathannah may be asking for more from the nominator in this case is due to rapid nomination of many articles for AfD by the same user. It's happened for software and songs and GI joe characters in the last few weeks which has led to some discussion about new guidelines for AfD over at the village pump: Wikipedia talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations. Given WP:NSOFT is an essay and not an official guidelines using it as the sole reason for nomination can also be considered invalidating.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[31]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

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

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