Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glamarella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tag team lasting less than a year with very few notable appearances. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, tellingly, Newspapers.com has nothing, and searches of other databases did not find reliable sources with sigcov. It is mentioned in the articles of both members, and I think that's the treatment it deserves. Please do ping if anyone finds more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Anthony Germain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Zinderboff (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep famous career with the CBC. Rushtheeditor (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zinderboff. Because he lost the election, this article will not be qualified and fails GNG. Steam5 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a well-known CBC journalist. This article has been improved a lot since creation. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable journalist. The article has multiple good sources, and more can surely be found based on his career hosting a number of notable shows. I think we're getting a little too hung up on the fact that he was a candidate in an election - he was notable before that. MediaKyle (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Echoing MediaKyle's comment. He was notable beforehand, but the fact he lost so narrowly after a judicial recount adds to that notoriety. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although he lost the recount and thus isn't notable as a
  politician per se, he already had preexisting notability as a journalist before jumping into politics — seriously, Canadians have known his name since the 1990s, and the fact that nobody got around to creating the article until he appeared to have won election as an MP isn't relevant. Article does need some improvement, but he had preexisting notability as a journalist long before narrowly losing an election — so I've already reformatted it to place more emphasis and improved sourcing on the journalism. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep per Bearcat, MediaKyle and others. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Losing an election is irrelevant to
  WP:NPOL since the article subject has established notability prior to involvement in politics. ZachH007 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person seems to meet the
  WP:GNG. There are arguments that since he lost his race that makes him not notable but there seems to be sufficient RSes to justify notability independent from just his political career. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Thought I'd be a delete going into this one but if you remove all of the political content, he's notable as a journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even setting his journalism career aside, people are misinterpreting the notability policy when they say "If a candidate in a hotly contested race loses, they no longer merit an article". That's not quite it: if this was an unusual race generating enduring coverage of the losing candidate, they can still pass WP:NBIO and WP:NEVENT. Anyways, he's independently notable per Bearcat. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ for deletion, and none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Peony Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. I've added three more independent sources, being a scholarly monograph, an art market paper and an obituary. It seems to me that it constitutes substantial coverage alongside the existing ones, and the fact that new research is appearing on it sixteen years after it closed is a sign of notability. Thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monograph has a paragraph, the obituary has 1 mention. The other source has 3 sentences. Not horrible, but not enough to pass

WP:NCORP. I realize Mabel Lee has an article and she is the founder so now instead of deletion I would recommend merging to Mabel Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

： Have added another source in Chinese. Of course I understand that the source base is small, but I wrote the article because I couldn't figure out what this press that had published several important writers was. Having figured out via research what it was, it seems to me very much the point of Wikipedia editing to provide that information for others. I can guarantee that it is notable for people working on translation studies in Australia, which I grant you is a small group, but we exist. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that you made this article for a good reason but the sources here do not pass

WP:SIRS (required for organization articles). Notability isn't inherited from the books they publish. If it is merged the information on the publisher won't be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Have added another source that I consider to be SIRS if you care to review. I suppose much of it rides on what you think is 'significant.' There are now four English IRS sources of several sentences and a fifth one in Chinese. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine. Now we have the two sources about the company, but this is still not enough for

WP:SIRS coverage). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

To be factual, besides the sources you don't dispute (Galik; Taylor), Brennan is by the narrowest definition four sentences and Bruno three (or four if you also include p. 121). The Chinese source mentions them not, as you write, for a single sentence, but two (it doesn't permit copy-pasting, but the section begins with 其中 and goes to footnote 6). In all of these cases the surrounding text also bears on the situation of WP in the translation and publishing environment of the day. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only sentence in the Chinese source that refers to them: "其中A.R.戴维斯的“杜甫雨诗赏析”是我读到的最好最真切的唐诗英译! 80年代初悉尼大学的Mabel Lee(陈顺妍)博士还创立了野牡丹出版社，出版了大量优秀的亚洲文学翻译作品以及早期移民的英文作品比如来自广东的Stanley Hunt先生写的《从石岐到悉尼》" [

[One of the best and most authentic English translations of Tang poems I have ever read is A.R. Davies' “An Appreciation of Du Fu's Rain Poems”! In the early 80's, Dr. Mabel Lee (Chen Shunyan) from the University of Sydney also founded the Wild Peony Press, which published a large number of excellent translations of Asian literature, as well as early immigrants' works in English, such as “From Shiqi to Sydney” written by Mr. Stanley Hunt from Guangdong.] the footnote is a citation and does not contain more sentences. The next sentence does not mention them, only Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using text on the "surrounding situation" would be

WP:SYNTH

.

And sentences about Lee that do not mention Peony do not count for information on the publisher. And three sentences in a single short paragraph is also not

WP:SIRS ... I can't access anything in Southerly but I would be surprised if the quality of coverage was any different. Most of these sources are really about Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right about the Chinese source; I misread, apologies. As for Southerly, it isn't fair to make assumptions if you haven't read it. From p. 215 of the Southerly article:

That is about what I expected from that. I think I've said enough words so I am going to let other people comment on if this coverage is

WP:SIRS compliant. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the quote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two parties presenting valid but opposing arguments. We need to hear from more participants willing to carefully examine the relevant sources and deliver an opinion here. And because it is buried in part of the discussion, I'll just mention that the nominator is now recommending a Merge and not a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources are sufficient. NOTBROKEN. Let's all concentrate a bit more on the article space. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I admit sourcing is borderline, but my standards for publishers are a bit lower than full-on NCORP, much like how we apply lower standards to academic journals and newspapers. The one source linked in the nomination is very impressive for a small publisher. Toadspike [Talk] 09:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Toronto Marlies head coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

The list does not include any reliable sources which satisfy

Comment Should the table itself be saved onto the Head coaches tab? TBJ10RH (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome of this discussion is to merge, then yes. Flibirigit (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Toronto Marlies. That article is not particularly lengthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Perhaps we can merge via on contents provided here

  List of Toronto Marlies head coaches#Coaches with a bit of an introductory in the main page. TBJ10RH (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Christianity, Europe, and France. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Previous independent in depth coverage here[30], here[31] and here[32]. Pope Francis mentioned her in print[33][34] and she's been mentioned in books about Francis[35][36]. Additional coverage here[37]. Jahaza (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I think it's worth noting that all those sources only mention her in relation to Pope Francis (or she's mentioned by Francis himself). I still fail to see what would make her notable in her own right, regardless of her connection/friendship with the late pope. Luxic (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Enough coverage in RS. Not only in books but in The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Agence France-Presse. I added a Reuters and a People.com reference. The article has room for improvement, but notability is proven. It's not just 1E in the pope's funeral. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her ministry with the circus community and her public attention from working with the trans community already cited here have made her notable to the wider public.(talk) (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searched the typical
  WP:BEFORE places, newspapers.com, and PressReader - didn't find anything more in-depth than mentions. No inherited notability from association w/ notable writers, and no clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - This is an small, independent press publishing poetry and literary fiction. These publications are not often covered in mainstream press, yet their publications play a role in literary communities. Curious why, with public funding of arts largely stripped in the U.S., librarians being fired, this is the right time to delete a small press from Wikipedia? 174.238.164.181 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always required that topics be notable as established via

close connection to Elixir Press) almost 8 years ago. It wasn't appropriate to publish articles on non-notable topics back then, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - my 20-minute search for references came up empty. Note that there is another, unrelated press named "Golden Elixir Press". (Note: I think this argument is from User:A. B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

  Yes, that was me. Thanks for signing for me. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing in terms of referencing that would support notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is "Golden Elixir Press" a notable press by these standards? 63.135.182.71 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure given the current referencing although it does seem to be the primary/original publisher of translated copies of several notable Taoist texts. Whether or not it is notable is irrelevant per

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep— many of the authors who have been published by Elixir Press continue to be active and are producing new works. Because of the nature of Elixir’s work as an independent press focused in part on debut authors, several authors may have been lesser known at the time of their publication, but have grown in notability. Agree that to focus on the possible deletion of an article on an independent press is particularly troubling when literature and the arts are being devalued at large. 64.135.133.153 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Press itself isn't going away, nor are the authors or published works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics as established by reliable sources, which this article has always lacked going back for eight years now. If the argument is that it enhances this specific press or helps them maintain visibility, that is directly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--it is troubling given premier role this press plays and context: current state of the arts/Wikipedia's purpose/the need for public support of poetry even if things were glorious. It is one of a few presses that new poets DREAM their work will be published by. People in the poetry world look to it too, to identify and read up and coming writers. And they make beautiful books also an endangered art. KEEP! 2601:19B:4102:1370:7097:75E6:4823:96F8 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This is an established small press offering a well known first book prize, which is often won by writers who go on to greater fame. Worth keeping as a listing if you are interested in accurate info about literary publishing, small presses or writers in America. Poems published by this press have been featured on Poetry Daily, The Slowdown and more. 73.61.242.125 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment given that these IPs are all making the name (non-policy based) argument, have all never edited before, all geolocate to one of two of the same regions, and have highly specific and unusual concerns, I worry that there may be
  WP:CANVASSing going on here. I ask any closer to take that into consideration. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:OUTING issues but there are serious COI concerns and at least one person connected to the article/AfD sells their books on Elixir Press's website. This is looking like the abuse of Wikipedia to enhance the visibility/SEO of a non-notable (I still have yet to see a policy-based keep vote) press. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of the references come close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of works depicting Jesus as LGBT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NLIST -- no coverage of this concept by external sources. JayCubby 22:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Christianity. JayCubby 22:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for raising this, Jay. I welcome the opportunity to find some more sources for an article I wrote a while ago.
  • Shore-Goss, Robert E. (2021). "Queering Jesus: LGBTQI Dangerous Remembering and Imaginative Resistance". Journal for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies: 47–70.
    doi:10.17613/9exn-n122
    .

    Queer folks liberate Jesus’s fleshliness imprisoned within Christian heteronormative and cisgender theologies—promoted by the biblical industrial complex and aligned with authoritarian politics. Queer imaginations have unleashed perverse impulses that reinscribe Jesus within a variety of artistic mediums. Anthropologist Will Roscoe reclaims Jesus in the shamanic tradition of same-sex love, while in Jesus in Love, Kittredge Cherry re-imagines a bisexual, transgender Jesus, who is also an erotic mystic, manifesting a gender fluidity. ... On Netflix, there is a Brazilian film portraying a gay Jesus and weed-smoking Mary. Jesus comes out the wilderness with a young gay companion named Orlando, and they are erotically involved. ... Kittredge Cherry ... worked with gay artist Douglas Blanchard on The Passion of the Cross: A Gay Vision, which depicts Jesus as a contemporary gay man who suffers and dies from fundamentalist Christian hatred in 24 stations of the cross. ... The British transwoman Jo Clifford wrote and produced a one-woman play, The Gospel According to Jesus Queen of the Heaven, at the Edinburgh fringe festival. ... Finally, Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi has received threats and protests from the Catholic League and other Christian fundamentalist groups as it opened at the Manhattan Theater in 1998 and was forced to close down two weeks later.

  • Martins, Flávio (1 January 2025). "Artistic Freedom and Religious Sentiment". Aracê (in English and Brazilian Portuguese). 7 (1): 110–128.
    doi:10.56238/arev7n1-007
    .

    Cases involving satirical cartoons of a religious nature also illustrate the complexity of the theme. ... In the United States, Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi, which portrays Jesus as homosexual, has faced censorship and protests. ... In Brazil there was a very similar case in 2018. The play The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven, written by British playwright Jo Clifford, was staged in the interior of São Paulo. The play presented Jesus as a transsexual woman. ... The case involving the 2019 Christmas special, produced by the comedy group Porta dos Fundos, entitled The First Temptation of Christ, is a milestone in the debates on artistic and religious freedom in Brazil.

  • Bádue, Alex; Jay, Jeff (2 September 2022). "Queer performance and indecent theology in the Gospel according to Porta dos Fundos". Theology & Sexuality. 28 (2–3): 112–130.
    doi:10.1080/13558358.2023.2225369.^TWL

    In 1996 Leo Steinberg described the sexuality of Christ as “Christianity’s greatest taboo.” Those who dare, as Kwok Pui-Lan argues, to touch this taboo almost as a rule meet disbelief, disgust, protest, threats, and sometimes violence. Representations of Jesus in film and drama provide no exception. The First Temptation joins a distinguished list of targets, which include Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ and Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi, in which Jesus and the apostles appear as gay men in Texas. Bomb threats against the latter elicited security measures at performances. The erotic life of Jesus, even the straight Jesus but more intensely the gay one, remains taboo, and those who touch risk scorn.

• I'll have to look into including some of the ones Shore-Goss mentioned that currently aren't in the list. For what it's worth, even if none of this coverage existed, I'd still argue that this passes
  they|xe|🤷) 23:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I've added Cherry's books, but left out Blanchard as failing the inclusion criteria for the list. On which note, I've added

  they|xe|🤷) 00:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep: There's also this source. I'd tend to agree with Tamzin that this passes
  WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Removed the image though, the inclusion of which was OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection there, wasn't my doing. --

  they|xe|🤷) 00:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - just reports the facts. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-sourced and notable. wound theology◈ 06:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No doubt over notability. It needs more expansion. Azuredivay (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's other works you know of to add, feel free! I was expecting there to be relevant coverage of some

  they|xe|🤷) 19:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep – the sources provided on the spot should be chucked into {{Template:Refideas}} for future expansion by willing editors. BarntToust 15:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Article subject appears to be not notable. Refer to policy

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Azuredivay (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of these are already listed at Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area#Named dive sites. While a list of shipwrecks in the region is certainly doable, I agree that a simple list of dive sites is too database-y. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been heavily edited since its nomination so I'm relisting it and hope that participants re-review it since the AFD was opened. Please do not move the article before the AFD is closed. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Shipwrecks of Cape Town, which implies a slight expansion of scope. Article was nominated prematurely while under construction (and is still under construction). Scope of existing content is appropriate for proposed rename, and has adequate references either already cited or potentially citeable to establish general notability. If anyone wonders why I did not just rename it to the better title, I did, but have been reverted because this AfD is still open. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "List of shipwrecks in the Western Cape" - I completely agree with renaming this. The article itself is pretty bad and needs a lot of cleanup, but it's a valid NLIST article if you look at the sourcing, especially the book which groups these topics together. NOTDATABASE also does not apply here, especially because this is not a simple list, but does provide context. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are dozens more shipwrecks in the Western Cape, perhaps hundreds. I do not have anywhere near the same quality of sources for them at this stage so would recommend 'Shipwrecks of Cape Town' or 'Shipwrecks of Table Bay, Robben Island, the Cape Peninsula, and False Bay', as the preferred title. A conservative estimate for the article size when I have finished with current sources would be in the order of 140K and around 80 sections, which is big enough. Also there are differences in the reasons for shipwrecks occurring on this particular part of the coast compared to the rest of the Western Cape. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to meet standards for notability as it has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides the insane typos (AI?) and POV pushing, even under the correct spelling, there is a lack of
  significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Towards Women Participation in Scientific Research in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence this book passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is barely even a book - it seems to really just be an 80 page PDF report produced as the output of a summit. Can't find any reviews or other coverage either. MCE89 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Also nothing in google news or google books. Fails
  WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gannet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources lack independent depth, and the article reads like WP:PROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See this deletion log also. & the provided sources [ SonicScoop, SongChecks, Mixonline] are primarily interviews/industry publications that not provide independent coverage per WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop and MixOnline are fully independent publications. Would alternate or additional sources help correct the issue? The article is not intended as promo and appears to read similarly to other Wikipedia pages regarding other notable recording/mixing engineers. 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what I am guessing may have been the offending sections. Please advise if any additional changes are necessary 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources included and tonal revisions made 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost certainly some
  WP:COI editing going on with @Konakaimusic and 148.74.79.119. The Music Connection and Songchecks sources don't name any authors, and do little more than reprint his press releases. I don't see any actual in-depth journalism there. Rift (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  148.74.79.119 and Konakaimusic are both me… edits were made from 2 different devices and one wasn’t signed in to Wikipedia. Is that not permitted? Additionally, subject is interviewed about his work in several podcasts, however they are predominantly audio/video. Are those site-able references? Konakaimusic (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Read

  WP:DBLOCK

  . If you are disrupting Wikipedia, adding support to your arguments by using multiple accounts/IPs in any discussion and not being open about it, it is not allowed per above and others.

  It is an advice to avoid using IP when you have an ID. IPs are also tracked/trackable but your ID grants you certain rights and covers for that. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. This was in no way done with any disruptive, devious or malicious intent, just a function of working on multiple devices and being a novice on wikipedia. I appreciate the information and will not make that mistake in the future. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not checked that on the page itself. You have cleared the doubts and told about two - IP and ID. Furthermore, avoid using them both again in any discussion, it will look like asserting your opinion by two spaces and may or may not give wrong idea to others. Just as a precautionary measure, don't use IP here. < s> you can use these to strike out IP comments without any space after < or /. </ s > I gave spaces just to show it to you. It will look like this AtrofeliciousGrazzostauras.

  I am assuming good faith, I believe you. Also,

  WP:TEAHOUSE is the way to go for when you have a question or doubts! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Regarding more in depth journalistic resources, are podcasts/tv shows/music videos citable sources? The subject has been interviewed on several podcasts, appeared in many music videos with notable artists and has been referenced/appeared on multiple television programs relative to his career and artists he has worked with. I'd like to add additional resources but would like to avoid making any additional mistakes or adding any unacceptable citations. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Share sources here. Other editors will evaluate them. Just go through

  WP:NMUSICIAN

  and read the points there to understand the best about sources needed.

  Official verified YouTube channels of known RS news magazines or papers or media houses will also work to verify some particular statements and facts for example, their personal life or career or views. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Copy that. Thank you for your help. Will add references here for review. Konakaimusic (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some additional potential categorized references. I am still looking online to find additional interviews that I've come across or heard on the radio in the past, but this is what I've found so far. I will add more here if I find them. Please advise if any of these are acceptable citable sources.

These are some podcasts/interviews I've found featuring Josh Gannet:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wu-tang-the-saga-continues-feat-josh-gannet/id1137475083?i=1000395162185

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/josh-gannet-wu-tang-clan-redman-slash-and-more/id1469540234?i=1000568278893

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miYZYqeXUcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAStxAWMEZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=JoYjCKACCRBO88rL&v=YRLxb87jpRU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c917cArYc-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59FmVN1DYLg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nENrjTALFcg

Notable music videos in which Josh Gannet makes appearances:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_D-RVFLxdA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5Nq1UtsyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv648QiNA_M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encnQZ66X5I

Interviews/TV spots with Redman which reference or have cameos from Josh Gannet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nyobyZ6gdE 15:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-h9fWMbDcQ 7:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bqg_iRYnqk 45:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92FNYLiSzFo 1:40:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHUctcR5VtA 58:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Aovsl1TP8 12:07

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fa881KsZX/?mibextid=wwXIfr 2:44 (This was from an episode of MTV Cribs which I see articles on, but this is the only active video of it I see online) Konakaimusic (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources in the article are the in-depth coverage in independent reliable and verifiable sources that would establish notability, nor would anything I've seen in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is a featured performing artist in addition to being a participant on multiple billboard and iTunes top 10 albums (with Wikipedia pages) which I believe is cited and a matter of record. Is the lack of notability your referencing specific to available sources or that the subjects participation in these projects doesn’t warrant the standards of a Wikipedia entry? I’m trying to better understand because it appears to read similarly to several other Wikipedia pages of similar people in the music industry. Konakaimusic (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to FK Železničar Pančevo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion SC Mladost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Reverted redirect, without improvement. Lots of mentions, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 11:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FK Železničar Pančevo I think redirect makes the most sense here. Lacks sufficient RSes to demonstrate notability on its own merits but there is sufficient notability for the redirect I think.