Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 24	May 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katwe Combined Boxing Club

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_10#Katwe_Combined_Boxing_Club * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's references don't support a claim of notability and my own search did not find anything other than passing mentions and fight results. What I didn't find was significant independent articles about the club itself. If such references are found, please notify me and I will reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:TNT - just about everything would have to be replaced, both text and citations, for this to be an article. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 27 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 merge‎ to Marvell Technology. ✗plicit 00:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvell Software Solutions Israel

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

No reliable sources, fails

WP:NCORP ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its parent Marvell Technology per ATD and PRESERVE. Classroom example of excessive fragmentation. Thanks for nominating! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - Although it has since been deleted, the notability flag on the article was only placed on it on 17 May, a day before this AfD was initiated. It would be better for interested editors to be given time to improve the article first in response to the notability or other concerns, without imminent deletion hanging over the article. The notability flag should be restored, and if the article isn't improved in a meaningful amount of time, then the AfD can (and should) be reinitiated. Coining (talk) 20:20, 19 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!} 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:NCORP due to lack of significant in-depth independent coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - this company isn't completely notable, but it's better to put it in context with its parent company's article than delete it outright. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the merge into Marvell Technology to at least have it as a mention and add more context for the more well known main company it is related with.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 27 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. Though both sides are numerically matched, the arguments to keep are significantly stronger here. Also, though it has no bearing on my close, I feel compelled to note that the Blackstaff Press review is a hilarious read.

(non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 22:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Ben Birdsall

AfDs for this article:

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

Not satisfied he meets

WP:GNG

criteria either.

The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as 'artist' due to painting career Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 11 May 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. Leadbetter, Russell (2016-06-10). "Whisky galore! Or: one man's distillery tour on a 50cc Vespa". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12.
  The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."
2. Deering, Paul (1995-07-19). "How Sligo roots inspired novelist". The Sligo Champion. p. 21. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."
3. DD (1995-09-24). "What lies between the covers". Sunday Tribune. p. 20. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."
4. Relich, Mario (1987-08-28). "Festival Review: Around the Fringe". The Scotsman. p. 9. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."
5. "Festival date for Yorks playwright". Newspapers.com
  .
  The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Ben Birdsall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete First AFD nomination was delete. This second time, notability is still not established with the sources available. Many of these look like promotion or announcements. I don't think this is enough for notability or for a stand alone article. Plus much of the page is WP:OR which means someone close or even the subject may be writing their own biographical details. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 20:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
Wikipedia Library access to that site has expired. Perhaps another editor has access to these articles? That said, references behind paywalls count just as much as free articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are going to offer an argument, please evaluate the sources presented in the article and in the discussion. We don't want to make a closure based on impressions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NAUTH:

he is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited". Most sources are primarily small, local papers (Sligo Champion, Telegraph and Argus, Charlston Mercury. (The latter appears to be very informal, and without paid writers.)) Two of the reviews blast him (see above) which indicates that he is not considered a serious author.

Nor, as per criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I can see one independent source (The Herald). The #2 reference in the article is 1) an interview and 2) by the organization that published his book. And there is no indication that this is considered a "significant body of work."

The festival date article is not significant, and he was nominated for an award but did not win.

While much is often made of GNG when some sources are found, the policy is: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] This policy does not say that if sources are found the subject is automatically notable. We need to analyze what the sources are telling us, and in this case I conclude that not even the cumulation of the sources adds up to notability. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers:
The Sligo Champion has been around for 189 years and the Telegraph & Argus for 157.

The Scotsman (Edinburgh) and The Herald (Glasgow) are well-known across Scotland.

The Sunday Tribune (Dublin) was important in its day.

Big or small, all of these newspapers are (or were) reliable, independent sources with editorial supervision.

The
WP:NAUTHOR is an alternative means of qualifying as notable; authors are not required to meet it. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria
:
"Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states:
"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"

Negative reviews do not count against notability. Even Hemingway and Joyce got some negative reviews; probably Dante back in his day, too. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the article history. Created and mainly edited by a
WP:PROMO. And, funny thing, that editor is User:Wormtub67 and (I know this is a stretch but not out of the bounds of possibility) Birdsall's year of birth is '67. As for the newspapers, I didn't say they weren't reliable. I do say that being written up in a source that reaches a small (by my standards) community isn't enough. If he'd gotten a review in The Times or The Guardian then I would see notability. Oh, and Hemingway and Joyce got (and still get) positive reviews and academic treatment, and are pronounced as cultural titans. Maybe if we wait 50 years this guy will be in the canon of literature, but I for one would not put money on it. Lamona (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
A subject that meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline should have a Wikipedia article unless it violates the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or is better covered in another article. The subject should not be excluded from having an article just because some reliable sources have been critical of their work. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, those sources presented by Cunard are clearly Sigcov in independent reliable sources.
WP:AUD has never been extended to people, indeed the community has opposed that extension (circulation doesn't matter beyond basic considerations of quality). Delete rationales above are otherwise not convincing, to me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Certificate of Financial Responsibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramco Financial Services Company

Aramco Financial Services Company (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)

Insufficient independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:GNG; sourcing relies heavily on the parent company (Saudi Aramco) business reporting. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Saudi Arabia. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Certificate of Financial Responsibility written in 2014. Aramco Financial Services Company was written in 2006 and seems to be about the same subject matter. However, Certificate of Financial Responsibility seems to make more sense. In the long run, I'm not sure this subject matter is worthy of an article. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the proposed target for a merger is only tangentially related. This is a company; the target is a process and rule. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article is about the same subject and it should merge with Certificate of Financial Responsibility Pasados (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think merging to COFR makes sense. Maybe a merge to the parent company Saudi Aramco. I don't think there info on this page worth merging though, so delete makes more sense to me. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 13 subsidiaries listed in the Saudi Aramco infobox, only 4 of them have have spunoff articles and those 4 are all refineries in some form or fashion. None are discussed in-depth operationally under the parent company (uses bullet form) so there is nowhere viable to merge the uncited Aramco Financial Services Company paragraph. It could be under infobox at best. Astapor12 (talk) 00:17, 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 redirect‎ to
(non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

XBRLS

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/XBRLS

Articles for deletion/XBRLS (2nd nomination)

XBRLS (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 following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
pdwxbrl (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Holds a paid position at XBRL International, the not-for-profit responsible for the XBRL standard)

I believe that this page does not meet the
general notability criteria. The Talk:XBRLS
page itself states (from 2008):
"XBRLS doesn't have much notability and jus[sic] a few links because XBRLS is a brand new, only a few months old."
XBRLS was an idea that never gained any traction, and it's inclusion as a separate page is inconsistent with other XBRL-related developments that are mentioned on the main XBRL page. For example, Inline XBRL is used for millions of company reports every year, including UK tax filings, filings for listed EU companies (under ESEF), and filings to the US SEC, Japan FSA, and South African CIPC, and yet is covered in a section on the main XBRL page.
The only relevant first-page hits for a Google search for XBRLS are the wikipedia page, and an article written by the authors of XBRLS.
XBRLS was not an official XBRL Standard, and its inclusion as a separate page is likely to cause confusion to readers. Pdwxbrl (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to XBRL, especially since it's defined as a subset of it, and there doesn't seem to be so much specific coverage about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 19 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!} 23:08, 25 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.
(non-admin closure) Cavarrone 04:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Kyle Hill

Kyle Hill (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)

~~I came across this article whilst looking for the YouTube educator. (who apparently doesn't have an article at this time) Asides from a few external links, there appears to be only one source for this~~
~~WP:BEFORE searches can find sufficient sources to expand and rescue this article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Withdrawn. When I hastily made my nomination, I assumed the article would be held to the same (or similarly high) notability standards as biographical articles for YouTubers like J. J. McCullough, Mr. Beat and Sambucha, and other sportspeople like Armand Biniakounou and Patrick Chiwala
. (I don't really care as much about these two, just thought I'd mention them as examples) Nonetheless, I take away the following from this:
Articles on sportspeople are held to some standards, but apparently those standards may not be as high as the standards for articles about influencers. (I might have run with a
fallacy
here)

If I had wanted to bring other editors' attention to an article, I could've just tagged it as needing "immediate attention", but that can only be done through certain WikiProject banners. In my experience, tagging an article for "immediate attention" on its talk page ironically seems less effective (than an AfD nomination) at drawing a reasonable amount of attention to an article within a reasonable amount of time.

Nonetheless, as an inclusionist, I'd be satisfied to see the article kept. Feel free to close this discussion as speedy keep at any time. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an incredibly passive-aggressive withdrawal. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Furthermore, there's a delete !vote, so it's not able to be withdrawn anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a solitary
biography of a living person, over the course of 17.8 years, does not an article make, nor begin to meet muster for Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
A quick glance at the sources cited in an article, does not a
WP:BEFORE search make... or something something. JTtheOG (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Spain, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an incredibly lazy nomination that relies on others to do the work on behalf of the nominator. As Hill was a prominent enough basketball player in Europe, I was able to farm [1] [2] from other languages, [3] is a good article and [4] [5] are other sources. Not all of these are SIGCOV but coverage is easily found, and we don't draftify source-deficient articles if the subject is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source. [6] Passes
WP:NBASKETBALL. Anyone who is selected in an NBA draft is going to have coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

It doesn't look like the nominator saw themselves as the person addressed by the text of
just write one at a disambiguated title, like Kyle Hill (YouTuber). --Joy (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per sources by WikiOriginal-9. Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets
WP:NBASKETBALL #1, per the sources provided above by SportingFlyer and WikiOriginal-9. The article could use some improvement, but deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NBASKETBALL (apparently something meaningful still there).—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Silly nom apparently done in bad faith. I've added SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 28 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 ÉF Bastia. – robertsky (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stade François Monti

Stade François Monti (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)

Non notable local stadium with a capacity of 1,000. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes I should have thought of that. Mccapra (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ÉF Bastia as a viable alternative to deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 27 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 soft delete‎. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

MSC 2025 (disambiguation)

MSC 2025 (disambiguation) (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)

This disambiguation page will no longer serve any purpose soon. As
WP:HATNOTE would be set up for the two pages and so it feels that the dab, with only two entries, would be useful. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:ONEOTHER. The article MSC 2025 is now in mainspace and the hatnotes are all sorted. Toadspike [Talk] 22:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XV and Russia

Pope Benedict XV and Russia (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)

This article would be better off as simply a subheading of the Diplomatic agenda section of the main article, but merging it does not seem viable because it is simply not up to encyclopedic standards. The talk page reveals possible copyvio issues as well. It appears to be substantially the same as it was in 2009.
If this article is not to be deleted/merged, it would need to be completely rewritten by someone with subject expertise or at least competence. M.A.Spinn (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V. As written, we can't verify anything. Was this written by a chat bot? It's too much of an essay, and the citation format is unique at best. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or not opposed to draftify to improve the citations issue not being readily verifiable.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a problem with sourcing. There is a lot of synthesis even though the topic is knowledgeable but not encyclopaedic enough. I cannot think about TNT, because this topic does not need an article in the first place. Segaton (talk) 12:15, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Murtuza Kutianawala

Articles for deletion/Murtuza Kutianawala (2nd nomination)

Murtuza Kutianawala (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. Only one unreliable source provided. Agent 007 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Maharashtra. Agent 007 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the actor is not notable per WP's criteria of
WP:TOOSOON at this time. All I could find in an online BEFORE search was social media, and user-submitted content. Netherzone (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, not even close to meeting the
GNG. A web search didn't find anything better. Toadspike [Talk] 22:28, 1 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Carreres

Albert Carreres (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)

Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources. The two sources mentioned in this article only mention him in passing. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Spain. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and I believe the same page was speedied on the Spanish Wikipedia. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding RS for this cartoonist. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 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.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Carroll

Erica Carroll (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)

primary sources (IMDb, her own social networking profiles, etc.) that weren't and aren't support for notability, and the article has never had a single GNG-worthy source in it at all.
Further, the only attempt at anything more than "actor who exists" here is that she received a short film acting nomination for a regional film and television award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on an otherwise unsourced article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of Supernatural characters#Hannah as an ATD. Gets mentioned as playing that part every now and then. Full sized article in Cowichan Valley News Leader but it's just a local girl does good largely based on her word. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as my findings so far reflects that of the nominator, as an ATD, not opposed to draftify to improve article, given what Bearcat mentioned about her recurring role in a notable Series. Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion to a redirect here because 1. this is an unsourced BLP, which is a big no-no that I'm uncomfortable keeping around even just in page history and 2. she's mentioned in a bunch of different places onwiki, which makes picking a single redirect target difficult. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 1 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rhead

Eric Rhead (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 significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Sources currently used are database and self-published. Best source I found was this, but does not qualify as GNG since not from an independent news source Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't quite have enough media coverage, the best is from Nascar.com [7]. I don't see other media covering this person, so just not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my findings so far is in agreement with the nominator.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's this one as well Finn Shipley (talk) 04:09, 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. asilvering (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Gabriel (actress)

Stacey Gabriel (actress) (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)

This article does not meet
WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion.
AfD. [reply
]
Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with
WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check!
WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources like
ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
• Keep. Most of the claims made by @S-Aura about incorrect sourcing were false - made without even checking them first. The IMDb references have been removed as per the advice @Doclys Mickfir (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss_Universe_Philippines_2024. Not seeing her being notable. She did not win the pageant and her acting career does not look like enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have another skim reader. Shame the wiki community is so full of them. May I respectfully remind the administrator assessing this that this very nomination for deletion was made under false pretenses of nonexistent social media and self published citations. There are none.
Multiple independent sources outline over a dozen TV series episodes Stacey participated in with national distribution, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant. This, in addition to a nationally recognized prison ministry program.

Mickfir (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: the comments justifying the original nomination for deletion by @S-Aura contain false claims about the citations of the article. Not only does this invalidate the original AfD nomination but the community members that utilize false claims should be cautioned by admins.

Summary:

Claim: "Most references appear to be ... social media, or self-published material,"

Reality: there were never any such citations. All citations are from nationally, and in some cases internationally distributed news organizations.

This AfD discussion was raised under false pretenses and should therefor be retracted. AfD nominations should not be justified by outright falsehoods. Mickfir (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, No personal attacks
WP:NPA
.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting that you justified this AfD by making false claims is not a personal attack. Your claims are either correct or false. There is nothing personal. Just accountability. May I ask why you chose to include false information in your AfD nomination? Is not the Wikipedia Community dependent on telling the truth? Wikipedia:Don't lie

Or can you list which citation was from "social media" or "self published"?

There was clearly no such faulty citations. Mickfir (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doclys. Any references deemed questionable can either be replaced by more reliable sources or contested/discussed in the article's talk page, same applies for phrases and sentences that need relevant citations. -Ian Lopez @ 15:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific comments about which sources are acceptable/unacceptable and why would be very helpful, including from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb references have been removed as per the recommendation above. All remaining sources, namely,
GMA News Online are trusted media outlets. These sources feature firsthand interviews with Gabriel, transcripts of her live broadcast speeches, and/or notable career news. Firizz (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Aren't
WP:PRIMARY sources that should not be used? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Since we have an editor saying they will work on this article, it might have some future in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bow

Ryan Bow (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)

Meets neither GNG or NMMA, and as it's the only page the creator has ever worked on, I'm going to say probably a vanity page, or at least some sort of conflict of interest. Nswix (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Michigan. Nswix (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rift (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Bow actually meets
WP:NPOV among many other issues, it still has grounds to become approved. Ticelon (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

You're right, I missed that, only having caught his 'last ranking'. Nswix (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Ryan Bow - MMA Fighter Profile, Record, Ranking - FightMatrix.com".

SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bow does meet
WP:NMMA is sufficient, but in this case I think I'll abstain. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, the guy didn't really beat anyone, has one article in a local paper from before he was a pro, but for whatever reason meets this weird criteria of having been ranked in the top ten at a time when his weight class barely existed, so he barely passes one of the criteria for NMMA... weird. Nswix (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed reads like a vanity page. Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd rather not draftify a longstanding article unless there's someone promising to work on it in the next six months. So: delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fighter is non-notable, barely any coverage or mention. Even to most hard core fans. I personally think that the Top 10 ranking technicality is voided, and does not make him pass guidelines. I will side with what the majority desires. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should the article is draftified, I promise to improve it within the given timeline barring lack of credible references. Ticelon (talk) 15:17, 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. ✗plicit 23:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Frog

Solid Frog (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:SIGCOV. Rift (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. No major awards, no songs in national charting. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Minimal coverage found [8]. Rest is confirmation of performances, or about fishing lures shaped like frogs. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 25 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 soft delete‎. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Ram Awana

Ram Awana (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)

He doesn’t have significant news sources. His filmography is totally unsourced. Non notable in my point of view, please share your thoughts on this. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volvexzshawa

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa

Articles for deletion/Volvexzshawa (2nd nomination)

Volvexzshawa (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)

Non-notable musician. Page appears promotional. I can't see and RSs amongst the references, which all seem superficial and/or spam. No indication subject meets
WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there are some newer sources since last AfD, nothing is different. Fails
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The coverage has certainly improved in comparison with the past AfD, though still yet to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Azuredivay (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that his stage name is sometimes in the form of two words (Volvexz Shawa), but searching under both versions plus his birth name only reveals the standard unreliable African sites that reprint an artist's press releases and try to make them look like news coverage. Also, nothing has changed for him since his first deletion about 1.5 years ago. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Am I missing something here? I see one RS (American) source,
Citizen Digital, Vanguard (Nigeria), and The Star (Kenya). FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
(comment added after relist) @
WP:NEWSORGINDIA for similar situations), while sources based entirely on interviews [10][11] are not independent either. You also notice that the non-interview part at the end of the Vanguard piece has a very promotional tone ("only", "hard hitting", "notable", "world renowned and upcoming brands alike"). I don't think this subject meets the GNG, so I'll go with delete. Toadspike [Talk] 22:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, looks like we have a whole section about this:
WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Toadspike [Talk] 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 25 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 14:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota flowers

Toyota flowers (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 flowers don't appear to be documented in scientific literature or plant registries. They seem to be tied to a single Toyota factory's green initiative, with no significant lasting coverage or indication that they were widely adopted, studied, or recognized beyond the context of Toyota's internal landscaping efforts Mooonswimmer 14:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in Gscholar, this one in Gbooks [12], more like a trivia item than enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Engineering, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: so far just passing mentions, have yet to find a more in-depth coverage of the subject, noted that the citations in the article has already become deadlinks.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:58, 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. ✗plicit 14:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jennings

Jeff Jennings (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)

Subject doesn't meet the
WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colorado, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in
WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 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.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temi Adesodun

Temi Adesodun (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)

20 Championship appearances [13] before not playing for three years. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and . RossEvans19 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in
WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the necessary coverage for the
WP:SPORTSCRIT to be met here. Let'srun (talk) 11:40, 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.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylor (theory)

Gaylor (theory) (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 subject and content of the article is infringing on BLP policies, with citations of more inferior sources than reliable sources. The article is mostly, if not entirely WP:FANCRUFT. This topic is already covered appropriately in the Swifties article in its own section, without superfluous stories and fancruft-y details. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, News media, Music, and Popular culture. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a
WP:BEFORE search finds several academic sources on the theory; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to name just a few. The subject is clearly notable. Even if majority of the page is currently fancruft, it most certainly can be written neutrally. jolielover♥talk 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per jolielover, and an article being poorly written is not enough of a reason to delete. It would be very helpful if you could mark the problematic content on either the article or the talk page, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per jolielover 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An earlier article on this so-called "theory" was overwhelmingly deleted in 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylors. That one was about the group of people who believe the theory, and now that theory seems to have gotten some analysis from bored professors that can apparently support this newer article. That's it for me because you can expect this discussion to collapse into sniping between believers and nonbelievers. Good luck everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can accuse any academic article of being created by "bored professors"; all analysis is ultimately done by people interested by such topics who dedicate years to their niche. I don't see how that's relevant. The theory is important in understanding human psychology, celebrity fandom and parasocial relationships. I agree that the article needs some cropping and more focus on the psychology behind such beliefs, and any real world consequences it may have caused, but as it goes, it is culturally significant and notable. jolielover♥talk 14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough citation to prove the notabilty, clearly paasing
WP:NPOV SATavr (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per jolielover. Tekrmn (talk) 23:19, 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. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Madigan

Joey Madigan (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)

Subject doesn't have the needed
WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colorado, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in
WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have yet to find significant coverage of the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:12, 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villanos (band)

Villanos (band) (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:SIGCOV in independent sources. I found only this source with SIGCOV. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Argentina. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also an
ResonantDis_tortion 17:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Some more: [14] [15] [16] [17] Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination. Above comments provided just enough sources for notability ([18], [19], [20]). Plus a couple of complimentary sources without SOGCOV, but enough for a good article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:37, 27 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto (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)

I don't think this neighbourhood exists; none of the sources cited mention it and I can't find anything else online. There is a Birchmount Park and a Warden Woods, but they are not a thing together. Nominating for AfD since there's a contested PROD, but fairly certain this is a neologism. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-existant neighborhood. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these appear to be adjacent areas covered in a single article. Perhaps a split is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One appears to be a shopping mall and the other a park. I'm not sure if either is notable and the sources here appear to be all primary. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

split into two articles, both are notable geographical areas that have coverage but there is no precedence to have them together in one article. --hroest 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting this article would mean creating two stubs with only primary sources. Why not just create both articles now if the sources exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 14 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!} 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scarborough, Ontario. Seems more relevant there than a stand alone article. Not seeing why this residential area is notable. Seems like general information and sourcing is not significant. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A merge makes no sense based on the sources we have, which are two photos for sale on Getty Images, a permanent dead link, a city council resolution about a frickin' bus shelter which does not verify the claim it is cited for whatsoever, and two pieces about a house that happens to be nearby (to this nonexistent, synthesized area). Toadspike [Talk] 21:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Bhatti Khanzada

Bhatti Khanzada (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)

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies on a single unreliable source of
WP:RAJ. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Pakistan, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:43, 25 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 soft delete‎. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

IVF-Worldwide

IVF-Worldwide (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)

There is no evidence that IVF-Worldwide meets the
WP:PROMO Charlie (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 25 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. No support for deletion past nominator.
(non-admin closure) WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Liberation philosophy

Liberation philosophy (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)

None of the sources describe what this article is about. Combining ideas from these many sources does not mean a unifying concept exists. FULBERT (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does actually cite Enrique Dussel's Philosophy of Liberation, which explains what the topic is about. The topic also has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Liberation[21]. Jahaza (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jahaza, Dussel's book and the SEP article demonstrate notability for the topic. I believe any potential issues of
WP:SYNTH or ai-generated text(?) can probably be fixed without deletion, mentioning e.g. Gramsci, Fanon, and Freire for this topic as background seems entirely reasonable if it can be backed up by reliable sources. Psychastes (talk) 15:45, 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.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet (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 battle is not significantly covered in the scholarship. There are issues with
WP:OR
since the content is not supported by the sources. One source comes from Gulshan Books while another one is [[ Abdul Hamid Lahori]] from the 17th century, though he hasn't been represented properly. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No
WP:HISTRS to provide coverage to this battle. Shankargb (talk) 14:25, 27 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.
WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Edmonton Rugby Union

Edmonton Rugby Union (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)

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert
WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:15, 25 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. – robertsky (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

प्रधान मंत्री

प्रधान मंत्री (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)

From what I can ascertain, I'm guessing this translates to "Prime Minister". It certainly isn't plausible that it means "of Nepal" and "of India" with the exact same spelling, which would make this an invalid dab page. Also, are article titles in different alphabets even allowed? I suspect not, but
WP:TSC don't explicitly cover this. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Disambiguations, Nepal, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't speak Hindi, but google translate says this means 'Prime Minister'. Either way, it's frankly implausible for the term to be searched realistically. Translations of words in other languages are rarely even redirects, let alone DABs. jolielover♥talk 05:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On English Wikipedia, there is no need to create a disambiguation page in Hindi language. B-Factor 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The English Wikipedia should not have non-disambiguatatory, non-English index pages for English-language articles. Yue🌙 18:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we routinely delete similar pages either in main space or draft articles. This is almost a speedy delete: non-controversial. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The text just means prime minister and it doesn't really disambiguate them because they are under two different titles. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in agreement with points above. As normally an english wikipedia user would not literally search for a non-english characters.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all above. Non-English pages are not allowed on English Wikipedia, and this article is absolutely not required here. An English version already exists under Prime Minister (disambiguation).Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:14, 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 redirect‎ to XB Browser. ✗plicit 14:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XB Machine

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/XB Machine

Articles for deletion/XB Machine (2nd nomination)

XB Machine (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 Clenpr (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to xB Browser. It has been discussed mostly in connection to the xB Browser project [22][23][24]. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much coverage about the machine itself. Redirect xB browser is an ok alternative too.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. It didn't have enough coverage in the 2000s and doesn't have enough now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an anonymous editor using an Orange España IP address removed refs before this AfD was initiated.^diff MarioGom subsequently restored them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure any of them are reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Clenpr (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants evaluate refs. It’s always inappropriate to delete any refs just before an AfD. Another editor thought the same thing and reverted those deletions. Editors are always sizing up their peers for trustworthiness and credibility. This type of thing doesn’t help. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your assessment for those references? Are them reliable sources? Clenpr (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided 3 sources above, which are way enough for a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 15 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!} 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:34, 25 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. – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui

Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui (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)

Not a notable orator. Fails
WP:GNG. No significant coverage found other than news of his arrest.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicates the article's notability.Almandavi (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic
WP: BLP1E situation in India. Person says something that's misinterpreted. Media is whipped up into a frenzy. Authorities are forced to address the situation. Person is found innocent. Rinse and repeat. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - aside from the arrests being mainly featured to cite the article, have not found significant coverage for the subject so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article only covers his arrest and nothing else. a classic example of a BLP1E.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:17, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve AJ Broad

Steve AJ Broad (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)

notability for one topic is not generally inherited from the notability of its subtopics - there's just not enough about Broad himself here to warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bunch of
WP:Original research with Spectrum Computing refs. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for the details that you have noted. So far, I have only been able to provide a string of references to reliable sources to create this page. Obviously, over time, I would be adding more as I find it to cover more information about Broad. So far, I have found 35 reliable references that I have linked. This is more than many pages on Wikipedia, and I believe there is enough information stored at all the sources to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Broad has a long standing in the games writing industry where he has supported the retro gaming community, that has become increasingly popular in recent years. There are not enough pWikiaedia pges referencing the gaming history pioneers. A page of this nature does take time to develop.

Many thanks! Wiper2001 (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, with respect,
biographical article about someone. This is just a list of games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, this is where Wikipedia fails when those sources are not available currently but may be in the future. I am surprised that the urge to simply delete the whole page is the only item on the agenda. No options to move it anywhere have been mentioned. Just simply nominate for deletion because there are not enough secondary sources. The page has only been online for a week and these things usually build up over time. I guess it will be deleted because not enough time is given to develop it. Wiper2001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUTURE exists to explain this. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:33, 1 June 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. Reading through this entire discussion, I saw a consensus to Keep this article until I got to the most recent arguments which supported Merge, Redirect and Draftify. So right now, opinion is all over the map. So, I'm closing this as No consensus and I urge participants to wait at least 3 months before nominating this article for a return trip to AFD.
Launching a second AFD immediately after this closure will result in a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash

2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash (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)

WP:AFD and further discussion. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, United States of America, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The crash killed two people with their own Wikipedia articles, namely
Dave Shapiro (music agent), which I think is sufficient enough for this crash to have its own article Mr slav999 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

The articles for both
Dave Shapiro (music agent) were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident. With that being said, I still do not believe this aviation accident is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article given the circumstances let alone them having their own Wikipedia articles. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 09:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
This is the largest tragedy to the music community in decades and incredibly noteworthy. 2600:1010:A120:432F:8596:894D:C19C:E6F6 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing beats this or this Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should have been created before the accident. Even if they were created after the accident they were still made. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: light aircraft crashes, including into populated areas, are relatively common.
WP:NMUSIC. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
What then makes Med Jets Flight 056 any more or less significant than this? Xanblu (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia articles like this serve multiple valuable purposes and provides evolving information that are not comparable to or replaceable by individual newspaper articles. This and similar Wikipedia articles will likely be updated as investigations proceed, and the evolution of this article itself will capture details that will otherwise be lost or else difficult to find without great effort. General aviation fatality rates are 40-50x commercial aviation rates; and the lack of flight recorders on flights like this greatly complicate investigations, cost to the public and financial recovery for those injured or killed on the ground -- i.e., victims subsidize plane owners, piolots and manufacturers. Finally the details collected here will help fuel the spee, precision and robustness of harvested by AI systems. 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: for reasons stated above 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strike duplicate !vote from identical IP. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: normally I would say delete but there were two celebrity musicians that have their own articles and other music people on board. We kept/made articles for the exact reason a famous person on board died. Also, the least important reason but still something important, is that six people on board were killed and multiple others are the ground were injured. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above “ The articles for both
Dave Shapiro (music agent)
were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident.”

These musicians would likely not pass
Wikipedia:NMUSIC either. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 19:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I also just stated something above. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE:~~ This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:

-
WP:NOTNEWS
: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.

-
WP:GNG
: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.

- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited
WP:AFD
too.

- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.

The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 22:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Striking second vote by the nominator. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This accident is at least as notable and destructive as the one which occurred in Philadelphia earlier this year regardless of the higher number of casualties in that accident, if not moreso due to the people who were on board the plane. It wasn't exactly a single-engine C-172 coming down onto a car, in which case I'd agree it isn't notable enough, but rather a mass casualty accident with a fairly large business jet in a densely populated part of San Diego, carrying people with at least some semblance of importance. I mean, the plane that crashed here was larger than the one which came down in Philadelphia and did more physical damage to its surrounding area, which will have a lasting effect on the area. We don't know all the details yet but it's also fairly likely a higher number of people were injured in this accident.

I feel that we can mostly take or leave reasoning about how famous the people on board were and their notability or lack thereof justifying keeping or deleting the article, I don't personally know enough about them to know the significance of the passengers. My justification mostly lies on the fact that we have plenty of similarly destructive general aviation crashes that have articles, and this is extremely similar to one that happened very recently which has its own article. If the Philadelphia crash can get its own article, then for consistency's sake this one absolutely can as well. Xanblu (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, when I say 'higher number injured' I'm referring to the current number we have on this accident, not in comparison to the Philadelphia crash. My apologies. Xanblu (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This plane damaged 10 houses and had musicians onboard. It literally is as notable as Med Jets Flight 056. 8 people died and dozens were injuried. Zaptain United (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the same reason as stated, this accident is at least as notable as Philadelphia crash, if not moreso. In spite of its lower casualty count, it caused more structural damage. Xanblu (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article,the accident was in a major city with multiple and notable fatalities. 73.86.53.75 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon what I originally stated in my opening description for this AFD and to further encourage discussion here are my discussion points:

This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:
-
WP:NOTNEWS
: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.

-
WP:GNG
: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.

- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited
WP:AFD
too.

- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.

The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit.

user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 02:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What makes Med Jets Flight 056 any more or less significant than this? It was also a small aircraft that cause few fatalities and a single person on the ground. Tell me how was that was any more significant than this one, then i'll reconsider my stance in the matter. XenithXenaku (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have articles on other accidents doesn't mean that this is notable. We have to judge each event on its own merits. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Coverage extends beyond local and it is significant because it includes multiple victims who are notable (does not matter if their articles were created as a result of this incident). There's an extensive investigation toward the cause of the crash, which multiple factors are still being published. Filmforme (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says that routine kinds of news events including accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. At the end of the day, this is just a routine crash of a business jet. If anybody wants to keep the information, I wouldn't oppose merging some content relating to the crash to the airport article or to the biographies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
@Aviationwikiflight I wholeheartedly agree; you explained the situation perfectly. Given the coverage of this incident, quite a few people here are new WP:WIkipedians, which is fantastic; however, they may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article notability.

As you similarly noted, none of the arguments I've read so far in support of keeping the article have cited specific reasons based on Wikipedia's policies for meeting article criteria.

While I love Wikipedia and aviation, it's essential we uphold
Wikipedia:CONPOL to preserve Wikipedia’s integrity as an encyclopedia focused on lasting knowledge, rather than a platform for transient news. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
i would love to hear your explanation to

2023 Elmina Beechcraft 390 crash

2023 Virginia Cessna Citation crash

2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash

92.118.205.211 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short version:
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Long version (without looking closely at the articles in question): either they should be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Your stance is wrong for the 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash, it has an episode on Mayday called "Lost Star Footballer" (S24E09), all other crashes in that program have an articles for them. XenithXenaku (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they wrong regarding 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash? Rosbif73 just said [...] they should [either] be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. They didn't assume notability or non-notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This: (without looking closely at the articles in question).

They didn't even bother reading them to see if they ARE noteworthy to keep!

Also, did you even read the comment about that Mayday episode in regards to that crash? XenithXenaku (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They literally just said that the comment they were responding to was in short an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. And besides, it doesn’t really matter whether these topics are notable or not in regards to this discussion as it’s off-topic. We’re discussing the notability of this event, not the others. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
yes because 6 deaths with 2 possibly notable people and 8+ injuries with 10+ destroyed houses in the 2nd most populated city in california is not notable, good job. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least someone here is making sense to keep this article... I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, a crash with 6 deaths in the 2nd most populated city in california is notable! XenithXenaku (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the articles in question and form an opinion on their notability if and when someone nominates them for deletion. Until then, their notability has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the 2 musicians on board
Dave Shapiro (music agent) have an article now even if they were created after the crash, nonetheless one was apart of a band group that did have an article The Devil Wears Prada (band) 92.118.205.211 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't make him any more notable.
the notability guidelines for musicians) specifically tells us that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Williams was a member of a notable band but not, as far as I can tell quickly, a notable individual. Equally, his death in this crash doesn't affect his notability. I suspect that in the medium term his article will end up being merged into the band's article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Happened in a major city under unusual circumstances. If Lynyrd Skynyrd wasn't popular at the time of their crash, the chances of their crash being made into an article would be slim. Same goes for other instances, like Payne Stewart's incident, which likely was made not only due to the strange nature of the incident, but who he was as a celebrity. This event will have lasting ramifications on the metalcore community and music community as a whole. My vote is this article stays. 4rft5 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We judge articles on their own merits based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines so
highly speculatory and there's currently no evidence to support such an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It passes every portion of
WP:GNG except for the "Sources" bullet, which requires secondary sources. Since this only occurred a few days ago, it's unreasonable to expect that secondary sources would exist yet. Given its national coverage, its impact on the San Diego area and military community of San Diego, and many other factors already explained, secondary sources will eventually document this accident. This accident highlights the congested airspace of a major city. Future works on this topic (and others, such as general aviation safety, the history of San Diego, and San Diego's aviation history specifically) will likely cover this accident. I realize that Wikipedia itself is not a crystal ball, but for a recent event we are predicting the future of its notability when we argue to keep an article and when we argue to delete an article. I also agree with the many reasons already provided (major city, extensive destruction on the ground, larger general aviation aircraft, multiple interesting aviation, human, and weather circumstances involved [I grant that this applies to many aviation disasters, but it also does not apply to many aviation disasters which, correctly, do not have Wikipedia articles]). Holy (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's unreasonable for
WP:WHYN, then such a topic does not deserve to have a standalone article until the aforementioned requirement is fulfilled. For example, 2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash was kept in the first AfD with one of the reasons being that a "major/large plane crashing killing people on the ground with major effects on the area and on airlines in the area meeting GNG" is notable. Eight years later, there was no evidence that notability was met at all. Another example is the 2019 New York City helicopter crash: It was previously kept at the first AfD for practically the same reasons as those argued over here, and five years later, it was deleted because those arguments didn't hold water. Now obviously, that doesn't mean that this will be/is the case for every recent crash (e.g. Delta Connection Flight 4819) but it's a reminder that what might appear to be currently notable doesn't necessarily mean it will be in the future. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
so why not just keep the article for a good amount of time instead of voting to delete it not even 5 days after the crash. make some sense. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe why not wait for the news coverage to cool down before deciding whether or not the event is notable enough for a standalone article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, i'm not sure what some are thinking but to delete an article within 5 days of the crash is nonsense. atleast give it some time atleast 1 month for all the ongoing reports and preliminary report 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that oftentimes reliable sources come out over time, but that's not an argument for keeping this article in its current form. If it doesn't meet notability at this moment but it may in the future, the better option is to draftify the article so it can be worked on as sources come out, then go through the normal WP:AfC process which is explicitly meant to avoid getting into the mess we are currently in. guninvalid (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: After reading all the arguments provided, I vote to keep the article because the circumstances surrounding this particular incident is different than the typical general aviation accident. In addition to what was mentioned, preliminary information available show that there were other factors involved such as issues with the airport itself that may had contributed to the accident. Although general aviation accidents are common, it’s rare for one that have so many contributing factors. By having an article on this incident can provide useful lessons or case study. 136.26.15.132 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usual caveats apply to all deletions. If this particular accident ends up being used as a case study, for example, then reliable secondary sources will appear and the article can be recreated. But as things stand today, there's no sign of notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: also @Aviationwikiflight, i would love your explanation to 2017 Teterboro Learjet crash, there was absolutely nothing particularly notable in that accident but 2 deaths, you also edited that article plenty of times so you knew it was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.205.211 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's off-topic. It does not matter whether or not other articles exist or not. We judge the notability of events individually on their own merits. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion but I'm not going to discuss it here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly avoided providing or have provided cop-out answers as to what is and isn't notable about comparable accidents. I don't even understand anymore what constitutes "notable" in this context based on how often you've simply declined to describe it. If it isn't casualties, if it isn't property damage, if it isn't important passengers, then what is it? What in hells bells makes a general aviation accident worthy of an article? It's not far-fetched or unfair to ask for a comparison to articles that exist if somebody might not have a straightforward answer. If there's no consistency, what is the point of any of this? Is that not a tenet of Wikipedia, or am I incorrect? Clearly a precedent has been set for articles of this type of aviation accident; for the love of god, adhere to them. Xanblu (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to answer that question because it’s not the topic of this discussion. If you want my opinion on whether or not the other events mentioned are notable, ask me somewhere else or at the deletion nominations of these pages, but I’m not going to respond to them over here. For the time being, in this case, we have to judge the notability of this crash based on the coverage it has received (see
the existence of other articles. We judge the notability of an event based on its own merits, not by simply saying that because that crash has an article, so must this one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

There aren't any notability criteria specific to general aviation accidents. In addition to
existence of other articles about comparable events. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG explains the requirements. Note that it requires secondary sources, which excludes simple media coverage. All the things you listed are just whether something feels important based on different statistics, which isn't relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
@Thebiguglyalien Literally all anybody had to say as an answer, thank you. Jesus H. Xanblu (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@
Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Just skim the lede, I beg of you. guninvalid (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Let me address the specific issue of notability with two main arguments:

--First, the role played by sheer dumb luck is highly notable; and

--Second, the sheer number of malfunctions and errors is even more notable.

FIRST: THE ROLE OF SHEER DUMB LUCK IS EXCEPTIONALLY "NOTABLE".

The notability of any crash that could have but did not kill scores of residents on the ground is increased, and not decreased, by the fact that it was at least to some extent, and possibly entirely, due to mere, sheer dumb luck.

Thanks in large part to the lack of a flight recorder -- a great cost-savings to the industry, but as subsidzied by victims and the publics -- we will never know the best-possible answers to all relevant questions, such as: whether the pilot saw the wires and had any time to react before hitting them; whether and to what extent the plane was maneuverable after the impact; whether the pilot's reactions were correct or incorrect; whether those reactions increased or decreased the risk of ground fatalities; and whether those increases or decreases actually materialized.

But even a slight variation in how any one of these factors had gone down could easily have resulted in the deaths of numerous victims on the ground.

Sadly, the public has been forced to rely on the "sheer dumb luck" of both general and commercial aviation for decades.

This notability is further underscored by these two recent videos:

1. "San Diego's Deadly Skies: Two Crashes, Decades Apart"

at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6W1csa7XPc

This May 21, 2025 video compares the current Cessna Citation II business jet crash to the 1978 collision of a Southwest Boeing 727 with a Cessna 172, in which 135 persons died onboard and 7 died on the ground. It "unpack[s] these incidents [to] understand what happened in each case ... and uh see what broader insights emerge about aviation safety". The public should not (again) be required to rely on sheer dumb luck as to whether such videos are produced and updated, and instead deserve the detail that only a regularly-updated wikipedia article can offer.

2. "United 1152 Turns Into Oncoming Jet | SFO Near Miss Explained"

at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhahK_ChUaA

This May 31, 2025 video analyzes the May 13, 2025 extreme near-miss at SFO between a (commercial aviation) United A320 and a (general aviation) SkyWest CRJ, with a total of 135 persons onboard. From a pro point of view this video shows how the SkyWest pilot skillfully avoided the A320; but a few seconds of appropriate or inappropriate distraction could easily have resulted in 135 fatalities. Thus, from a public point of view, this video shows how "sheer dumb luck" applies to the actions of commercial aviation as well as general aviation.

In sum: EVERY crash and EVERY near-miss that -- but for sheer dumb luck -- could have turned out much worse, is ABSOLUTELY NOTABLE. By no means does every aviation accident share this incredibly grim feature.

SECOND: THE SHEER NUMBER OF MALFUNCTIONS AND APPARENT PILOT ERRORS IS CLEARLY NOTABLE.

Consider the entirety of suspected factors in this accident, any one of which could have caused or contributed to it (or to an even worseone), and each of which will most almost certainly can readily be noted by the public:

1) The airport's automated weather system was disabled "hours" earlier by a power surge.

2) The airport's runway approach lights had been out since October and did not respond to the pilot's mic clicks.

3) The airport tower was unmanned.

4) No on-ground emergency equipment was requested or offered to assist landing or recovery.

5) The foggy, pre-dawn conditions were below minimum.

6) Despite the foregoing, the pilot decided to "give it a go".

7) The pilot descended below glideslope and struck marked high tension wires two miles away from airport.

These failings strongly reinforce the idea that it was sheer dumb luck that no ground fatalities occurred.

In sum, this accident and the two others noted above are all equally notable for demonstrating just how far our aviation system and industry fall far short of that which air travelers and taxpayers have paid for and depend upon for their lives. 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't explain how
WP:GNG is met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect into
WP:AfD, so I think it is definitely worth discussing how he died, but only in his article. I haven't looked at Shapiro's article but I'm sure the same can be said of him. guninvalid (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect - I am not opposed to keeping
Dave Shapiro (music agent), preferably the latter, as he is the owner of the plane. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify or recreate later: Voting as someone with an interest in aviation accidents. Not too familiar with policy however I believe this particular disaster should meet
WP:AfC. If in 6 months there is nothing else that comes out in light of the incident, a mention on the relevant pages like 2025 in aviation would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Daniel Williams(musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) have also been nominated for merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guninvalid (talk • contribs) 03:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Pixelia

To Pixelia (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)

Unfortunately a
quick search for any review coverage doesn't yield much. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: or draftify per nom. The game might be notable in the future given that it was released less than a month ago. Laura240406 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clear failure of
WP:GNG. No evidence it may become notable in the future, so I oppose draftification. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and no possibility of draftification given its situation.
(talk) 00:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Bleedingcool, WN Game Finder Contest, below critical reception bar, Delete, no objections to DRAFTIFY.

IgelRM (talk) 15:20, 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew David Bradley

Andrew David Bradley (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
WP:DRAFTIFY back in March 2025, but was moved back to mainspace with insufficient sourcing, which do not establish that the BLP meets notability criteria. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Agree with rationale, no significant coverage and sorry but 'Animal Adventure' is not a significant work to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people).Coldupnorth (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Page is the work of one editor who has edited it 250 times in the past few weeks (COI; user admits family relationship on their Talk page). When trying to work with them, I did some digging to see what I could find on Bradley... not much. Jessicapierce (talk) 23:57, 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 delete‎. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Charles

Donna Charles (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)

Non-notable individual running for public office. Of the ten sources used. She is mentioned in only one that is not her political campaign website. Article does not meet
WP:GNG criteria. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement Sutapurachina (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiably false. At least three of the citations mention her by name. This deletion would not meet the criteria as she is a public figure. Doc0976 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any independent coverage of her outside of passing references. MrTaxes (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage to have this bio in existance. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at
WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while as yet unelected candidates for office get articles only if they can be shown to have already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway. But this stakes her notabiluty entirely on her forthcoming candidacy itself, and shows nothing that would have made her notable enough for an article independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Completely irrelevant person and this whole bio is written with such blatant bias with undue weight. Moreover, it heavily relies on primary sources. AsaQuathern (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale of the nominator and others. Fails all the relevant notability bars:
WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Admin comment this is a BLP who is currently standing for public office. I have semi'ed this to avoid a further influx of !votes from those unfamiliar with our policies. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we routinely delete articles about political candidates who have never held office. This can always be recreated later. Allowing candidates to use us as a free advertising platform places our 501(c)(3) status in jeopardy. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:N. Seungri400 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. It's incredibly rare for a third-party or independent candidate in a US election to be notable and it requires a large amount of national-level campaign coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails
WP:ANYBIO. Other votes cover this more indepth.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:25, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfellas–The Sopranos cast overlap

Goodfellas–The Sopranos cast overlap (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)

WP:COATRACK
article. The gigantic lead and each source mostly just talks about how Goodfellas influenced The Sopranos, and notability is not established for the fact that it has cast members in common (and why this should be considered particularly remarkable, given they are both mob-centric and cast around NYC, instead of just basic trivia, is anyone's guess). Not to mention there are factual errors, like claiming James Gandolfini had a role in Bullets Over Broadway.
Also, in general, there are not really many actors in The Sopranos and Goodfellas whose roles are both interesting. Do we really need a list that says "Gaetano LoGiudice" played "Member of Hill's sixties crew" in Goodfellas and "Bada Bing! customer" in Sopranos? Even recognizable names like tobin Bell, who are in both, have fairly trivial roles. --Quiz shows 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cast overlap fails
WP:OVERLAP, but this discussion is about the cast overlap article. Anerdw (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The article's subject is trivial and does not have enough independent coverage to be notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 25 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 14:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motherhood Hospitals

Motherhood Hospitals (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)

A straightforward promotion of an IVF clinic and doesn't meet the
WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, India, and Karnataka. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional and the subject does not appear notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely promotional and non-notable.Almandavi (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails
WP:NCORP. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:06, 27 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 14:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bavishi Fertility Institute

Bavishi Fertility Institute (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)

A straightforward promotion of an IVF clinic and doesn't meet the
WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Charlie (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to above, the article is promotional and the subject doesn't appear to have any notability. MrTaxes (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is completely a promotional article. Should immediately be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 06:25, 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.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice (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)

A page for a a research study from 1970, with notability supported by only one independent source. Pubmed shows 243 citations (over the course of 55 years), which suggests that it is influential, but insufficient for stand-alone notability. Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual papers are seldom notable, and if so, there should be extensive secondary coverage (not just citations by other studies). Plus, the article is almost devoid of content, just a summary of the abstract. Until secondary sources are found, this fails
WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment not sure if this would qualify as SIGCOV but there is a short article on this in The Guardian which I found through newspapers.com. [25] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paper lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:38, 25 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. No support for deletion past nominator. I see that a rough consensus to keep was developed after new sources were added (see
(non-admin closure) WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Oliver Knight

Oliver Knight (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)

Not significantly covered in reliable sources. BEFORE searches only turned up results for unrelated people that also happened to be called “Oliver Knight”, not this person. This article is also quite problematic for a BLP (large amount of unsourced info, unsourced quotations, etc.) ApexParagon (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep. A quick search identified several reliable sources covering the subject, his collaborations and his solo works. I have added several of these citations to the article. Article needs work but AfD is not cleanup.
ResonantDis_tortion 12:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you give links to some of these sources? ApexParagon (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, the newly found citations are in the article;
ResonantDis_tortion 04:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

I removed the worst of the copyright and BLP violations, but I'm still not sure one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources added to the article such as dedicated reliable UK newspaper articles in The Guardian, The Observer, Independent, and a AllMusic staff-written bio and other sources that together shows a a pass of
WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Thadani

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Rasha Thadani

Articles for deletion/Rasha Thadani (2nd nomination)

Rasha Thadani (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:NOTINHERITED. I cannot find significant coverage unrelated to her parents. Has acted only in 1 movie so far. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete agree with nominator and also
WP:PROMOTION, as it has been only few months the same was removed by previous AfD. Agent 007 (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet to meet notability standards. It is
WP:TOOSOON for now. Fade258 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nom. And It could be
WP:TOOSOON. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 11:13, 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.

The result was redirect‎ to
(non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Sun (character)

Midnight Sun (character) (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)

This and this are the only independent sources I was able to find on this character. This is an incredibly minor villain (outside Shang-Chi's origin story), so there isn't a lot that can be written about the subject beyond plot synopsis.
It's been tagged for notability concerns for awhile, and it has had known issues with its over-reliance on primary sources since 2014. –
☖ 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
☖ 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:Alternative to deletion, where the character is already mentioned, and which can at the very least benefit from the one/two independent source/s present. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:GNG. But, their role in Shang-Chi's background is already included in that article, so that would make a reasonable redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Rorshacma. Doesn't pass
WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Merrithew

Lindsay Merrithew (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:NBUSINESSPERSON. His film and TV credits are not particularly significant and his company is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Theatre, Health and fitness, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think this is the same actor whose performance is discussed here and here. Together with the rest of the articles, the Globe and Mail article I think an overall picture of just passing the GNG emerges. --hroest 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. That first link is just a passing mention, as are most of the sources in the article itself. The Globe and Mail article is paywalled, but about his unnotable company. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 25 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 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo G

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kilo G

Articles for deletion/Kilo G (2nd nomination)

Kilo G (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:BIO1E coverage of his death. The closest we have to a source that shows notability is 5, which was written by a writer who has contributed to Pitchfork. However, this on its own is not enough to sustain an article, and as a result, I do believe it should just be deleted. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
WP:SIGCOV and MUSICBIO Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The fact that his albums "sold a few thousand copies" pretty much sums it up. Fails both
WP:GNG, and the article was deleted once before for the same reason with no significant coverage of the subject since then that could have pushed this over the notability line. Aspening (talk) 01:00, 27 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_May_25&oldid=1293516428"

[1] "Ryan Bow - MMA Fighter Profile, Record, Ranking - FightMatrix.com".