Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 13

List of irregularly spelled English names

List of irregularly spelled English names (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled places in the United States, this awful list has nothing that's irregularly spelled, only irregularly pronounced, except it's all subjective. Moreover, many of these names are not even English.... Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure how a list like this could be anything but opinion. The collision of germanic and latin (french) influences in english make "irregular" spellings the norm. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what should be done about this, but at the very least I would say remove everything that does not cite to a source specifically describing the spelling as irregular, which might be just about the entire article. I note as well that some of the entries are for regularly spelled names that are purportedly pronounced irregularly. BD2412 T 01:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Besides, any such list that doesn't include Cholmondeley is hopeless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mostly original research and someones point of view. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to be a very random list and a very random article to be included. Gilc (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NLIST . Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Unsurprisingly, the trio of brothers all fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Nano City

Nano City (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)

Proposal in 2006 to build a city in India for nanotechnology work. The project never went anywhere and was formally cancelled in 2010. The only sources are two 2006 news articles about the proposals, and two articles when it was cancelled. It is very hard to justify this page as notable, particularly as there is no evidence that this cancelled proposal had any impact -- fails WP:Notability means impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and India. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very convincing nominating statement. A brief search for sources turned up this, which confirms that it didn't happen. I don't think there's any coverage from after 2011 (no lasting coverage). Toadspike [Talk] 09:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - Notability means impact is an essay, not a policy. This article meets WP:GNG in that there is significant coverage from reliable sources about the proposal - regardless of whether or not it eventuated. Having said that, I think nothing would be lost if it were merged into Sabeer Bhatia --Spacepine (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into Sabeer Bhatia. That seems like the correct fit for both. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete If someone wants to mention this on Sabeer Bhatia that's fine. Merging more than a 1-2 sentence mention would seem excessive to me though as there does not appear to be much more than routine news coverage announcing the project and its demise. Tech people/rich people proposing utopias that eventually never happen feels pretty routine these days anyways.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Sabeer Bhatia. I think a 1-2 sentence mention in that article is appropriate. ApexParagon (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am OK with a Merge Ldm1954 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into Sabeer Bhatia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Enoch Muemba

Enoch Muemba (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)

Declined prod. There are 2 non database sources added this is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The other third party source is a book, but I am unable to verify it's SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I am trying my best to keep my arguments confined to this one AfD, but I think there is a behavioral issue here as well; see comment which applies equally to this AfD and most of the 100+ others improved by me recently by adding sources.

On the merits, I think there's a strong WP:NEXIST case to be made here because Muemba was one of the first ever runners to represent Zambia internationally, and zero Zambian newspapers have been found because their 1960s archives have not been checked yet. --Habst (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zambia at the 1968 Summer Olympics: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV in the article to meet the WP:GNG (as the sources are current just databases or brief mentions), and a cursory TWL and GNewspapers/G Books search came up empty. We can't assume that offline sources exist either for this [[WP:BLP. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zambia at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zambia at the 1968 Summer Olympics Iban14mxl (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Mohamed Sy Savané

Mohamed Sy Savané (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, I just expanded the article with new sourcing. Subject was a multiple-time national record-setter covered in Seychellois media, and now also by American media by virtue of his brother. Subject actually passes NSPORT by virtue of his national championships and Francophone Games finish. --Habst (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Question: does the Francophone Games finish qualify for WP:NATH? LibStar (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  See comment. I also wanted to note that because this AfD was created at around the same time as the others, I think that the behavioral issue described here and here applies to this AfD as well. --Habst (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: His top-8 finish at the 1994 Francophone Games would appear to be a pass on WP:NTRACK#1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. No, the Francophone Games are not a pass, he did not finish in the top 8. I don't know why you would say that, Dclemens1971. Geschichte (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Geschichte, I was actually going to ask you if the Francophones are a top tier athletics meet. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Crud, I misread the article. (He finished fourth in semifinals.) Striking. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's an interesting situation where the top three advanced to the finals in his heat including a time qualifier and Sy Savane was fourth, and two of the finalists did not start meaning only six finalists were ranked. Yes, Sy Savane was not the next time qualifier in line had Franck Matamba declined his spot, but there is usually no clear way to define who the 7th and 8th competitors are in a case like this. Either way, WP:NATH was only ever designed to be an indicator, and it lacks nuance w.r.t. regional context and historical biases. --Habst (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  One thing I'll add is that Sy Savane did beat Mukudi Murenga in their semi-final together, and Murenga was awarded a time qualifier despite running slower than Savane. Usually this only happens in the case of a protest which implies some sort of foul play in his heat so I think there could be some argument that Sy Savane is a rightful finalist. --Habst (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment sources 7-13 appear to be about his nephew and not the article subject, thus failing SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Guinea at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV, even the sources added are routine and/or focused on the subject's nephew. As always, a redirect does not preclude merging some of the content from this page to the target, ideally with discussion at the talk page of the target article. Frank Anchor 12:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Changed to Navify per Dclemens1971 below, though my reasoning remains the same. Frank Anchor 13:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect. Clearly zero sources meeting SPORTSCRIT #5. @Dclemens1971, even if the subject met NTRACK, NTRACK still requires the subject meet GNG and a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been achieved. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  The SNG means significant coverage is likely to exist when certain conditions are met. But if we can't rely on them and must also demonstrate GNG is met, then we might as well not have SNGs at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971, the SNG states The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. [...] All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. This follows from the close of NSPORTS2022: Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5). Note that NSPORT has always required subjects meet GNG, but pre-RfC only had to demonstrate this with sources "eventually"; this resulted in the proliferation of athlete stubs that were very hard to remove due to the expectation that lack of coverage must be "proven".

  Nowadays, the SNG is still a weaker immediate requirement than establishing GNG in that in practice it often permits sports bios of athletes who meet one of the sport-specific criteria, like NATH, to escape initial deletion if a SIGCOV source is actually identified. WP:N also states that the SNGs are merely presumptions of notability, and that establishing notability does ultimately require IRS SIGCOV: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.

  I'll also note that, like several other SNGs, NSPORT can be interpreted better as a guide to article creators on which topics are most likely to be notable rather than as post-creation inclusion criteria; an editor can be more confident they're choosing a notable topic before they put in the effort of searching for sources to build the article. The SNG also helps NPP by providing quick proof that a subject has a valid claim to notability and thus doesn't warrant CSD A7 tagging.

  Thank you for coming to my TEDx talk... JoelleJay (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  NSPORT can be interpreted better as a guide to article creators on which topics are most likely to be notable rather than as post-creation inclusion criteria; an editor can be more confident they're choosing a notable topic before they put in the effort of searching for sources to build the article. – Honestly, I don't know anyone who does that... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, people definitely use it to choose which topics to create articles on...they just maybe don't care about the whole "effort" thing once they feel assured the page won't be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Look, this athlete was clearly one of the most accomplished in Guinean history, having several still-standing national records across varying distances, including 800m and then 10,000m, which is unusual. He competed at a number of international tournaments as one of the only Guineans selected. I've researched thousands of athletes and thus I know, athletes like this get coverage. Now, where would the coverage be? In Guinean newspapers. And has even one page of any newspaper in the history of Guinea been searched? Nope. Its ridiculous to delete so many star African athletes for whom all common sense would indicate have coverage when no one is looking in relevant archives where the coverage would be – its especially ridiculous that these mass nominated articles are almost all in much better shape than the average Olympian article. Honestly, I feel like we should just IAR and keep this – I don't think deleting this improves the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Navify as an AtD. There's a new template ({{Navigation page}}) for an alternative to disambiguation/redirection that I think we could try here, particularly since there are multiple pages that discuss this athlete. It would serve the same function as a redirect but would provide more visibility for the page should future SIGCOV become available to support a standalone page that complies with WP:NSPORT. Sample:

Wikipedia does not have an article on Mohamed Sy Savané, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:

• Guinea at the 1992 Summer Olympics
• Athletics at the 1994 Jeux de la Francophonie – Results
• List of Guinean records in athletics

Thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I like this idea. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, thank you for breaking up the monotony with a new idea. I would prefer this to a redirect, the only issue is it doesn't list some things like date of birth, familial relations, etc. Is there any way to link a page like this to a Wikidata item? (Another idea: In theory, all pages without SIGCOV could be written with no loss of information as Abstract Wikipedia articles...) --Habst (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't know why not? Turning the article into a navpage would not break the link to the Wikidata item; even redirects retain their Wikidata links in the left hand nav (see Mohamed Ould Brahim / for one of the recent outcomes of these discussions). @LibStar, what do you think of this as an alternative to redirection? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Is there any reason not to include at least the year of birth of the subject? We do routinely include birth and death years on disambiguation pages. BD2412 T 02:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the idea (and it's an active discussion over at the Village Pump) is that if we include more and more pieces of information it might as well be an actual article, and then we're right back at a notability debate. Restraining the page text only to the basic navigational function fulfills the purpose of a navpage without creeping back into standalone page territory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I like it. There are other active AFDs for which this could work as well (e.g. a less than notable athlete who competed and did not advance in multiple Olympic games). Frank Anchor 13:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Navify: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Navify as an WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Navify: I like this new ATD a lot. Rather than redirecting to one particular article, we are able assist a future editor by pointing them to all of the relevant pages with some information on the subject. Hopefully, it also preserves the article history/attribution? Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Jack Trammell

Jack Trammell (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 author, professor, and political candidate. He received some national coverage in 2014 because he was the Democratic nominee in the race where Dave Brat primaried out House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, but not very much. The fact that news coverage of him completely dried up after the 2014 race shows he is not a notable person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. It is clear that he does not merit inclusion for his political activity which consists of run of the mill party activism, the 2014 US House election, and a respectable overperformance in a special election earlier this year. This is why professors who run for office are always a tricky one for me. The article is clearly created due to a candidacy, but they might qualify for their professional work. The Mount St. Mary's University directory says that he is at present a Department Chair (which is not to say that Department Chair shares a definition with "chair" at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Ultimately, I think this will need to be judged with Wikipedia:Notability (academics) with no regard as to his candidacies. He has a bibliography at Amazon which is NOT self-published works. He also has a number of results on Google Scholar, EBSCO Host, and JSTOR pending verification it is the same Jack Trammell. The article needs an update and to be reframed away from his candidacies. I do hope to have a formal vote before the close of this AfD, but I'm in "weak keep" to "keep" territory at the moment.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm of the mind that his career in academia does not meet WP:ACADEMIC and without that he would not meet WP:GNG. This is still more of an edge case than most articles created due to candidacies.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I did a search for reviews of his books on Google, Proquest and Google Scholar and came up with nothing usable for WP:NAUTHOR. I also don't see a pass of any of the WP:NPROF criteria — his citation count doesn't meet the bar for C1, and I couldn't find any indication of a pass under any of the other criteria. The coverage of his unsuccessful election candidacy strikes me as WP:ROUTINE, and I didn't see anything else suggestive of a WP:GNG pass. MCE89 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have expected someone with eight books to pass WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of those books, but I could find none, matching MCE89's results. The best shot seems to be WP:PROF#C1 but although he has a couple of moderately well cited publications (126 citations on Google Scholar for "Postsecondary students and disability stigma" and 104 for "The impact of academic accommodations on final grades") they weren't enough to convince me. And obviously NPOL is out. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Ingelec

Ingelec (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 electrical equipment company which appears to be using phony sources. No evidence of meeting WP:NCOMPANY. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Morocco. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I agree the sources I used in the beginning weren't the best. I changed all of them and put only notable, independant sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Just want to clarify my stance, as I forgot to include this in my original comment above. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be notable, they need to be reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say reliable sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete paid ads. Tamsier (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as per Tamsier and nom. Coeusin (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:PROMO — ERcheck (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Grok (web framework)

Grok (web framework) (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 WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Sources provided are primary or blog sites and I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Not to be confused with the other Grok by Twitter/X. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I was instrumental to the creation of Grok the web framework so I'm not an unbiased source; in this day and age I would not feel comfortable editing a wikipedia page about it anymore. We're talking about a web framework that had minor but global attention but has had little attention for a long time.

There is actually a published book about Grok:

https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/grok-10-web-development-9781847197498

https://www.amazon.com/Grok-1-0-Development-Carlos-Guardia/dp/1847197485

At some point Grok technology was part of the Plone project:

https://4.docs.plone.org/appendices/five-grok/background/what-is-grok-and-five-grok.html

It's not a surprise most of the stuff you could find is in blog sites; this was a web framework conceived during the heyday of blogging and a lot of the primary evidence it had some significance and users in multiple countries is through blog entries. So in the rest I will attempt to show that there was a little global community that used Grok and talked about it. I'm from the Netherlands myself, gave conference talks at least in Germany as far as I can recall.

The author of the Grok book, Carlos de la Guardia, is from Mexico.

Here's a company in Lithuania that still has a page up offering Grok consulting services:

http://www.nous.lt/consulting.html

Here's a conference talk recording (with terrible audio) about Grok at a Pycon conference in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF77e2TeeQo

Here's a talk held in Argentina about it:

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

Here's a random youtube video mentioning Grok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17HFEwhz80

A US developer at Georgia tech:

And here are some blog entries:

https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2007/my-november-grok-presentation/

A US developer reports on a developer in Brazil (now the author of "Fluent Python") using it:

https://www.nateaune.com/kirbi-a-peer-to-peer-library-built-with-grok/

Here's someone blogging in French about it:

https://www.boureliou.com/2009/grok-1-0-released/

Here's a presentation in Japanese that mentions Grok:

http://plone.jp/event-report/opendocs/osw2009-zope

Here's the website of a company in Germany who talk about a Grok meetup:

https://www.acsr.de/archive/der-grok-neanderthal-sprint-im-rheinland/

So it was notable enough to have a small global community of people who used it and talked about t, but it was also a relatively small community. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I also found this paper which discusses Grok:

"Leveraging Convention over Configuration for

Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages"

https://dave.coffee/assets/GreHack-2012-Leveraging_Convention_over_Configuration_for_Static_Analysis_in_Dynamic_Languages.pdf Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I did a google book search and there are actually quite a few books that mention Grok:

Professional Plone 4 Development by Martin Aspeli, 2011

Pro Python System Administration by Rytis Sileika, 2014

Python for Unix and Linux System Administration by Noah Gift, ‎Jeremy M. Jones, 2008

Plone 3 Products Development Cookbook by Juan Pablo Giménez, 2010

Foundations of Python Network Programming by John Goerzen, ‎Tim Bower, ‎Brandon Rhodes, 2011

Mastering Python Design Patterns by Sakis Kasampalis, 2015

Python: Master the Art of Design Patterns by Dusty Phillips, ‎Chetan Giridhar, ‎Sakis Kasampalis, 2016

Enterprise Android: Programming Android Database Applications for the Enterprise

By Zigurd Mednieks, G. Blake Meike, Laird Dornin, Zane Pan, 2013

Even an article on Dutch history by J.W.J. Burgers – Rik Hoekstra The registers of the counts of Holland, 1316–1345: a digital edition in G. Vogeler (Hrsg.): Digitale Diplomatik

/ Buchrezensionen mentions Grok in a technology credit.

Oh, and Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho, a very popular book about Python, mentions Grok:

Fluent Python: Clear, Concise, and Effective Programming - Page xxiii Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are some papers that discuss Grok in some detail:

Worth, David, and Justin Collins. "Leveraging Convention over Configuration for Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages." G 2 reHack 012: 27.

Cerjak, Jure. Razvoj spletnih aplikacij s platformo Zope. Diss. Univerza v Ljubljani, 2010.

Lederer, Dominique. "zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades” Master of Science in Engineering”/” Diplomingenieur (FH)”."

Foglia Ardila, Andrés Felipe. "Comparación del desarrollo de un aplicativo web entre los lenguajes de programación Python y Java." (2014).

There are plenty of other papers that mention Grok as a Python web framework in a more throwaway way, but that still establishes some level of notability. A good way to filter papers for this specific Grok is to look for "grok zope" or "grok python" (the former works better than the latter). Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I can only find links about Elon's version of Grok. I'm not sure what's given for sourcing is enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zope#Grok which should be slightly expanded with material from this article. This would make the Zope article a bit more robust, match other Zope redirects listed in Category:Python_(programming_language)_web_frameworks, and not break any external links pointing to this article. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete- per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think merging it into Zope as was suggested would make a lot of sense, with a redirect. While Grok may be obscure now, I think the sources I dug up do demonstrate a level of notability.

Is it because another project named Grok came to prominence that this article has received more scrutiny recently? Search engines would be far more likely to lead to Grok the web framework related material in the past than they do now. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, confuses readers yes, but does not pass WP:SIGCOV more importantly and for that reason the article should be deleted, not the other or any other reasons which are not grounded in policies or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, please take no offense to this query, but I am curious about what sort of factors a closer uses to decide on consensus? It would appear to me to be very much subjective based on the closer. For example, what here brought you to say, "Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to speak for Liz, but when there is consensus not to retain an article as a standalone page, the WP:ATD policy recommends looking for an alternative to deletion, typically in the form of a redirect or merge to a suitable target. There doesn't need to be a consensus to redirect or merge for an AfD to be closed as such. All that is required is consensus not to keep the article, and some support for the alternative for deletion. So yes, Iljhgtn, there is a fair amount of leeway in how a closer may read consensus. But in this case, Liz is doing exactly what any closer should do, namely, seek support for the lone call to Redirect the page. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 15:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, but I rarely, if ever, see others do what she is doing. Either they are almost all doing it wrong... or... so I just felt it best to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Zope#Grok. Even if this were notable, the little amount of coverage doesn't seem to justify its own article. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zope#Grok. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Matthew Evans (Australian politician)

Matthew Evans (Australian politician) (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 fails WP:NPOL for not occupying any notable political office, and WP:GNG for not having sufficient sources that satisfy WP:IRS and covers them substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Deputy mayors are rarely notable and no inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is notable beyond being Deputy mayor, as evident by the 16 sources on the page. Viatori (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, no clear indication this individual is notable or has been the subject of sufficient WP:SIGCOV. I checked each reference and I can't see any which significantly cover the individual or support notability. I was a little perplexed by the above "keep" voter referencing these "16 sources" as notability evidence, until I realised they are the article creator and source inserter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: The coverage, such as it is, covers him in the context of his local elected office, not him personally. We would expect WP:ROUTINE local coverage of local elected officials. Fails WP:NPOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject has currently launched his federal election campaign; he will soon receive substantial coverage in the media, even more coverage if he wins the Bendigo seat. Mr Sitcom (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  "he will soon receive substantial coverage in the media, even more coverage if he wins the Bendigo seat" is WP:CRYSTAL balling his future notability. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that the coverage of him as a local politician is WP:ROUTINE, and I don't see any indication that it is likely that he will receive non-routine coverage for his candidacy. Given the proximity of the upcoming election I might have considered a draftify or keep !vote if I thought there was a realistic chance he might win his seat and therefore qualify under WP:NPOL, but Ballarat is such a safe Labor electorate that it seems extraordinarily unlikely that he will win. Obviously if there is a major, major upset and he becomes an MP the page should just be restored upon request, but that seems unlikely enough that I don't think it's an argument against deletion. MCE89 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - that will comply with the very strong consensus of NPOL, but also enable Re-creation if he wins election. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you're suggesting redirect, you have to actually state a target article you believe you be appropriate (and ideally a reason why it's suitable). Recreation from deletion is already possible in the event the individual becomes notable without needing to be an RD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of former ABC television affiliates

List of former ABC television affiliates (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 completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No need for an article. A category might be enough though. Shankargb (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is probably another remnant of the lax enforcement of certain policies and guidelines in this topic area in the past; besides any potential NOTDIR issues, I suspect the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources required to meet NLIST is lacking here as well. For the record, a category would not be an acceptable replacement; there already used to be Category:Former ABC network affiliates, and it was deleted at CfD in 2020. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of former The CW affiliates

List of former The CW affiliates (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 completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as stated in the nom, this is just an ever-changing directory with little to no in an encyclopedia.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Just like with other similar nominations of these types of articles, there is no need for this article. A category might be enough though. Shankargb (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is probably another remnant of the lax enforcement of certain policies and guidelines in this topic area in the past; indeed, that this one has only existed since 2023 (by which point we had long since finally begun tightening up in that realm) may if anything have been a contesting of the removal of similar information earlier that year from the main list of The CW affiliates by the nominator. Besides any potential NOTDIR issues, I suspect the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources required to meet NLIST is lacking here as well. For the record, a category would not be an acceptable replacement; there already used to be Category:Former CW affiliates, and it was deleted at CfD in 2020. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Shmiras halashon

Shmiras halashon (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)

Current sourcing does not even mention this term. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into Lashon hara. Given the extensive rabbinical literature and the prominence of rules in Judaism, there are no ancient Jewish customs that lack notability. Entire books and chapters have been dedicated to Shmirat halashon. As the topic passes the GNG with ease, deletion is not an option. Still, since Shmirat halashon is essentially the inverse of Lashon hara, it makes sense to discuss both concepts together until spinoffs are justified. If both had carried equal weight, a reverse merge into the positive Shmirat halashon would have been preferred. However, since the negative concept is more familiar, Lashon hara is the correct merge target. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested; it's a reasonable ATD. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into Lashon hara.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of former NBC television affiliates

List of former NBC television affiliates (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 completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Just like with other similar nominations of these types of articles, there is no need for this article. A category might be enough though. Shankargb (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Shankargb: Categories along these lines were deleted in 2020 because they promote category clutter in articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is probably another remnant of the lax enforcement of certain policies and guidelines in this topic area in the past; besides any potential NOTDIR issues, I suspect the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources required to meet NLIST is lacking here as well. As Sammi Brie already pointed out, a category would not be an acceptable replacement, as Category:Former NBC network affiliates was deleted at CfD in 2020. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of former CBS television affiliates

List of former CBS television affiliates (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 completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is probably another remnant of the lax enforcement of certain policies and guidelines in this topic area in the past; besides any potential NOTDIR issues, I suspect the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources required to meet NLIST is lacking here as well. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

List of former Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates

List of former Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates (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 completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is probably another remnant of the lax enforcement of certain policies and guidelines in this topic area in the past; besides any potential NOTDIR issues, I suspect the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources required to meet NLIST is lacking here as well. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Habib al-Rahman Kandhalwi

Habib al-Rahman Kandhalwi (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 found no indication in this article that it meets the criteria set out in WP:GNG or WP:Scholar. However, I did come across a video in which another scholar discusses this individual's work, which suggests that the subject may have some notability as a researcher. That said, this alone is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I propose deletion. I would be happy if someone could provide reliable sources to support the subject's notability and thus prevent deletion. I also found a 15-year-old AfD discussion where participants similarly struggled to find reliable sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pakistan, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not seeing any articles that establish notability. Goodboyjj (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG Iban14mxl (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Ben Doyle (Jet Lag: The Game)

Ben Doyle (Jet Lag: The Game) (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)

Should be reverted back to a redirect, the sources do not show notability, and are largely unreliable. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, California, Maryland, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete and redirect as much as I like the topic of this article he does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG as there are few (if any) reliable secondary sources to establish notability TheMysteriousStar (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete and redirect, the article is written from a fan’s perspective, does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG, and is much better served as a redirect to the main article about the show itself. The photo used should also be deleted, as I believe it’s been copied from Nebula without permission from the rightsholders. LivLovisa (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. Fails GNG, though there's no need to delete it. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. Not notable in their own right. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. No evidence of notability by himself. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – While the article needs improvements in sourcing and tone, I believe the subject is notable for his role as co-creator and host of the popular travel competition series *Jet Lag: The Game*, which has received Streamy and Webby Award recognition. This establishes some level of cultural significance. I encourage editors to improve the article with better sourcing and structure instead of deleting it. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, improvement should be considered before deletion.If anyone is able to help locate better sources or improve the tone and citation structure, that would be greatly appreciated. Erichbchk (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Erichbchk: Notability is not inherited and Google News seems to not have any WP:SIGCOV coverage for him. No matter how much WP:BEFORE you do, if the subject shows no sign of Notability the it should not exist as an standalone article. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, no amount of improving the article will ever make the topic of it become notable. Notability is something not in Wikipedia’s control. ApexParagon (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Erichbchk: Surely you can see how if his only claim to notability is because of the notable game he co-created, an article should be written on the game instead of the person?

There’s zero coverage of him as a person in secondary sources. ApexParagon (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect, the article fails WP:GNG, but I agree with @Somebodyidkfkdt, it should be redirected to Jet Lag: The Game.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game and Lock if recreated again. GNews seems to not yield anything worth mentioning other than various interviews. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. Obviously does not meet GNG since all of the sources are self-published or primary ones connected to the subject, and a large amount of the info is unsourced. And I can’t find any reliable source talk about him outside the context of the game.

ApexParagon (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. It was better off that way given the person's minimal notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect as per above. Establishing notability for Internet personalities is insanely difficult. Dan Avidan is a great and very pertinent example of this, as his article came up for deletion back in 2016, as the nominator didn't see him as independently notable of Game Grumps. There was even question at some point if Game Grumps even passed notability guidelines at that point in time. In the end what saved him was that he passed MUSICBIO, as he was part of two notable bands. In other words, establishing notability via YouTube accomplishments is so difficult that what saved him were the bands and not his YT channel. If not for that, the article would have become a redirect to the Game Grumps entry.

With Doyle, he has only received coverage in relation to the show. While yes, he's gotten mention in the news, the focus is heavily on the show. What we'd need would be coverage that focused specifically on him. Interviews don't count towards this unfortunately - I don't always agree with that, but it's widely considered to be the standard on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change. But even with that, the interviews are still heavily focused on interviewing him about Jet Lag as opposed to asking about the man himself. So it's not a case of an outlet interviewing him and asking about the show at times, it's interviewing him about the show and maybe occasionally asking him and the others about themselves. Doyle just isn't independently notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Temitope Okeseeyin

Temitope Okeseeyin (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 just utterly fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The sources are so ridiculous and a cursory search does not prove otherwise. These sources are either clear-cut paid advertorials or total garbage which fail to either meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Konchem Kothaga

Konchem Kothaga (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 reliable reviews. Both Great Andhra and Filmibeat are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources: . The Indiaglitz production sources is also unreliable per that as well. Only thing found in a WP:BEFORE was a non-related source . All of the current sources are non-independent and are all reviews. The current state of the article looks half-baked and unfinished.

Redirect to Venkat (actor). DareshMohan (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2008: or to the lead actor, but if that role is important in his career the film might meet WP:NFIC , in which case I am not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 09:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Venkat_(actor)#Filmography as this has source that film exists. No significant coverage and fails WP:NFILM. No multiple critical reviews on the film. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Venkat_(actor)#Filmography Iban14mxl (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Naomi Nwokolo

Naomi Nwokolo (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 simply fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are entirely poor and cannot be used to substantiate a pinch of notability for the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Kidney Bingos

Kidney Bingos (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 single that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Close or a new rationale is needed from the nominator. "Kidney Bingos" is a song, not a band, and evidence is needed of a WP:BEFORE search per the requirements of WP:NSONG. (Replaced by revised vote below.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Did you know that people can edit the text of their AfDs? There is no need for a speedy close just because i made a spelling mistake... WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Your original text was "Music band that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found." That's one heck of a spelling mistake. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep song charted in the UK, and there are multiple critical reviews of it, all cited in the article. ResonantDis_tortion 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I dont see how the two PDFs you added prove its notability WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly recommend you review WP:BEFORE. This is also not a good look. ResonantDis_tortion 23:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Usually I'm for merger of singles with their parent album, but this one is also an EP AND most importantly the song is potentially detailed in the Wire bio book "Lowdown: The Story of Wire". Also Consequence magazine has an article on 10 songs that defined Wire's sound, which includes a significant enough write up on our song. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - It satisfies specific criterion #1 at WP:NSONG from having charted in the UK, and it satisfies other requirements in that guideline by receiving specific media coverage as one of Wire's most reviewed individual songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Mark Hewitt (mathematician)

Mark Hewitt (mathematician) (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 indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:BIO. The subject's publications in academia.edu reads to me as nonsense. Current sources include Mark's Medium page, a Wapo article that doesn't mention his name, and a press release that also doesn't mention his name. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I also suspect Mark Hewitt may not hold a degree from Columbia University as claimed. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 20:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. MathGenealogy, MathSciNet, and zbMATH all have no record of a person by this name. Having no entry in MathSciNet casts serious doubt on the claim of having a Columbia mathematics PhD. Google Scholar has a profile of someone with a single publication on nuclear weapons policy , lists several publications by a linguist studying optimality theory with respect to the Alutiiq (linguistics, not mathematics, but with a PhD from Brandeis in psychology ), a thesis of an Australian mining engineer, and a book on pro wrestling. Which is to say, no trace of a fringe mathematician, as our article makes Hewitt out to be. The Babcock Ranch source does not mention Hewitt. The Frontier Communications press release does not mention Hewitt. That leaves us with no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, none of the mainstream sources needed to provide a neutral article on a fringe theorist, and no verifiability of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the thoughtful review and the concerns raised regarding verifiability and sourcing. I would like to respectfully clarify and respond to the points noted.

  I am indeed Mark S. Hewitt, Ph.D., and I earned my doctorate in mathematics from Columbia University in 1987. As many researchers from that era can appreciate, online academic databases such as MathSciNet or zbMATH did not comprehensively catalog dissertations or publications prior to the widespread digitization of academic records in the late 1990s and 2000s. My graduate work focused on recursive mathematical sequences, which informed much of my subsequent work in telecommunications and systems engineering.

  Regarding the Google Scholar references — I would like to clarify that none of the sources cited in that search pertain to me. There appear to be multiple individuals named Mark Hewitt across various fields (linguistics, nuclear policy, psychology, and even professional wrestling commentary). I am not affiliated with those works.

  My professional career has been deeply embedded in industry — not traditional academia — which explains the absence of a conventional academic publication footprint. My work has spanned roles at Motorola, Frontier Communications, and several other telecommunications and technology companies throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. During this time, I contributed to early VoIP infrastructure, digital switching systems, and secure communications frameworks — areas often governed by proprietary development and trade secrecy rather than academic publishing.

  I understand Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, and I appreciate the concern for verifiability. I am happy to provide additional credible references, public records, or third-party coverage that may support the biographical details provided in good faith. I am also open to revising the article to reflect a more modest and factually supported description of my contributions, consistent with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

  My intent with the page is not to overstate claims or introduce unverifiable content, but rather to document the emerging theoretical framework I am developing (Tribernachi Theory) in a transparent and respectful manner, acknowledging that it is undergoing peer review and academic discussion.

  I welcome further guidance from experienced editors on how best to align the content with Wikipedia standards or alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community. Mark (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please clarify if you got your PhD from Columbia University or Columbia Pacific University? Are you lying on your autobiography? Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I found https://web.archive.org/web/20031223054928/http://mark-hewitt.com/aboutme.htm, a 2003 web page in which someone named Mark Hewitt (matching particulars from our article including connections to companies named NextBend and Frontier Communications) describes himself as having a business and engineering degree from the University of Alaska. You might think that if he also had a 1987 Columbia University (or even Columbia Pacific U.) mathematics doctorate he would have mentioned it there, though, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  The linkedin attached to the academia.edu profile shows a PhD from CPU. I think it's starting to become clear what's going on here. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hewitt has since clarified at Talk:Mark Hewitt (mathematician) that it was Columbia Pacific University. I've corrected the article. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re alternative pathways to document this work appropriately within the community maybe the WikiJournal of Science is a better place to start. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete No reliable sources. All sources appear to be self-published. Supposed theories appear read like a hoax.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I could find no WP:SIGCOV of the subject in decent sources, and the article as it stands is ridden with conflict of interest issues per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I can't comment on the merits of the Tribernachi Theory, not being a mathematician; that said, if it is indeed an emerging theoretical framework that has not been thoroughly tested through peer review and academic discussion, it is WP:TOOSOON. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per those above, for lack of sourcing supporting encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator for lacking notability. Hewitt taking the known Tribonacci sequence, spelling it "Tribernachi" and believing it to have applications in quantum, cryptography and machine learning areas does not sound very significant and it's unclear what "academic forums and online publications" he's claiming to have presented this theory to. --Belbury (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per David Eppstein -- and the subject/author stating here that he received a degree from one university and then later having to backtrack and say it was another is a pretty good sign of intent to deceive regardless of the prestige of either of the two schools. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per David Eppstein. Total self-promotional junk. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Association for Heritage Interpretation

Association for Heritage Interpretation (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 many references, could only find one on Google News (about some non-notable conference), has not been edited in four years, concerns over references present for 16 years. Unlikely this subject can be brought up to notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Carol Wilson (soprano)

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

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

Article is mainly based on bios published by the subject's employers or written by their PR management. The one independent source, Herkimer Times Telegram, is predominantly about another artist and the subject is only briefly mentioned in passing in the latter half of a single sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Germany, Connecticut, Iowa, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep her New York concert debut was covered by the Times and I'm fairly confident we'll be able to find other sources. Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Canadian reviews, feature on Vancouver production. Jahaza (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Another review: 2004 in the Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun profile ahead of the same production, Washington Post concert review, another WaPo review, 2008 review of Vancouver production in Opera Canada, a German review from 1999. I suspect that the Dusseldorf newspaper has a lot more reviews, since she was a principal there. Jahaza (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Delete. I don't think that the lukewarm sources cited here justify notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe I'm confused. Did you mean keep or delete? Your edit summary marked your vote as delete, and your comment seems to support that; but then you voted keep in bold.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I am so sorry for my carelessness. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC).

• Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Jahaza including reviews by the New York Times, Washington Post, The Globe & Mail and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found by Jahaza. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

PC Play & Learn

PC Play & Learn (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)

One “source” on article: a demo of the game (doesn’t even work anymore). Cannot find other sources. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Zero coverage for this 25 yr old piece of software. I can find copies on the Internet Archive to download, but that's about all. It's mentioned in some old "hey remember these" computer game websites, that's about all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Virtually no coverage, certainly nothing independent. Non notable software. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Jacob Riggs

Jacob Riggs (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)

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Saliu Hassan Ajisafe

Saliu Hassan Ajisafe (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 biography does not meet GNG as all the sources mentioned are not independent and the one reliable source does not cover the subject in depth. My concern is mostly on the sources. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:PROF. Shoerack (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Giovanni Emmanuel Uribe

Giovanni Emmanuel Uribe (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 indicate how the individual is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NARTIST. I am also unable to find reliable third-party sources that discuss him significantly. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poetry, and Mexico. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - The first source is a self-created directory listing. I cannot access either the fabelist or the academia cites. The my.canva.site link is user-generated material, apparently by the artist. I was not able to find anything else; possibly a very brief mention as a witness to a mass shooting in Mexico City? The article was created by a single-purpose account that has repeated tried to add a Wikipedia mirror as a source, along with a lot of unsourced material. Just not seeing anything that would address notability.Sam Kuru (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Sounds interesting, but that's not a good reason to keep. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - This "universal visual artist" does not meet WP:NARTIST nor GNG. An online search reveals social media and blog postings, but nothing of substance or depth that would contribute to significant coverage in multiple, verifiable reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Museum of Dinosaurs and Ancient Cultures

Museum of Dinosaurs and Ancient Cultures (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)

One source is provided and I could not find any other sources that would add to WP:GNG. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Florida. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Hi, did you check Newspapers.com? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I can but I am not sure how far it will get me since it looks like this was made in 2017. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I do not currently have access via WP:TWL. I would have to request access. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I added two from Newspapers.com. It still needs work though. The museum is mentioned as far back as 2009. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: USA Today and coverage in several travel books, this also , should be fine for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Withdrawing More sources have been added and I had found sources that could add to GNG but I was unsure of. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Siege of Panhala (1692–1694)

Siege of Panhala (1692–1694) (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 about this siege in the sources, there are only passing mentions of it and none of the sources refer to it by the name it is titled as. Completely fails WP:N. CharlesWain (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete no WP:SIGCOV in sources at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. 2 sources on the page and both are poor with no significant coverage and whether this was a seige. One source is snippet and the other has no significant coverage and does not mention seige. RangersRus (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @RangersRus: The article had a potential, accordingly I have expanded significantly. Sources give 5-6 pages of coverage. Shakakarta (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Quick before gives:

1. G. T. Kulkarni (1983-04-22). The Mughal Maratha Relations: Twenty Five Fateful Years (1682-1707). pp. 152–157.
2. G. T. Kulkarni (1967-01-01). Maratha War Of Independence 1680-1707 AD. pp. 152–157.
3. New Cambridge History of India. The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4). p. 97.
4. Jaisingrao Pawar. Chhatrapati Rajaram And The Maratha State. pp. 123–126.

If anyone can work on it then it can stand in mainspace. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The first of your sources does not provide any significant coverage to the actual conflict, there is perhaps only 3-4 sentences relating to this, but even that is questionable given how vague about the nature of the attack those statements are.

You have cited incorrect page numbers ,the second source only provides a sentence in terms of coverage to this conflict,anyway it is an unpublished PhD dissertation and can't be used for notability.

The third source only mentions this conflict in passing.

Fourth of your source is an unpublished PhD dissertation which can't be used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, regardless it doesn't provide the coverage either. In essence, this conflict is not notable in any way.CharlesWain (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete the above sources feels like WP:ITEXISTS. Still fails Significant coverage to be a standalone article.Hionsa (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maniacal ! Paradoxical: I have expanded the article. Shakakarta (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Siege of Chittor

Siege of Chittor (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 conflict has not more than 2-3 lines of passing mentions in sources, now of which refer to it by the name it is titled as. The WP:SIGCOV is clearly lacking and therefore this should be deleted, the important bits can be covered at Rana Raimal's article if not done already. CharlesWain (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Article fails in many aspects such as notability which could not even affirm the chosen title by the creator. The siege is insignificant and doesn't look like sources are ready to talk about this. Although I'm open for a merge with Rana Raimal given whatever conflict has occurred. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails significant coverage Hionsa (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing notable about this battle. Agletarang (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Jay Hound

Jay Hound (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)

Apart from passing mentions in the Pitchfork articles, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage for this individual. WP:MUSICBIO not met. Frost 16:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Natasha Doyle-Merrick

Natasha Doyle-Merrick (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:BLP of an artist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing either WP:NARTIST or WP:NPOL.
Artists are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about their work -- but the art stuff here is referenced to sources that are not support for notability, such as calendar listings on the self-published primary source websites of galleries where her work has been shown and/or blogs, rather than detailed or substantive coverage about her art.
And unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates normally get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (which, again, has not been established here). The existence of a small amount of campaign coverage, further, does not give an unelected candidate a GNG pass that would exempt them from NPOL in and of itself -- every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if campaign coverage were enough to sideline NPOL all by itself then NPOL would be rendered meaningless and unenforceable, since no candidate in any election would ever fail to get exempted from it. And even some of the sourcing for the political stuff is still primary sourcing (e.g. press releases from organizations, raw vote results tables) that wouldn't be support for notability regardless.
So having the merely expected level of coverage in the context of an election campaign that she withdrew from and thus didn't win does not translate into permanent notability in and of itself, if she has no GNG-worthy coverage in any other context besides that. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Politicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 02:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  It needs to changed not deleted.

  In 2019, Doyle‑Merrick resigned from the AGO Bistro after a staff member told her her natural hair “could scare customers.” This was extensively covered by The Toronto Star, discussed in ELLE Canada, and analyzed in the McGill Journal of Law and Health—far more than a “microaggression,” it prompted institutional discussions about hair discrimination.

  Biographical detail:

  Mentioning her father, Toronto rapper HDV, is purely contextual (much like other Wikipedia biographies). She even penned a Toronto Star op‑ed on how his influence shaped her community work.

  Artistic practice:

  She’s had an two exhibitions—one at Brick Lane Gallery in London, UK, another at Cedar Ridge Gallery in Toronto—covered by BlogTO. In January 2025 she received an Ontario Arts Council Exhibition Assistance Grant (recommended by the Nia Centre for the Arts), demonstrating peer‑reviewed support for her work.

  Electoral withdrawal and advocacy:

  Her decision to step aside in the 2025 Eglinton–Lawrence race was widely reported by the Canadian Press (syndicated in Coast Reporter), NOW Toronto, The Caribbean Camera, National Post, The Globe and Mail, and The Toronto Star, and even came up during the Ontario leaders’ debate. That act of strategic voting itself became a form of public advocacy—and it set a precedent: shortly afterward, a Liberal candidate in Windsor and a Green Party candidate also withdrew to avoid vote‑splitting, demonstrating a growing willingness among contenders to prioritize collective outcomes over individual campaigns.

  Conclusion:

  Between her coverage in independent, reliable outlets, receipt of a peer‑reviewed Ontario Arts Council grant, and sustained activism on issues like race‑based hair discrimination and strategic voting, Natasha Doyle‑Merrick clearly satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NACTIVIST, and WP:NARTIST. I therefore recommend reframing her article around her work as an activist and visual artist—tightening citations and removing any promotional language—rather than deleting it Oceanmoonsun (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the nomination (and appreciate the detail). I am going to also note Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED as there is a citation that mentions her father is Jacky Jasper. I also did a Google News search and only found two non-election articles. The first is a Toronto Star article recounting a microaggression. The second is an Elle Canada piece that mentions her by name in a passing reference to that incident. I do not believe the Toronto Star article allows Natasha Doyl Merrick to meet GNG. Via the Wikipedia Library, I found nothing in the Newspapers Archive or EBSCO Host. A Google search of "Natasha Doyle" site:www.theglobeandmail.com only reveals an article abou the 2025 withdraw.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fact: Subject is a public figure. Fact: Subject represents what a Black-Canadian Woman in Ontario (and Canadian) politics looks like. Fact: Subject is a living person who has clearly contributed a consistency of works deemed relevant by credible media outlets.

  Note: We, as Wikipedia contributors, are not here to judge, we are here to document fact. these are the facts. We are here to ensure that all fact -- whether or not we may or may not individually "like" a thing and/or be in support of a thing --- the fact remains that a thing is a thing and that thing happened. We are not here to Censor information. We are not here to DELETE fact. In fact, censorship and the deletion of fact goes against everything that the Democracy of the Wikipedia Movement stands for.

  I call for those three of you commenters who are here -- not to add to this Wikipedia Movement , but rather you are proving to takeaway from this non-governmental encyclopedic movement By We The People, For We The People -- for you @Bearcat and Co. are proven to clearly be invested in the censorship of relevant, valuable information from this Wikipedia Mission, by your unjust nomination to clear the record of a Black Canadian woman political figure and a public inspiration of promise for a young black girls across Canada *** Please see TVO report, Black women in Ontario politics — past, present, and future , a 2022 article addressing the role that Black woman candidates serves to inspire Black female youth to consider entering politics after seeing Black woman as politcal candidates that look like them. "According to Velma Morgan, chair of Operation Black Vote Canada —an organization that supports the election of Black people to public office — while Black women run at rates roughly equal to those of Black men, they still run in lower numbers compared to other demographics. ... "politics was often portrayed as a corrupt old-boys’ club, and as a Black woman, the idea of running seemed almost unimaginable to her ... "Supporting Black candidates doesn’t simply affect government — a range of diverse candidates will likely increase the participation of diverse voters, says Tolley: “There is a definitive link between the presence of a more diverse range of people in public life and the desire and willingness of a broader range of voters to get involved and participate.” Tolley says there is evidence that, when members of historically underrepresented groups begin to run for office and get elected in larger numbers, that encourages voter participation. And there’s also a spin-off role-model effect, she adds, pointing to the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama increased the desire of young women and Black people to participate in politics."... "The impact extends to those who aren’t even old enough to vote. Kitchener Centre NDP MPP Laura Mae Lindo says, “I've had Black young women that have run up to me when they've seen me in the hallways and say that they couldn’t even believe their eyes when they saw somebody with [dreadlocks] standing in the chamber.”...

  This debate was prompted after User @Bearcat nominated the page Natasha Doyle-Merrick for deletion, stating that the Subject should not "have a page" ((?????). The user @Bearcat then made another notion that "anyone can run as a candidate in a political election" and noted that just because a person is a candidate does not secure them "a page" ... Not only is this nomination for deletion unjust and clearly based on subjective opinion, "Erin Tolley, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University, notes that "politics can be a hostile environment, particularly for racialized women. “Historically, there haven't been a lot of highly visible role models,” she says. “And when those role models come forward, in some cases, rather than being role models of what one is able to accomplish in politics, they instead become role models for how hostile the space is.” .https://www.tvo.org/article/thats-how-you-do-it-black-women-in-ontario-politics-past-present-and-future

  • • • Consider the recent deletion of Jackie Robinson record of military service: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/44316899/defense-department-removes-story-robinson-military-serviceHumanWritesBook (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fact: Subject is a public figure. Fact: Subject represents what a Black-Canadian Woman in Ontario (and Canadian) politics looks like. Fact: Subject is a living person who has clearly contributed a consistency of works deemed relevant by credible media outlets. HumanWritesBook (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC), entered for We the People, by We the People, in support of a Racially Diverse face of Politics in Canada, inclusive of Black Women on the Political campaign trail and in political office ... @Bearcat "Just because you didn't vote for a candidate, that doest mean that they didn't run. (I smell censorship )...in play ... Fact is Fact. Truth is Truth.Let the record of fact reflected in the page Natasha Doyle-Merrick , remain, for it is just and good. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2018/10/08/four-women-share-their-stories-new-book-colored-girls-who-have-considered-politics/1521940002/ HumanWritesBook (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Fact: every single candidate in every single election everywhere can always claim to be a "public figure" by virtue of having run as a candidate in an election — so just asserting that the subject is a "public figure" does not automatically get them into Wikipedia in and of itself. People get into Wikipedia by passing WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them, in reliable sources independent of themselves, which establishes the long term significance of their public activity: a politician gets an article by holding an WP:NPOL-passing office, not by running for one and then withdrawing mid-campaign, and an artist gets an article by having professional art critics externally analyze the significance of her work, not just by using the self-published websites of art galleries to prove that her work exists. Our inclusion standards do not work differently based on race or gender — she hasn't been "targeted" because she's a black woman, the article has been listed for discussion because it isn't saying anything about her would pass our notability criteria. (Note as well that I've personally been the creator of numerous articles about both men and women of colour within the past couple of weeks alone, so I can hardly be accused of any sort of racism here.) Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Shortcut

• WP:AFDSOCKWP:AFDSOCK

Peace and Good will to all Wikipedians... in the matter of the unjust and clearly evident politically-motivated bias move to nominated the page Natasha Doyle-Merrick for deletion ... a page of the Fact: Subject is a public figure. a page of the Fact: Subject represents what a Black-Canadian Woman in Ontario (and Canadian) politics as a two-time candidate and a public politcal artist recogninzed in mainstream media reports. .. a page of the Fact: Subject is a living person who has clearly contributed a consistency of works deemed relevant by credible media outlets.

In the journalistic cause of the true democracy of this Wikipedia movement i call to respectfully request for neutral users -- including, but not limited it, @Richard75, @Maxim, , @Sunshineisles2, @Johnsoniensis, @Werkwer@Tuckerresearch, @Senomo Drines @BaduFerreira, @Sosorrysalty! -- to kindly join this discussion -- one which I clearly suspect to be rooted in political-biased , censorship, and possible notes of apparent sockpuppetry . Sockpuppetry is not tolerated. All page information is fact, beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever. HumanWritesBook (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Fact: the subject Natasha Doyle-Merrick is a subject noted on at least eight (8) other Wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglinton%E2%80%94Lawrence_(provincial_electoral_district)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_of_the_2025_Ontario_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_politicians_who_have_switched_parties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_of_the_2022_Ontario_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_New_Democratic_Party_candidates_in_the_2025_Ontario_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_New_Democratic_Party_candidates_in_the_2022_Ontario_provincial_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglinton%E2%80%94Lawrence_(provincial_electoral_district)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Martin

... with supporting evidence of media coverage from CBC News

For the record HumanWritesBook (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

****

In the journalistic cause of the true democracy of this Wikipedia movement i call to respectfully request for neutral users -- including, but not limited it, @Richard75, @Maxim, , @Sunshineisles2, @Johnsoniensis, @Werkwer@Tuckerresearch, @Senomo Drines @BaduFerreira, @Sosorrysalty! -- to kindly join this discussion -- one which I clearly suspect to be rooted in political-biased , censorship, and possible notes of apparent sockpuppetry . Sockpuppetry is not tolerated. All page information is fact, beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever. HumanWritesBook (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We, as Wikipedia contributors, are not here to judge, we are here to document fact. these are the facts. We are here to ensure that all fact -- whether or not we may or may not individually "like" a thing and/or be in support of a thing --- the fact remains that a thing is a thing and that thing happened. We are not here to Censor information. We are not here to DELETE fact. In fact, censorship and the deletion of fact goes against everything that the Democracy of the Wikipedia Movement stands for.

I call for those three of you commenters who are here -- not to add to this Wikipedia Movement , but rather you are proving to takeaway from this non-governmental encyclopedic movement By We The People, For We The People -- for you @Bearcat and Co. are proven to clearly be invested in the censorship of relevant, valuable information from this Wikipedia Mission, by your unjust nomination to clear the record of a Black Canadian woman political figure and a public inspiration of promise for a young black girls across Canada *** Please see TVO report, Black women in Ontario politics — past, present, and future , a 2022 article addressing the role that Black woman candidates serves to inspire Black female youth to consider entering politics after seeing Black woman as politcal candidates that look like them. "According to Velma Morgan, chair of Operation Black Vote Canada —an organization that supports the election of Black people to public office — while Black women run at rates roughly equal to those of Black men, they still run in lower numbers compared to other demographics. ... "politics was often portrayed as a corrupt old-boys’ club, and as a Black woman, the idea of running seemed almost unimaginable to her ... "Supporting Black candidates doesn’t simply affect government — a range of diverse candidates will likely increase the participation of diverse voters, says Tolley: “There is a definitive link between the presence of a more diverse range of people in public life and the desire and willingness of a broader range of voters to get involved and participate.” Tolley says there is evidence that, when members of historically underrepresented groups begin to run for office and get elected in larger numbers, that encourages voter participation. And there’s also a spin-off role-model effect, she adds, pointing to the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama increased the desire of young women and Black people to participate in politics."...

HumanWritesBook (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again, "subject is a public figure" is not a notability claim in and of itself. People become notable by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about their passage of specific defined inclusion criteria, like WP:NPOL for politicians or WP:NARTIST for artists, and just throwing the words "public figure" around like a weapon doesn't demonstrate that at all. The number of Wikipedia articles that happen to have a name in them is also not, in and of itself, a notability claim that entitles the person to an article either. The notability test hinges on certain specific markers of achievement and sourcing, not on the number of times their name can be found in other articles.

This article, as written, has not demonstrated her notability as an artist at all, as you have not shown any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage about her art. You are trying to stake her notability entirely on a non-winning candidacy for political office — but, again, having been a non-winning candidate is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. People in politics get Wikipedia articles by winning the election and thereby holding the office, not by running as a candidate in an election they withdrew from. There is simply no valid argument for notability as a politician here, because people become notable as politicians by holding notable political offices, not by pulling out of the race two weeks before election day.

You're not going to save this article by posting long screeds to this discussion about how she's a "public figure", or by falsely accusing me of "bias" when I've never shown one second of bias whatsoever — if you want to save this article, then you need to find and show better WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about her art to demonstrate that she would pass WP:NARTIST. The problem isn't that she's black, and the problem isn't that she's a woman — and if you want to accuse me of racism here, then check out who created our articles about Karen Chapman, Laurie Townshend, Virnetta Anderson, Myriam Magassouba, Traci Melchor, Kelly Fyffe-Marshall, Yasmine Mathurin and Alicia K. Harris. The problem is that a person (regardless of their gender or skin colour) has to hold office as a politician, not just run for office and then withdraw, to become notable as a politician — so to make Natasha Doyle-Merrick notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you need to establish that she's notable as an artist, not as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that “Canadian politician” may not be the best descriptor since Natasha Doyle‑Merrick has never held elected office. However, I believe her article meets notability under the activist and artist criteria (WP:NACTIVIST / WP:NARTIST).

– Artistic recognition: She’s had two solo exhibitions—one at Brick Lane Gallery in London, UK, and another at Cedar Ridge Gallery in Toronto—both supported by an Ontario Arts Council Exhibition Assistance Grant (recommended by the Nia Centre for the Arts).

– Media coverage: Independent, reliable outlets have covered her work and advocacy, including the Toronto Star, CBC, Elle Canada, BlogTO, NOW Magazine, and the National Post.

– Activism: She raised public awareness about race‑based hair discrimination through her resignation from the AGO Bistro, and she withdrew from the 2025 provincial race to consolidate the progressive vote—both widely reported events.

Given this combination of institutional support and third‑party coverage, I respectfully request that the page be reframed around her roles as an activist and visual artist rather than deleted. Oceanmoonsun (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mpen320—thank you for your careful review. I’d like to clarify a few key points:

Race‑based hair discrimination case:

In 2019, Doyle‑Merrick resigned from the AGO Bistro after a staff member told her her natural hair “could scare customers.” This was extensively covered by The Toronto Star, discussed in ELLE Canada, and analyzed in the McGill Journal of Law and Health—far more than a “microaggression,” it prompted institutional discussions about hair discrimination.

Biographical detail:

Mentioning her father, Toronto rapper HDV, is purely contextual (much like other Wikipedia biographies). She even penned a Toronto Star op‑ed on how his influence shaped her community work.

Artistic practice:

She’s had an two exhibitions—one at Brick Lane Gallery in London, UK, another at Cedar Ridge Gallery in Toronto—covered by BlogTO. In January 2025 she received an Ontario Arts Council Exhibition Assistance Grant (recommended by the Nia Centre for the Arts), demonstrating peer‑reviewed support for her work.

Electoral withdrawal and advocacy:

Her decision to step aside in the 2025 Eglinton–Lawrence race was widely reported by the Canadian Press (syndicated in Coast Reporter), NOW Toronto, The Caribbean Camera, National Post, The Globe and Mail, and The Toronto Star, and even came up during the Ontario leaders’ debate. That act of strategic voting itself became a form of public advocacy—and it set a precedent: shortly afterward, a Liberal candidate in Windsor and a Green Party candidate also withdrew to avoid vote‑splitting, demonstrating a growing willingness among contenders to prioritize collective outcomes over individual campaigns.

Conclusion:

Between her coverage in independent, reliable outlets, receipt of a peer‑reviewed Ontario Arts Council grant, and sustained activism on issues like race‑based hair discrimination and strategic voting, Natasha Doyle‑Merrick clearly satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NACTIVIST, and WP:NARTIST. I therefore recommend reframing her article around her work as an activist and visual artist—tightening citations and removing any promotional language—rather than deleting it. Oceanmoonsun (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO. As mentioned above, the subject only ran for office, but was not elected. Fails WP:NPOL. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t believe the page necessarily needs to be deleted — perhaps it just needs to be restructured to avoid WP:PROMO concerns and better align with notability guidelines. Natasha Doyle-Merrick has been covered in reliable, independent sources, including the Toronto Star, Elle Canada, BlogTO, CBC, NOW Magazine, and the National Post.

  She was involved in a widely publicized case concerning alleged racism at the Art Gallery of Ontario, which was covered by multiple mainstream outlets. Additionally, she is a grant recipient from the Ontario Arts Council and has received institutional support from organizations such as the Nia Centre for the Arts.

  Her advocacy work during the Ontario election — including publicly stepping away from the race and writing about her experiences, personal background (including her relationship with her father HDV), and deep community ties to Lawrence Heights — was also covered in several outlets.

  Given this, I believe there is enough verifiable coverage to support notability, particularly under WP:NACTIVIST or WP:NARTIST. I would support revising the article to better reflect her public impact and remove any promotional tone — but I don’t think deletion is necessary. Oceanmoonsun (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I want to flag for the closer what I believe is a violation of WP:CANVASS by HumanWritesBook in this AfD.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Ajay Mishra

Ajay Mishra (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 actor. Cant see any independent or significant coverage. Some of the sources don't mention him too. - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 15:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 15:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, failed to meet GNG (no significant coverage from any reliable source) and failed WP:NACTOR featured in only 3 films which he is not part of the main actors (only as recurring actor).Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:ACTOR with significant roles (recurring roles are not minor) in multiple notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 09:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Can you describe how WP:NACTOR has been satisfied here? Capitals00 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s in my !vote. He had ”significant roles in multiple notable productions”. -Mushy Yank. 08:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are yet to describe that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, what? -Mushy Yank. 10:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete fails nactor •Cyberwolf•. talk? 13:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf: You need to BOLD your vote. RangersRus (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Poor to unreliable to non independent sources. No significant coverage from secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – The article of Ajay Mishra clearly satisfies the notability guidelines for actors. He has played significant and well-recognized roles in national TV serials such as *Mahabharat*, *Suryaputra Karn*, *Baal Krishna*, *Devi Adi Parashakti*, *Ram Siya Ke Luv Kush*, *CID*, and *Savdhaan India*.

Multiple reliable and independent sources have covered him over a period of years, including:

- [Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/Mahabharat-to-end-with-one-hour-special/articleshow/40120358.cms)

- [NDTV](http://movies.ndtv.com/television/mahabharat-to-end-with-one-hour-special-episode-646408)

- [Aaj Tak](https://m.aajtak.in/movie-masala/small-screen/story/mahabharat-to-end-with-one-hour-special-775753-2014-08-13)

- [Jagran Post](http://post.jagran.com/mahabharat-to-end-with-onehour-special-1407844793)

- [TellyChakkar](https://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/nimai-bali-and-ajay-mishra-dangal-s-devi-200113)

These are national-level media outlets offering significant coverage, not just passing mentions. Ajay Mishra has been active in Indian television and theater for over a decade and is an alumnus of Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts.

Per WP:NACTOR, actors are presumed notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable productions, which is clearly the case here. Therefore, I strongly recommend **Keep**.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay24augm (talk • contribs) — Ajay24augm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GSS ^💬 21:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Source Analysis. TOI, NDTV, AajTak are all same copied brief interview about the subject talking about his experience on his role as "Sanjay" in Mahabharata. Not independent sources. Jagran source is on some different article and nothing on the subject. Tellychakker is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. RangersRus (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR; subject appears to have played minor roles in major productions. A "significant role" under NACTOR refers to substantial involvement across the duration of a notable work, not just a part that's important to a particular scene or subplot. No independent, reliable sources establish enduring notability. GSS ^💬 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Anti-Austrian sentiment

Anti-Austrian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has existed for 10 years and it is still a single sentence. The proposed additions are either irrelevant to the topic, poorly sourced, or rely on primary sources and OR. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: a Google Scholar search with the keyword 'Anti-Austrian' turns up quite a lot of results. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article is not about "anti-Austrian", but about "anti-Austrian sentiment", and that makes a difference because "anti-Austrian" can just mean "against Austria" and can - and does - often refer to political actions taken against Austria in a specific situation. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – I dispute all the claimed issues in the reverted additions I made, but regardless page issues that can be solved are not grounds for deletion. The discussion should have been kept to the talk page instead of being escalated to an erroneous speedy deletion tag and then an AfD. Yue🌙 18:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Paraphrasing myself on Talk:Anti-Austrian sentiment:

  • I can respond to arguments against the relevancy of the additions (i.e. content) if there are specific points made, perhaps a quote of the content that is considered problematic or questionable, instead of just claiming the entirety of the additions as invalid.
  • All the sources cited in the original additions were scholarly secondary sources by historians with PhDs and specialisations in Austrian, German and/or European history and culture.
  • The only exception to the above point was a History.com source which is considered generally unreliable and is to be used with caution (Ancient Aliens nonsense and such). However, the sentences it was verifying are not controversial facts of history, and alternative sources exist, such as "Anti-German and anti-Austrian printed text propaganda in the Russian empire at the beginning of World War I", a scholarly article by Olena Kolomoiets and Yurii Kolomoiets; The National WWI Museum and Memorial in Kansas City website; Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.
  • The topic passes WP:GNG because it has focused, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, which I cited with page-specificity in my additions.

  Yue🌙 19:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  • The RFE link is a page with WWI posters. To say the posters show anti-austrian sentiment is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we need a WP:RS to say that. Furthermore the word "anti-Austrian" is nowhere to be found on that page.
  • Your researchgate link is a January 2025 study that says "The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze the main themes of anti-German and anti-Austrian printed text propaganda in the Russian Empire at the beginning of World War I, as well as to determine its ideological objectives, content, and methods of influencing public opinion." Neither the paper nor the authors of it can be found on Google Scholar. Furthermore, the "journal" where it is published is called Scientific Papers of the Kamianets-Podilskyi National Ivan Ohiienko University History. The journal is described as "The professional edition of the Faculty of History “Scientific Works of Kamianets-Podilskyi Ivan Ohienko National University: Historical Sciences” is popularity [sic] and recognised in scientific circles." by the university that publishes it. I can't find any information on peer-review or selection process.
  • The WWI museum in Kansas City link doesn't mention "Anti-Austrian sentiment", the only mention of "anti-Austrian" is the following sentence "The Black Hand took over the older group's work of anti-Austrian propaganda within Serbia, which included sabotage, espionage and political murders abroad — especially in provinces Austria-Hungary wished to annex."

  WP:GNG says focused, in-depth coverage. None of the sources you provided talk about "Anti-Austrian sentiment" let alone in-depth. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The only proposals so far for meaningful additions have been based on a random set of sources that happen to have a title containing "Austrophobia". Rsk6400 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The inline citations in the new content were page-specific and not conjecture derived merely from the article title. I did not restore my additions out of respect for the resolution process for the original dispute over if the content should be included, but it's pretty non-sensical for the basis of this deletion discussion to rest on an inferior version of the article when a superior version exists, even if one argues the superior version is still problematic or should be deleted. Yue🌙 18:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Infitting with the series of articles we have on anti national sentiment. This can be improved with decent sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please name the "decent" sources ? Rsk6400 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Google Scholar turns up quite a few. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep Quite a lot of sources on this topic. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Such as? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The subject is clearly notable. Thomas E. Kaiser (October 2003), "From the Austrian Committee to the Foreign Plot: Marie-Antoinette, Austrophobia, and the Terror", French Historical Studies, 26 (4), doi:10.1215/00161071-26-4-579 is a reputable source, widely cited by others writing on the same subject. Google Scholar shows many more, covering different periods and aspects: hostility to the Austrian Empire, hostility to Austrians within the empire, hostility after the empire was dissolved etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. There's also the Hungarian aspect. The absorption of Hungary into the Habsburg monarchy and then Austrian Empire resulted in Hungarian frustration with centralized Austrian rule, the suppression of Hungarian identity, unequal representation and economic policies that favoured Austria. These were important factors in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. The tension between Hungarians and Austria did not end in 1848 and, for example, the 20th century decision of the city of Sopron to remain Hungarian led to it being dubbed the "most faithful city". Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The current article is a dictionary definition, which we do not allow, WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Someone can recreate it later with true encyclopedic content so long as that is not defamatory to anyone/any country. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article was much longer in this early version and this very different version. It has grown and shrunk several times. See Talk:Anti-Austrian sentiment for the discussion about the recent edit war. The question here is not whether the present dictionary definition belongs in Wikipedia, but whether the subject is notable and deserves a full-length article.

  This article is part of a series in Category:Anti-national sentiment, which includes Anti-Albanian sentiment, Anti-Armenian sentiment, Anti-Australian sentiment and so on. Obviously anti-Austrian sentiments will have emerged from time to time in countries such as Croatia, Hungary, Italy, France etc, for different reasons and at different times, so there will be plenty of material.

  A broader question is whether any of these "Anti Country sentiment" articles should exist. I think they have value, if only as overviews that point to more detailed articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I was wondering that too on whether we should have the series of articles. If Austria is problematic, aren't others too? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is obiously a risk that an article like this will attract editors who have strong views on whether the sentiment is justified. If it is structured as a summary list, the problem will be reduced. So a section on Ruritania will give one-sentence summaries of articles on instigators of Ruritanian anti-Austrian sentiments and associated events. The article will overlap a bit with articles like Ruritania-Austria relations, and will need policing, but I think serves a useful purpose. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Rachele Focardi

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

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

Does not seem to pass NPEOPLE. I see only passing mentions in independent sources. is an interview, so it is neither secondary nor independent. seems to have some coverage, but if I interpret Acknowledgements correctly, the coverage is primarily based on interviews, so this source is also not independent. I also see a few other interviews, but nothing notability-confering. Janhrach (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Management, Asia, and Italy. Janhrach (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete. doesn't have any reliable sources. None could be found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

International Jat Parliament

International Jat Parliament (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:NEVENT with zero WP:DIVERSE and WP:LASTING. It talks of some kind of demand made by members for an award only. Agent 007 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: The above reply is 100% AI generated as per GPTZero. Agent 007 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as AI-generated. From the user talk page it is obvious this person themselves writes in very broken English and communicates only via AT texts. The is no such organization, it was the name of a certain meeting of Jats, hence WP:NEVENT apply. --Altenmann >talk 05:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The article talks only about a single event, not an "organization" like the user is claiming. WP:NEVENT does apply, and it fails that along with WP:LASTING. Pretty much all the coverage of the event is from the day(s) the event happened, and nothing after that.

The article creator's defense for keeping the article is AI-generated, and the article is likely AI-generated as well. ApexParagon (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete No hope if it will meet WP:LASTING. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The content seems to be more trouble than it's worth to fix by a now blocked editor ^SMason_Garrison 02:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks indepth coverage about the organization and the sources are poor that only talk about a single event. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Junya (song)

Junya (song) (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, this source in the article seems to be sigcov specific to this song. Toadspike [Talk] 08:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Back to Me (¥$ song)

Back to Me (¥$ song) (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The very first source cited seems to be sigcov specific to this song. I haven't looked through the rest but it appears to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 08:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Fuk Sumn

Fuk Sumn (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-12 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose soft redirection – the first source is specifically about this song, so the broader NSONG album review issue is (in my opinion) resolved. Should be relisted for further discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 09:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Elvire Jaspers

Elvire Jaspers (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)

Little indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep  : A member of parliament should be notable. The links given now in the article have all expired, I'm unable to load the articles. There is confirmation as an MP on the parliamentary website. The few news articles that talk about her used for sourcing should be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Latvia. Current sourcing is sub-par, but deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Mea culpa, I did not do my due diligence in assessing this article. Curbon7 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

*Keep as an NPOL pass but the article probably needs trimming. Mccapra (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and salt as hoax. Would you reconsider after looking at the below points, @Oaktree b @Curbon7 and @Mccapra?
  • Ref 5 and 9 about supposedly being a Saeima member do not work.
  • Ref 4 about supposedly receiving a presidential order does not mention her name.
  • Ref 6, 7, 8 and 10 about supposed endeavors in Latvia do not lead anywhere relevant.
  • Why don't any other Wikipedia page (most notably Thirteenth Saeima of Latvia) or interwiki page mention her?
  • My google search for "Elvire Jaspers" Saeima yielded 0 results outside of Wikipedia.
  • The same thing applies to "Elvire Jaspers" site:.lv.
  • This is not a Latvian person at all, try searching in Dutch domains and you will see that she is from the Netherlands.
  • When it was deleted previously, that article also contained hoaxes, such as holding the highest office within Dutch broadcasting.
• In my opinion, this is clearly a hoax. Geschichte (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, per Geschichte, and propose block of creating user unless @Fremrin: can supply a WP:RS about her membership of parliament. Note that her Wikidata entry was created on 11 April 2025 and has no sources except en.wiki. (I came here expecting to !vote "keep" for a member of parliament, AGF-ing that the sources were valid - sometimes good faith is apparently misplaced.) PamD 08:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• If this is a hoax, it can be deleted. I'm not sure, but I did notice there was a Dutch person with the same name during my search for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Oaktree b: You said, above, There is confirmation as an MP on the parliamentary website. Did you miss out a "no" before "confirmation", or could you share that link? Thanks. PamD 11:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC) PamD 17:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: After reviewing the sources, the claims about her ties to Latvia and the receipt of the Order of Viesturs appear to be fabricated. There is no evidence she ever served in the Latvian Parliament, and the cited government document about the state honor names a different person. Her LinkedIn profile, which matches the image used in the article’s references, makes no mention of Latvian politics or national awards. This strongly suggests a WP:HOAX. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G3 as a WP:HOAX. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Reiner Frieske

Reiner Frieske (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 German handball player. I was unable to find any in-depth sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: silver medallist from the 1970 World Men's Handball Championship, according to de:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• KEEP: Notable for the following reasons: (see German Wikipedia for a slightly more detailed entry)

1. East German Handball Champion: He was a goalkeeper for the team that won the "DDR-Meister: (East German Championship) in 1964.
2. International Handball Player: Frieske played for the East German national handball team.
3. World Championship Appearances: He represented East Germany in the World Handball Championships in 1964, 1967, and 1970, with the team finishing 2nd place in 1970.
4. Olympian: He competed as part of the East German handball team at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He played in 6 out of 6 games during the tournament. The team played in the bronze medal match, but was edged out by Romania (19-16), finishing in 4th place.

References that I found clicking Google News above were in German. — ERcheck (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Per ERcheck and sources which I found and . Note: Some sources wrote Rainer instead of Reiner. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic and not really relevant to the English wiki. The German version of article looks pretty short too with only 3 sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – PDF file looks decent, but does the second newspaper even mention him? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes in the bottom left corner with the title "Geachtet als Sportsmann und Kamerad". 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's just an interview without independent analysis, so I'd lean towards Delete. Multiple sources containing significant coverage are required. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  I found more sources similar to the other pdf, centre left, bottom centre. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – Per sources presented in this AfD and WP:AGF. Svartner (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Svartner: Can you clarify how WP:AGF applies here? Assuming good faith is a behavioural guideline. It doesn't apply to considerations of passing notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - coming at this late. Can we get another relist to examine the above sources more closely? What is the publication Lommatzscher Anzeiger? Published in 2020, that could be a good one, but is it independent and reliable? I'm less impressed by contemporary news reports, which are primary inasmuch as they report specific events, and not independent if interviews. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Good work to those who identified sufficient WP:SIGCOV in this discussion for a bare pass of WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not going to enter a !vote because I don't think we are at GNG here, but I would prefer a no consensus close to deletion. The problem with the PDFs is what they are. Lommatszcher Nachtrigen is the independent gazette of the Lommatszcher Plege region of Saxony, and Lommatszcher Anzeige is likewise a regional publication. But that is not to say that local coverage is nothing. All the same, reading these, when they talk about "our team" and such like, there are questions as to whether this is properly independent coverage demonstrating notability. The other sources are either not SIGCOV or, as in the interview, lack independence (and also thus primary, per policy). And, to be honest, if we give this article a keep outcome, I'll bet that nothing happens to it, because it is not at all clear what we can write from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Upon reviewing the sources cited, I think they are either connected/non-independent, primary, or not significant coverage of Mr. Frieske. They don't give us anything to work from. Notability not met. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Results breakdown of the 2025 Portuguese legislative election

Results breakdown of the 2025 Portuguese legislative election (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)

Unnecessary. Article will, when the results are known, contain the same information as contained in the constituencies articles. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Move to draft. As far as I can tell, the article fails WP:A3 as it has no meaningful content other than simply listing the parties that will be contesting the election in each constituency, content that can easily be depicted on the main article. Only one results are known can the article be meaningful. As such, it should be a draft until that point. Gust Justice (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. The page has info on lists by district, as not all parties contest all districts, plus registered voters per district. Also, as the election is just one month away, the page is already created as when results come in, it can be updated by the minute.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this information can be useful. However, there are ways to depict this without needing a whole article whose main content is yet to exist. In any case, the role of Wikipedia is not to display every single piece of information about the topic. Gust Justice (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

And that's why we have constituency articles for many countries. In addition, most election articles now provide results by constituency in the election article itself e.g. 2024 Portuguese legislative election#Distribution by constituency. Do we need the same results presented in a third article? Obi2canibe (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• More than a month left for the elections. Draftify until the elections actually happen. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Different Personalities

Different Personalities (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:RELIABILITY in terms of referenced sources. Connected to artist article deleted after nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect I agree with you the sources are not reliable, redirect to FBG Duck discography Momentoftrue (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

FBG Duck discography

FBG Duck discography (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)

Connected to an article previously marked for deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to FBG Duck - the artist himself is notable (despite the ongoing AfD), but I couldn't find extensive coverage of his discography (outside of the kind of routine coverage that is linked in the references section). Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – The standalone FBG Duck discography page should be kept because:

FBG Duck released multiple mixtapes (e.g. Dead Bitches, Slide), an EP, and over a dozen singles far exceeding the three‑release threshold in WP:DISCOGRAPHY for a separate page. Every entry is backed by independent, third‑party sources (Billboard chart listings, AllMusic, Discogs), meeting WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS standards. A dedicated discography table avoids clutter in the main article and centralizes key data—release dates, labels (including his Columbia Records deal), formats, and chart positions—per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. His major‑label affiliation and charting singles establish collective notability under WP:NALBUMS, even if some individual tracks lack standalone articles. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, standalone discography pages for artists of comparable or lesser stature are common; deleting this page would be inconsistent and arbitrary. Momentoftrue (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

FBG Duck

FBG Duck (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)

Recreation of a previously deleted article by nomination. Violation of WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Before Tagging all my articles I created because it’s connected to the page FBG Duck, have you seen the 2nd nomination or do I have to show everything again. Momentoftrue (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  You forgot one thing... WP:NOTABILITY. His notability and his notoriety isn't relevant or popular like various artists noted here. Yes, I know it's wrong to renominate after 4 days, but unfortunately, unless you can find something reliable enough to keep him here, then it is necessary to nominate FBG Duck for deletion again. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  didn’t you see the reliable sources and an gold riaa that’s what make notability XXL Magazine, AllMusic, HotNewHipHop, The Fader, Billboard, and Hypebeast and FBG Duck was placed number 15 on the billboard chart FBG Duck Billboard’s chart doesn’t that make WP:notability or I’m just tripping let me know. Momentoftrue (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  you might as well remove AfD for the other songs, albums, mixtapes, by FBG Duck. Momentoftrue (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the arguments already made in the previous AfD are sufficient to establish notability. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• More sources can be found at , which has also gone to AfD (for little reason in my opinion). Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. AfD was closed inappropriately by the article's author, which is prohibited per WP:INVOLVED. I've now reopened the discussion and re-added the AfD tag to the article in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help. I was caught up in the non-admin concerns and thought to have needed help. DBrown SPS (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I will admit that I made a mistake and I’m sorry. I only reason I did it was because the last one got speedy kept and it’s obvious it passes WP:NOTABILITY with all votes at current keep. Momentoftrue (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The previous nomination was not "speedy kept", since it was actually withdrawn by the nominator, and this doesn't prevent the article from being renominated. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I never withdrew from the nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@DBrown SPS: We're talking about the "previous nomination”. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBG Duck (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - RIAA gold for Slide (FBG Duck song) source means subject meets WP:SINGER criterion #3 Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment IF this article get kept after a week can we remove the AfDs off the other articles that connected to FBG Duck because the AfD main reason is that “Connected to previous deleted article”. Momentoftrue (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  No...a conflict of interest is bad. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I maintain that if FBG Duck is kept based solely on the solid notability evidence provided, then related pages should not be deleted simply because they’re connected to a previously deleted article. Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. Absolutely! And that will happen at AfD if the articles are already nominated there. If the articles are of merit, then participants will generally recommend to keep. If they're not, then they won't. The fact that the articles may have been nominated for AfD on possibly dubious grounds is neither here nor there. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the artist has a gold certification for Slide, clearly pass WP:NSINGER #3 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Frank's Track

Frank's Track (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:NSONG; coverage mentioning this track is more about Wolves. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

  --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Plus: No-one at all even wants it deleted now. Not even the nominator. See also Illest Motherfucker Alive (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Hoodrat

Hoodrat (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the song's appearance from Mike Tyson received significant coverage and even if the context is album reviews for discussion on the excerpt, these go into details and it charted in multiple countries. --K. Peake 08:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

God Is

God Is (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep there are multiple sources outside of context of the album used in this article referencing the song or Labrinth's contributions, an additional version is noted and it charted in numerous countries. --K. Peake 17:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as well as charting, the song is covered within a number of reliable sources album reviews that count it as the highlight of the album, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Amir Makled

Amir Makled (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)