Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 19

Honeymoon Fades

Honeymoon Fades (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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link to a target article if you are proposing a Redirection or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This is a single, so there is no album to redirect to – were this not the case, I'd support a merge or redirect. A brief web search turned up and – not really sigcov but not nothing. The Idolator source is a dead link that has been "excluded" from the Internet Archive. Based on the title, I'm guessing it's got some decent coverage; fwiw the source is marked as "reliable" at RSP. The People source that is now dead doesn't mention this song at all . This is a really iffy basis to !vote keep on, but because of the lack of a good merge target I think it's least bad option here. Toadspike [Talk] 22:12, 26 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.

The Middle of Starting Over

The Middle of Starting Over (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; not enough WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - strong reviews, and millions of views of the video. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Video views definitely do not pertain to any notability policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is good. I just saw the other one is now a dead link. This one has two paragraphs and a quote, but that's all I can find. So I agree that it's pretty weak as far as significant coverage. It's confusing because the song is basically a Gold Record. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  With no sources about this song, NSONG is not met. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirected to its album. Video views are not a source for notability. Headline planet is not reliable source and ScreenRant doesn't strike me as reliable either. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable at all. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 12:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are ever suggesting a Redirection or Merge, please provide a direct link to the target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect - Redirect to Can't Blame a Girl for Trying. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:56, 23 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.

Stanley Shaftel

Stanley Shaftel (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 enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines , book mentions . Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per David Eppstein, and own search. did not find significant coverage to establish GNG or NCREATIVE. Would be helpful if keep !voters could link some of the coverage they allude to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 23 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.

Maybach Music 2

Maybach Music 2 (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 (Deeper Than Rap). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link to the Redirect target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 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.

Eastern Slavonia front

Eastern Slavonia front (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 it was created by a newbie last year, and its topic seems to be completely overlapping with other articles about the Croatian War of Independence, noticably the two linked from Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. A Google Books search for the phrase "Eastern Slavonia front" only gives a handful of results, so this isn't a particularly likely search term, and it seems unreasonable to maintain three articles about basically the same thing. --Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 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.

Planner (program)

Planner (program) (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 notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 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.

Bone Street Krew

Bone Street Krew (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 bunch of guys hanging out backstage rumored to have heat with The Kliq and believed to have been created as a counter to them, but the myth has been busted. They do not have any incidents like the "Curtain Call" by the Kliq. They only teamed once onscreen in a Survivor Series match in 1995, apparently called "The Darkside", unlike The Kliq who had The Outsiders going to WCW, nWo and DX. Just because of the rumors, this could be merged to The Kliq article or The Undertaker#Personal life because of his visible tattoo (or "locker room leadership"). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Article already includes sufficient third-party sources explicitly about the group (that is, not passing mentions or routine coverage) to fulfill notability requirements. The nom seems to think the relative lack of on-screen use of the group is meaningful, but that is not defining at all. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as Oknazevad said, the article has in-deep sources about the subject. Even if it's a backstage group, has coverage around it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 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!} 23:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This reads as the nominator not liking this group rather than citing any policy-based reasons for deletion, and we cite facts, not wrestling gossip. Nathannah • 📮 01:37, 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.

Do It (¥$ song)

Do It (¥$ 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꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Vultures 1. I'm not seeing any sources with substantial coverage either in the article or in basic google searches. If better sources are found please ping me. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link if suggesting a Redirection or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to parent album per above reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:10, 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.

Jonah (Kanye West song)

Jonah (Kanye West 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꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Charted, has commentary, other than Kanye being a problematic artist, not seeing any reason why this shouldn't exist as a standalone article--the case for merge or redirect has not been made. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect only one reliable source with a lot of insight (Songfacts is not reliable). If another one is provided I will change my vote. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:42, 23 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.

King (¥$ song)

King (¥$ 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꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 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, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:39, 23 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.

Kanga (song)

Kanga (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; only source about this song is the HotNewhipHop piece. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 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, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:37, 23 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.

Jesus Is Lord

Jesus Is Lord (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꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep apart from charting there are specific references enabling background and composition sections. In the continuing RfC a number of editors consider that album reviews that include content about a song do count towards WP:GNG of the song which would also be the case here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:08, 12 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, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect no independent sources that cover the song, only album reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:44, 23 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.

Good (Don't Die)

Good (Don't Die) (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꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I am glad to have been notified on the deletion discussion to this article that I created and still stand by its existence, as there is much info discussed from multiple sources of the lawsuit information specifically related to this song and it also charted in multiple countries. --K. Peake 07:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe it can be argued that the lawsuit is notable. But notable songs need to be the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources—album reviews do not count. Do you have sources that show this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:09, 12 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, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There is a lot of information regarding the lawsuit, various sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep -- There is enough reliable sourcing cited to pass the notability criteria for WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:24, 26 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.

Two-Man Power Trip

Two-Man Power Trip (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)

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Lasted that length due to injury to Triple H but in that two months, was a very significant part of their programming in early-mid 2001. No. It does not get deleted. Russ Jericho (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Russ Jericho: Could you explain the significance of the team with reliable sources (check WP:PW/RS)? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/The_Power_Trip 67.198.117.6 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Merge. Only has one source and was made by an IP in 2005. After all this time, it should have improved if it was notable. May be better as a section in Stone Cold or Triple Hs page. More of a fan page than encyclopedia entry. Ramos1990 (talk)
• Weak keep There's a source in the article. Probably more out there. Unlikely the nominator did the requied WP:BEFORE search based on the speed of their other nominations. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a comment on the possible sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge, this is a bit tabloidy, but also needs more sources, however for the subject matter, I could be convinced that it is a weak keep at best. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• KEEP, has substantial notability and support by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and the fanbase, and the faction appears frequently in various articles. More citations and perhaps a bit of detail are needed however. WorldClassChampion (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. What this, or really any, article needs is independent, reliable sources not hype. The best I could find was the Sportster which, IMO, isn't enough. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither the Sportster nor fandom sources are reliable sources. Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge. I don't even feel it's really a merge, but just take some of the details and put them in the respective wrestlers article. Not that it's badly written or anything, but this just feels like a storyline recap from 2001. Huge names involved yes but this isn't a team like Edge and Christian. It's really hard to define notable when they're in the biggest stage for wrestling but I'm going off of WP:NOPAGE because I feel this needs more context than it would provide.MatthewNewHouse (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Possible Merge but that can't happen without agreement on a Merge target article. Any ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I support the merge and suggest the content be merged into Stone Cold Steve Austin's article. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Though could it not be a split merge between Stone Cold Steve Austin and Triple H? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 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.

James Worthy (record producer)

James Worthy (record producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The problem with this article is the same as when it was deleted the last time: almost all of the sources are not journalism but thinly veiled promotional material dressed up to look like "interviews," which are simply softball question templates filled in by the artist himself.

For example, this source is written by Lenell Johnson, whom Allmusic lists as Worthy's A&R rep. Another source, Singersoom, doesn't even mask its identity as a paid PR platform, as it has an "Advertise your music" banner on its site. Even an article in a source which might be thought of as reliable, The Source, reads like a PR blog post and claims, like the rest of Worthy's PR material, that he has been nominated for three Grammy awards, which I have not been able to corroborate with a WP:RS. This article in "Elevator" magazine is an article clearly tagged "promoted" and whose author is listed as "Advertiser."

I see no indication that Worthy has received any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources that will satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, despite the "citation bombing" from Allmusic, Discogs, Spotify, iTunes, and IMDB. Rift (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been to AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment/Weak Delete: I share your suspicions about promotional material, and you mention that "Elevator" article is outwardly marked as promotional. Do have other articles we can definitively prove to be promotional? Because otherwise it sounds understandably conspiratory. The Source.com is reliable source and has moderately SIGCOV. This one seems fine. To me, the articles feel promotional because they don't really describe Worthy's work, but use flavor words trying to sell his work to a reader. That's said I don't know in which direction to lean in. :) LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see significant coverage Iban14mxl (talk) 03:25, 26 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.

Alex O'Connor

Alex O'Connor (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)

While this isn't a G4, there's also no indication the factors have changed since the last AfD after which it was deleted. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The factors have changed since the last AfD. The article's subject is now covered in more reliable secondary sources that were not present in the previously deleted article, such as articles in The Atlantic, Varsity, and The Freethinker. The article from 2024 that was deleted did not contain these kinds of citations. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep in addition to the sources listed by Cyrobyte and cited in the article I found Christian Post and a smattering of interviews. It looks like he clears the notability threshold to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• Strong keep In addition the sources mentioned above, the man is becoming increasingly popular. He's had interviews and discussions with big names (and will continue to do so).

Yucalyptus (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Including a debate at Oxford. The man is only 26 and has so much notoriety, there's no reason to expect him to become less notable/famous. Tbirdwinger (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean for a young podcaster/YouTuber who's made videos since 2013, the guy is pretty much known and his popularity is growing as I'm typing this. There are Wikipedia pages of YouTubers who have like 300K subscribers, and yet this guy's page must always be rejected? Seems bizarre to me. Yucalyptus (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. After I created this article, it was speedily deleted without any regard for all of the reliable coverage of its subject and the fact that I contested the deletion. Then it was undeleted and almost immediately nominated for deletion here. Cyrobyte (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Only here because I was legitimately curious who this was, Googled him, and this was there and I'm glad it was – Kjerish (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Do you know why this page isn't being indexed by Google? Cyrobyte (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think it has been unless "indexed by Google" means something different than what I think it does (I even googled that phrase to double-check). This is the first result that popped up when I Googled his name to see how old he was. Tbirdwinger (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  It takes about a month or so for a newly created Wikipedia article to be indexed by Google. At least, that's what I've noticed with my articles. Yucalyptus (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Alex O’Connor is a public personality and should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekocner (talk • contribs) — Ekocner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I don't know this person but looking at the article the WP:PERSON criteria are quite established from the sources provided. --RaphaelQS (talk) 05:52, 25 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.

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia (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)

New editor has created a number of pages called "Climate change in X region/country" and they are very similar. While the title seems a fitting topic for an article the content is mostly WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL e.g. Ticks and mosquitoes and will become more commons(sic). Thought I would wait for consensus on whether this is a delete or improve before nominating the rest. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Germany. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  On it being original research, the vast majority of the writing I wrote is cited with WP:SECONDARY sources. So it is not original research.

  As for it having a lot of "crystal ball" content, the vast majority of the content I wrote is about the relevant state/province/region/community's '''current''' government policy. Some of the content I wrote relates to the regional effects of climate change in a specific area, but it has citations to relevant sources. But you cannot meaningfully separate these things. The time horizon for the effects of climate change are very long. Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia is relatively unusual compared to Climate change in Bremen. I accept that this could be improved.

  Current government policy on this topic relates to building sea defences, building more parks and other infrastructure, because of the effects of climate change in the future, the time at which such infrastructure would be completed. The time horizons on infrastructure are very long. There are other pages solely on future infrastructure. For example, Lower Thames Crossing. When writing content for Climate change in Schleswig-Holstein, there is more content about adaptation strategies. I accept that this could be improved.

  Overall, I think deletion is just the wrong outcome. Landpin (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I 100% apologise for writing a typo. Landpin (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all These climate change articles are quite poor and should not be created with such rudimentary and nonspecific information just for the sake of it. Perhaps redirect to Climate change in Germany. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  which ones should be deleted? Landpin (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Every "Climate change in" article you made for German states should be merged/redirected to the national article. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe User:Landpin's comment is an unbolded Keep. I'm not sure what "Delete ALL" refers to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOPAGE, etc. The article content is very pedestrian and there is nothing here to justify a separate page. The Legislation subsection can be selectively merged to Climate change in Germany. Astaire (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, and I recommend a bundled AfD for the others. The issue here is of unique content: the material which is directly about climate change is not specific to North Rhine-Westphalia, whereas the content that is unique is policy-related. One could reasonably make an argument for the existence of Environmental policy in North Rhine-Westphalia, but even that might not be viable given the role of the German federal government in determining environmental policy. Other relevant policy here is WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; Wikipedia should not be hosting a page that is nothing more than a bulleted list of climate-related policies without framing offered by a secondary source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 27 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.

University Nord

University Nord (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)

Nomination for deletion:

I am nominating this article for deletion because it lacks notability and contains very little useful content. The university ceased to exist as an independent entity in 2010 after being merged into Tallinn University. The article provides minimal historical context, no significant coverage from reliable independent sources, and fails to establish why this defunct institution deserves a standalone entry. Additionally, the article lacks encyclopaedic value due to poor structure and insufficient context, making it difficult for readers to understand the subject or its relevance. Any notable information here could be better incorporated into the Tallinn University article.

ᴛʜᴇMᴀɴLK ^(Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• comment - I suggest searching "Akadeemia Nord" for sources. Universities rarely fail GNG. For example they wanted to merge into Tartu University etc. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a number of reliable and independent sources sources. An entry at Eesti entsüklopeedia, articles in Postimees and Õhtuleht, etc. ExRat (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge - The article is just one sentence, with no sources or context. Even if the subject might meet notability, this version clearly doesn’t. Given the 2010 merger into Tallinn University, merging any sourced content there makes more sense than keeping this standalone stub. 37.139.112.182 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Izno (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tallinn University. As a private university, the relevant notability guidelines are WP:NORG and so sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH are required. We don't have these. The keep vote does point to a paragraph in Eesti Entsüklopeedia that discusses it, but that is interesting in that it notes it was formerly Tallinn Bachelor Private School, then it became University Nord, and then merged into Tallinn University. It really makes more sense to discuss it in the Tallinn University article, where the very limited information we have can sit within a larger and more useful context. Not suggesting merge as I don't think anything on the page is mergeable, although the Eesti Entsüklopeedia entry found here could be used on the merge target page, of the encyclopaedia (likely a tertiary source) is a suitable reliable source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep seems to pass WP:SUBSTANTIAL. I think article should be expanded. There's enough material in Estonian Wikipedia, also adding a few sources found in quick search. . 1991-1998 it was called "Bakalaureuse kool" which also has coverage . There's even a book about its history . Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I thought the book would clinch it - except no, because that is published by Eraakadeemia Nord, so that is clearly not independent. To meet NORG (and, indeed, GNG), we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Let's look at each of these:

  1. is a news article that confirms this was a "small private university" and speak about the plans to merge. There is no WP:ORGDEPTH coverage here. Note what is required for ORGDEPTH: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. This is not a routine announcement but it provides nothing about the university other than it is small and private. We cannot even use the merge discussion because this is a primary source for that. N

  2. Even briefer article about the above. No for the same reasons. N

  3. News report about the refusal and court annulment of refusal of permit to teach psychology. Still no ORGDEPTH and this is very much a primary source. Sources must be secondary for notability purposes. N

  4. also news about the initial finding and refusal of permit to teach psychology. Primary source. There is a little information about the poor teaching of psychology, but if we stitched that into an article our article would be a secondary source and would look like an attack page. Wikipedia articles are tertiary. We need a secondary source that already looks, in a more balanced way, at whatever the issue was with teaching at the university. We don't have that, and it doesn't appear to exist, because this is really just day to day operations as regards small institutions. N

  5. More news regarding succesful accession/merger. This is primary sourcing, but the facts of this merger are why we should redirect to Tallinn university. Tallinn is the successor institution. N

  6. News report that student work was left outside, No ORGDEPTH. Note also that 2,3 and 6 all come from the same source and would be counted together for notability, but it is moot as I don't think any of these can be used. N

  7. News that it was running an unaccredited doctoral programme. we could use the information that it began the programme, without accreditation, in 2002/03 academic year. But that is not ORGDEPTH. N

  8. - This one presents an interesting conundrum. It has a little information. It is not really ORGDEPTH, but it is the first source that actually provides a touch of history, telling us that, apparently, the Bachelor's school is one of the oldest private educational institutions in Estonia. "One of" means not the oldest then. But it may hint of more information about the Bachelor's school. But if we searched and found information about the Bachelor's school, we run into an issue as to what is actually notable here. Because the Bachelor's school was an upper secondary and further education college, but not constituted as a university. We usually treat pages in the current name where a school closes and reopens with a new name/legal basis. But that is when the successor institution is of the same type. A school closes as Grange Hill High, and reopens as Grange Hill Academy. But the school is still a school doing all the same things. Only management and funding have changed. Here it seems that the school closed and a different institution, a private university, replaced it. That university then merged, and its successor institution is still a university. So if the Bachelor's school is notable (and that is a big if: all we have here is a presumption that more searching may be fruitful), then the page should be the Bachelor's school, and not University Nord. N

  9. As discussed above, not independent. N

  So we do not have a pass of NORG here. We do have lots of expected coverage of a non notable private university. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  We should start what WP:ORGDEPTH is about. Basically any eligable sources helping the article to be expanded beyond permastub would pass it.

  Calling Postimees a primary source is a crime. It is the biggest and oldest Estonian newspaper.

  Dont even see the reason for discarding number8.

  Did you check Estonian wikipedia and the "Eesti entsüklopeedia" entry? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I said the merge discussion in the Postimees source is primary. Information is primary or secondary depending on the question asked of the source and is nothing to do with the provenance of the source. The source is a reliable one, certainly, and the news report contains information that is secondary, which I considered. I said the information about the merge discussion itself was primary, because the article is reporting the merge discussion. Take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have sources from the Estonian wikipedia page we should be considering? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 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.

Heather L. Childers

Heather L. Childers (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 is a different kind of article. It looks this person has been quoted for her opinion on local events in her community over the past few decades, but hasn't ever been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Some of the other refs are things like local dentist rankings and her dental practices listing with the state division of corporations. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I find no coverage about this person, what's used in the article is database listings and confirmation of employment. No claim to notability, PROMO spam. Oaktree b (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Clear case of no significant coverage beyond what would be expected for a local business owner. Chamber of Commerce listings, father's obituary, etc. 🌿MtBotany (talk)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Health and fitness, Florida, New York, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete With no disrespect there is nothing notable about this person, at least not in the Wikipedia sense. It's tempting to pull facts from obituaries but the ones in local papers (e.g. not the NYTimes) are usually provided by the family so they can't be considered 3rd party. The "top dentists" in the Orlando paper is a list of 224 dentists, so not much of a distinction. Most of the sources are trivial mentions. There are some facts that I cannot find in the references beyond hints, like attributing her high school graduation info to an article about a debate that doesn't mention graduation (and barely mentions her). Lamona (talk) 03:30, 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.

Braxton Cole

Braxton Cole (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)

American professional wrestler who signed with WWE Evolve last month and, as far as I can tell, has only taken part in a single wrestling match so far. For what it's worth, he definitely doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PWBIO. Of course, he might be notable in the future, but he's not there yet. His college football career is also unremarkable. Pichpich (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to WWE Evolve. As per nom, subject is not notable yet, and I can't find significant coverage outside of passing mentions. I would not be against moving the article to draftspace, but I am !voting for a redirect because there's no sign that the subject will become notable anytime soon. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to WWE Evolve. Iban14mxl (talk) 03:14, 26 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.

E4 Entertainment

E4 Entertainment (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)

Was deleted a few years ago, but I don't think it was eligible for C4. The only sources which talk about the company are regurgitated press releases, not true news articles. Many, if not most, of the current sources do not even mention the studio. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I am embarrassed I did not look closer at notability while reverting unsourced information over the last six months. A more detailed search was unable to turn up anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of mentions and references based on press releases (churnalism), but not finding anything that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ORGCRIT Iban14mxl (talk) 23:01, 26 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.

Bucci (Malawian singer)

Bucci (Malawian singer) (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: It already has great sources Malawi24 and Music of Africa (it says at the bottom that they are supported by Siemens, which gives them a little bit credibility), and found no indication those sources are untrustworthy. Plus there is [ https://www.malawi-music.com/B/351-bucci.html malawimusic.com source with SIGCOV]. At the bottom they say: "We are proudly working with Musicians Union of Malawi (MAM)". The wiki page has a promotional undertone, but the sources are nice enough. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: I just added several new articles. These should be plenty to qualify.Originalflavors (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: plenty of sources. Not BBC of course but still plenty like Nyasa Times and allAfrica. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:35, 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.

Laura Victoria Ashby

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL

I had a look for sources, and pretty much the only things I could find were of her failed general election campaign. In addition, I tried searching up the organisation she was head of and that came up with barely anything as well. SuperGuy212 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SuperGuy212 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I couldn't find any coverage either, and as the nom says, there don't appear to be independent sources about the organisation she founded either, so a redirect to that is pointless. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 25 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.

Love, Faith, Hope

Love, Faith, Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was a soft delete back in 2022, recently undeleted without improvement. 3 of the 4 sources in the article do not even mention the subject. I'll quote the previous nominator's (Vacant0) rationale, since it still applies: "I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed)." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with Nemanja Šarović: The movement has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Its activities are mostly tied to its leader Šarović. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with @Vacant0 Боки 💬 📝 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• No Vote/Comment: The page was undeleted at my request, and my motivation for wanting it restored was largely technical. (Before yesterday, the Nemanja Šarović page included a link to the entry for "Love, Faith, Hope" on the Serbian language wiki; this struck me as bad form if restoring the English language page was an option.) I've just undertaken a rewrite of the page, adding some information about the movement's failed 2022 campaign in Belgrade and its non-campaigns in 2023 and 2024, as well as mentioning Šarović's role with KTV Zrenjanin. My view is that the increased media spotlight on Šarović in recent months has likely pushed the party over the threshold of notability, though I won't object if the consensus is to delete or merge the page – I'd just request that people review the page in its current form before finalizing their decision. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – The also present sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Svartner (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 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.

Susan Meyers

Susan Meyers (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)

U.S. military officer, known for being relieved of command of the U.S. base in Greenland for apparently political reasons. But that is the only context in which I can find media coverage of her, making this a WP:BLP1E case. The article is also about essentially nothing else but that incident. Said incident is already covered in about the same length at Pituffik Space Base, to which this title could be redirected. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Failed GNG, weak sources as most of the sources are ot reliable, independent. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia and isn't worth the space it takes up. This was a very minor newsflash but it is so over and nobody cares. 204.111.161.248 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Some coverage found about the email , , , . I suppose this could also be mentioned in an article about the base, I'm not sure the "email incident" would be notable enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Both my parents were in the Air Force. My mother began serving in the 1940s. I think women’s participation in the Air Force, and in all government positions, is important. Col. Meyers service in Greenland is part of history and should be retained in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:FCA0:1700:D5DF:7A7:54C4:4B1B (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Women have a role in military which should be recognized and it seems to be rebuilt. Also, it is an example of some purge by the Trump administration. There is an echo worldwide about the causa. Keep. --Bernd Rohlfs (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We're not righting great wrongs here, and the subject isn't notable for a single event. Including pertinent information in the base's article should suffice. Intothatdarkness 18:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Per Oaktree b presented sources. Svartner (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:BLP1E, there is no evidence of notability except for the email and it's fallout. An article on her firing might be worthwhile, but there isn't sourcing to support a BLP in her case. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject does not have the needed coverage outside of her firing to have a BLP article. This falls squarely into WP:BLP1E territory, although an article on her firing might pass the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or move to another name such as Firing of Susan Meyers. Bearian (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps, though, it could be incorporated into a broader article, possibly similar to List of dismissals and resignations in the first Trump administration. Rather than individual incident articles, something wider may be needed for the second term, after all.Lindenfall (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then we can redirect it to the base for now, and somebody can later incorporate it into a list article. But there's no basis for keeping a supposedly biographical article around when there's no actual biography to speak of and when the same content exists already in the base article. Sandstein 09:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge I added some better references. The first ones probably need to be deleted. (It turns out the US military relies quite a bit on Facebook.) I will try to get to that, because they need replacement with better refs. I can understand the comment that this is a classic WP:BLP1E. However, I was astounded at the mass of items that turned up in a search. Undoubtedly most of those are just repeating the same few facts, but I don't know at what point more adds up to notable (if it does). If the article is merged, I think the target has to be in the context of Trump's desire to take over Greenland because this isn't really about the base itself. There is American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump#Greenland and/or Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland#Second presidency. Lamona (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to either Pituffik Space Base or Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland#Second presidency, where it is covered and/or can be covered. The person herself is WP:BLP1E, the event is only notable in context, so m+r to that context is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no objection to a Redirect or selective Merge if there is a rough consensus on a proposed target. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, which the firing incident appears related to. This is a textbook case of BLP1E; the coverage is entirely to do with a single incident, and is focused on the incident, with the individual being secondary. I am unable to find evidence that Meyers meets GNG as an individual, and even if we deem the sources sufficient for notability, there isn't enough reliably sourced biographical information for a standalone article: per WP:NOPAGE we should be merging into a logical target. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pituffik_Space_Base#Pituffik_Space_Base: as a redundant fork. All the encyclopedic content is already included in the target, and the event itself is unlikely to have a WP:LASTING impact sufficient for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 27 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.

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire (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)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep — The article meets the notability criteria under WP:EVENT and WP:NOTE. The Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources, including national and regional media (Assam Tribune, Daijiworld, Wikipedia-cited articles) which reported not only the fire but also the legal aftermath, public safety discussions, and community impact which makes it suitable for WP:RS

This is not a routine local incident — the scale of the event, the involvement of illegally stored hazardous materials, the injury of emergency personnel, and the legal and civic consequences demonstrate lasting notability. The article is verifiable per WP:V and written in a neutral tone in line with WP:NPOV.

Arguments about the article being "recent" WP:RECENT or local WP:LOCAL do not apply here, as the coverage goes well beyond routine reporting and the issues raised are of broader social concern in India.

Unless substantial evidence is presented that this is not a notable event, the article should be retained.

Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not indicate notability. Recreate if it ever becomes a WP:CASESTUDY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. No enduring significance to be seen here. "Government officials are reviewing permit records and considering stricter enforcement of building codes" - so nothing has actually happened yet as a result. Astaire (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Deete A very sad story, but this is routine news coverage of a local fire with a standard response at this point (with the authorities 'shocked' at what happened even though they approved it and then 'cleaning' up the mess; sadly, the standard script for 'Indian workplace in a place it was never approved to be in' fires) with standard reporting in national sources. And Michael, if you respond to this vote, please do it in your own words and not with a copied macro shortcut to the same script. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above, per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as textbook WP:NOTNEWS per WP:ROUTINE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:42, 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.

Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability and Patriarchy

Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability and Patriarchy (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)

Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article was recently deleted due to No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mochan (novel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running from the Dreamland, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) for previous AFD discussions of this author's books (they were all deleted).

The first source in this article (the review in South Asia Research ) is fine and I have no problem with it. However, the other four sources are dubious.

• The Kathmandu Post was discussed in the Mochan AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to over-the-top praise for the author and book.
• República was discussed in the Running from the Dreamland AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to the article's author apparently having a close connection with the book's author.
• The Annapurna Express review is highly suspicious and reads like an LLM text.
• The National News Agency RSS review is of a different book by the author (Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, which was deleted). No relevance for this book's notability.

With just one clearly independent and reliable review, this doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I also went through all the sources you pointed out and they appear to be national media outlets, highly reliable and the author themselve appear to be very prolific. the book getting reviewed in such journal and media outlets is not a small feat and the book itself seems to be published by very well know publisher when I checked it. I also looked at how some other wikipedia editors have given a lot of credibility to those media outlets. With that said,I think this article strongly deserves credibility. Actually I don't think wikipedia is a realiable source anyway to determine the credibility of something because if there is a syndicate of the majority editors who have no knowledge of the content and the source and are biased may end up deleting even good articles. It looks like the author has published an article in the sage journal too, and also in editorial board under sociology so you may say they are personally connected to sage Journal. only Astire and Ramadan appear to be running after this writer and their articles as if they are paid for it. 209.212.129.150 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Your IP address belongs to South Georgia State College, where Tulasi Acharya is a professor . You also created Draft:Tulasi Acharya. If you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, please declare it now per WP:COI. Astaire (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Problem with this article is same as other articles made on Tulsi Acharya and his books. All nominated articles were closed as Delete and main reason were not lack of sources but reliability of sources and COI of book reviewers. Even in this article there are few sources in Reputed media like Kathmandu Post and The Republica. But again issues are same. The way they are written, Tone and flow are exactly same as previous book reviews raising strong doubt on neutrality. I also disagree with Nominator regarding Source 1, Even this article lacks neutrality. Should be deleted for lack of Neutral sourceRahmatula786 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC).
• Delete: Only one of the sources in the article is reliable, which means that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for books. Our article on one of the cited newspapers gives the impression that the newspaper has gone in an politically questionable direction. Meanwhile, the review in the other newspaper was written in a very odd way that might indicate that it was not actually written by its stated author. Finally, the remaining source is a review of a different book. Honestly, this article is simply one of the last vestiges of a walled garden that is in the process of being deleted. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:38, 27 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.

Anarchist Communist Youth Association of Narva

Anarchist Communist Youth Association of Narva (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 has existed more or less unchanged as a stub since it was first created in 2006 (diff). Back in 2020, I expanded it with a translation of the Estonian Wikipedia article (diff). I did not realise at the time of writing, but I have now noticed (five years later) that the Estonian Wikipedia article was itself a copyright violation, copied word-for-word from the single source this article has ever cited (Martinson). A user on the Estonian Wikipedia has nominated that article for deletion, and I feel compelled to follow their lead.

I wasn't able to find any evidence of significant coverage of this organisation in historical literature. A cursory search on Google Scholar finds absolutely nothing. A Google web search doesn't turn up much either, largely just mirrors of this Wikipedia page and its Estonian counterpart, or bad sources that are clearly drawing from Wikipedia. The only source cited in this article gives barely a brief passing reference to this organisation, as part of a larger section about the Estonian socialist youth during the 1917-1918 revolution.

As it is unclear if this can be considered a notable organisation, as it does not look like it can be expanded beyond this state, and as it is built off a copy-paste of its only source, I'm nominating this article for deletion. If anything about it must be saved, I'd recommend merging it into the article on anarchism in Estonia, which is the only article that currently links to this one. Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Estonia, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: For the record, I've rewritten the article so the copyvio issue is dealt with in the current version of the article (diff). --Grnrchst (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I've now also merged the rewritten text into the anarchism in Estonia article. Still haven't found any other sources on this organisation to confirm its independent notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anarchism in Estonia. I was going to vote "Merge", but it seems like the article's content is already paraphrased at the target. Yue🌙 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect seems straightforward and uncontroversial. Next time, ones like this can simply be redirected without coming to AfD. If contested, then can go to discussion. czar 13:22, 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.

Communist Initiative

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

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

No evidence of notability and existence. This article has no sources, i tried to search on the internet but couldn't find anything. Possible hoax? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Austria. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Not a hoax but still fails WP:ORG. If you look up the German name in specific search engines like Google Books or Google Scholar, you will find a few mentions in passing. Regardless, the organisation didn't achieve anything electorally or outside of elections in its relatively short history, evidenced by its lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources or even leftist sources, so it arguably doesn't have standalone notability. Yue🌙 00:56, 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.

Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties

Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties (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)

Same problems as World Anti-Imperialist Platform. 0 independent and reliable sources. All sources in this article are either bulletins of communist parties, phishing websites or organization's own website. I tried to search online about this organization but was not able to find any reliable sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, nom is correct; sources are not reliable (except I think the "phishing websites" are just janky websites with expired certificates); no SIGCOV anywhere. Not notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Once again, The topic is inherently notable and the sources are appropriate. It's interesting seeing the exact same two users advocating for the same point in the last four deletion discussions, on the discussions for Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties, World Anti-Imperialist Platform, European Communist Action, International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Castroonthemoon (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

How is it inherently notable? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. A European political alliance of notable parties, which took part in the 2014 European Parliament election and 2019 European Parliament elections.--ElTres (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep, clearly notable international organization. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep, notable organisation per sources in the article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Notable European political alliance, even if defunct. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:45, 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.

Robert Martin (racing driver)

Robert Martin (racing driver) (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 in-depth coverage of him whatsoever, failed to qualify for only race he attempted. All sources just cover him as part of an entry list or solely mention his name. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete; unable to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Only able to find database entries. Fails WP:GNG. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Like the nom, I couldn't find the needed WP:SIGCOV to show this subject meet the WP:GNG, either through google or newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 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.

Anson Seabra

Anson Seabra (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)

Lots of hits on non-reliable and social media sites, can't find any in-depth references from independent, reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - a Lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails notability and he has no significant coverage. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: These for sources have SIGCOV and verify separate claims in the article (, , , , ). Hits (magazine) is reliable per WP:A/S, while the others seems legit, at least in comparison to other sources I found on the guy. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Relatively close (given the sources provided by LastJabberwocky), but I would concur with the above editors that the subject falls short of widespread, significant coverage that might demonstrate notability. I would be willing to change my vote if there the original author provided more independent sec sources.  GuardianH  00:28, 25 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.

Hunter Brown (book series)

Hunter Brown (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. No sources attributed and no independent, reliable sources that are able to be referenced. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Reviews for Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow:
     1. Robertson, Annabelle (2008-10-11). "Book review: Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Authors Christopher and Allan Miller understand the demands of Christian fiction. The plot is tight, with lots of action, suspense and adven-ture-and a dose of romance as well. Although a little more back-story would have been welcome, the characters are strong, and so is the dialogue, which moves the story along nicely. It's a fun and addictively fast-paced read which will speak to believers and nonbelievers alike."

     2. Pettit, Jake (March 2009). "Miller, Christopher & Allan Miller. Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow". School Library Journal. Vol. 55, no. 3. p. 148. EBSCOhost 36854586. ProQuest 2001769676. Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22 – via Gale.

        The review notes: "However, the boys do use some of their math abilities to retrieve the key to their salvation, and the action and swordplay are a constant. There is a companion online video game, and this book reads very much like a script for one. The boys are in high school, but they behave like much younger children in many respects, and the illustrations mirror that young image."

     3. Panter, Laura (October 2008). "Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 31, no. 4. p. 354. EBSCOhost 34671698.

        The abstract notes: "The article reviews the book "Hunter Brown and the Secret of the Shadow," by Christopher and Allan Miller."

  2. Reviews for Hunter Brown and the Consuming Fire:
     1. Panter, Laura (February 2010). "Hunter Brown and the Consuming Fire". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 32, no. 6. pp. 510–511. EBSCOhost 48047598.

        The abstract notes: "The article reviews the book "Hunter Brown and the Consuming Fire," by Christopher Miller and Allen Miller."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hunter Brown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Merging to broader subjects says:

  In some situations, editors decide that a separate article about a book, regardless of whether the book is notable, is not the best choice. The main alternatives include merging the content about a book to an article about the author, to an article about a book series (if it is part of a series), or to a list.

  Cunard (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep in view of Cunard's list of reliable sources book reviews that together shows a pass a pass of WP:NBOOK so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per sufficient sourcing shown above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 26 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.

Pennsylvania Young Democrats

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

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. It's affiliated with a national organization, but I don't think it warrants a separate article for itself. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NORG; could not find significant coverage, although there are a lot of mentions in various news articles. Regional chapters of organizations are practically never notable (unless the organization has a lot of power). This one is no different. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Restore redirect to Pennsylvania Democratic Party, not independently notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the Young Democrats of America. They appear to be a direct branch of the Young Democrats of America rather than being part of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  They are affiliated with the YDA, but according to their own website, are the vibrant heartbeat of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's youth movement...the official Youth Caucus of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to either Young Democrats of America or Pennsylvania Democratic Party. While youth wings of political parties in other countries are able to scrape together enough information to be notable, the same is less true in the United States. The article as it currently stands does not meet WP:GNG, and I don't see how this branch is independently notable from the larger YDA. Bkissin (talk) 00:46, 25 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.

Saphron Initiative

Saphron Initiative (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 does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:NGO. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 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: 2024-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 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.

SC Brühl (Germany)

SC Brühl (Germany) (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)

Might be the language barrier, but I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this club in independent, reliable sources. Was deprodded with the rationale that sources must exist, but without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep History is written in Heiner Gillmeister: Football in the Cologne region. The History of SC Brühl, Göttingen 2012, ISBN 978-3-89533-881-6 which is WP:SIGCOV. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Per Gowy. Svartner (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - that's a nice source from Govvy, however 1 in-depth source does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  As I said before, it is natural that a century-old club from a country where football is relevant has material published offline. Svartner (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per sources/arguments above. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. GiantSnowman 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Svartner, it's a century-old club and it would have offline sources. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see WP:MUSTBESOURCES.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Saying that, based on the circumstances (a full freaking book on the subject, no archives checked), it only makes sense that sources exist is not always an invalid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - There's a section on it in the Vereinslexikon, which I added. See here - https://imgur.com/a/oYMCxKl. Here's recent articles 1, 2 3 KatoKungLee (talk) 17:49, 23 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.

Summer Cem

Summer Cem (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)

Upon searching for reliable sources, it looks like the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Germany, and Turkey. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: From a surface google news search I found three good sources with relatively SIGCOV (, , ). Cem also has tons of charting singles already cited on the page. Easy keep. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:GNG and multiple in-depth reviews of his albums on laut.de . Also fulfills the multiple charted songs or albums criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as has had many nationally charting releases and also has significant coverage in many reliable sources identified in this discussion. Also found an AllMusic staff-written bio here.There is also an album review at AllMusic. He passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 2 in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 24 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.

The Flame (student publication)

The Flame (student publication) (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)

Nothing but mentions in non-primary sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Contested redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters#The Flame PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect as per PARAKANYAA's plan. Some of the article's info is already on the school's page and what's not can be moved over or cut. Eric Schucht (talk) 23:06, 25 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.

Tuscan melon

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT, proprietary cultivar grown and sold by a single grower. References are not reliable, naturesproduce.com and specialtyproduce.com appear to be food distributors offering information about the products they sell in turn, and clovegarden.com appears to be a one-person blog. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Cantalope#Types per nom (promotional, fails GNG, no reliable sources). GoldRomean (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• weak keep From what I remember about melon sales at Southern California farmer's markets, tuscan melons are a group of cultivars more than a specific brand, though it looks like "Tuscan Style" is a trademark. I agree the article needs to be updated as it is promotional. Here is an agricultural study that includes various types of tuscan melon: . A deeper look is probably needed to get past the promotional stuff.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something here. The tables in that study indicate that Tuscan is in fact a category of melon cultivars. That being said, that's not how the article or current references treat the topic, instead being about one specific marketed cultivar, and the article would need to be entirely rewritten from new sources to be about that group. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect As I have tried to do more research, I'm not finding much that covers Tuscan melons/cantaloupes in detail, so this may be better off as a redirect. Cantaloupe seems like the best target as it already has blurbs about various classes of melon and tuscan melons could be easily added. Right now I'm not sure if "tuscan" melons are different from the "charentais" european melons that are already listed on cantaloupe.

This info from bayer seeds is the best I have found that describes how Tuscan varieties differ the more traditional varieties sold in the US:

https://www.vegetables.bayer.com/ca/en-ca/resources/agronomic-spotlights/melon-types.html

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Some coverage in cookbooks with coverage in Gscholar, , . Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cantaloupe#Types: Delete Sources provided by Oaktree b are not sigcov, they are mere mentions. From the two Gscholar links, the only info I could add to the article is "The Wrangler variety is an example of a Tuscan melon". The cookbook link only gives a one sentence description of the appearance, also not sigcov. As mentioned above, other links including Bayer are not independent. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Changed to redirect per Anonrfjwhuikdzz. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Redirect redirect to Cantaloupe for unreliable sources JGBlue1509 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have added information about Tuscan melons at Cantaloupe#Types. To those of you voting delete or keep, are you comfortable with a redirect to the updated cantaloupe page instead? @Rollinginhisgrave @A412 @GoldRomean @User:Oaktree b

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a good redirect target to me. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. GoldRomean (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, the redirect is ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

sounds good. JGBlue1509 (talk) 10:17, 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.

Cyclo.

Cyclo. (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 or WP:GNG. A cursory search did not produce anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Entertainment, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 19 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: 2024-11 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 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.

Joyce Bukirwa Muwanguzi

Joyce Bukirwa Muwanguzi (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 enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and with a high citation count of 10, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 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.

/mlp/

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, many of the existing references are either to unreliable sources, or do not mention the article's subject at all. Seems to be some WP:SYNTH going on as well. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets notability standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. There is an 18-page ethnographic study on Sexualities which describes and analyzes in /mlp/ in great detail. The paper is linked below, where the search term "/mlp/" shows up 68 times. In addition, there are other sources that describe /mlp/ and its function and/or users. The strongest 3 sources are given below; the first source is the strongest.

Bailey, John; Harvey, Brenna (2017). "'That pony is real sexy': My Little Pony fans, sexual abjection, and the politics of masculinity online". Sexualities. 22 (3): 325–342. doi:10.1177/1363460717731932.

"Through ethnographic observation of the My Little Pony (/mlp/) discussion board on the website 4chan, we find that these men construct a communal identity around their sexual desires." (The whole paper discusses /mlp/, so it is difficult to quote exactly which parts discuss it. I suggest clicking on the link and skimming through the paper to confirm that the topic of discussion is indeed /mlp/.)

Schimpf, Kaitlyn Elizabeth (October 2015). "Straight from the Horse's Mouth: A Case Study on the Adult Male Fans of My Little Pony". MacEwan University Student eJournal. 2 (1). doi:10.31542/j.muse.192.

Another case study. "This research began on the anonymous message board of 4chan, more specifically the board dedicated to My Little Pony fans, known as /mlp/. The first few visits were just to get a feel for the general themes of the daily threads—to understand what the fans talked about on a daily basis. These included threads such as the “Nightly Twilight Thread,” which discussed a new comic that featured this specific pony heavily as well as discussing “what kind of television/movies do you feel that Twilight would enjoy watching the most” (retrieved from 4chan.org/mlp on March 19, 2014). Another being a role-playing thread in which the poster plays as a pony in the fictional land of Equestria (4chan.org/mlp, March 19, 2014). After it was determined that the threads on these message boards were incredibly diverse and changed daily, it was necessary to narrow the search down to a key few themes. Still exclusively using [/mlp/], I narrowed down the search for threads discussing why these individuals loved the show so much. The search was also expanded to threads that discussed how fans are treated by outsiders. I purely waited for these conversations to be started by others, never prompting my own discussion. Due to this fact, it was not required to register as a user on any of these sites. I merely navigated through them as a guest and read through discussions that had already begun."

Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2020-06-23). "'My Little Pony' Fans Are Ready to Admit They Have a Nazi Problem". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-06-04.

"The fandom was born on 4chan, the largest den of chaos and toxic beliefs available on the internet. In 2012, a message board called /mlp/ was set up because My Little Pony conversation was taking up too much space on boards for TV and comics. It took off because there is nothing 4chan likes better than things spiraling out of control. [...] Now the real world and Equestria are colliding. Over the past few weeks, some My Little Pony fans have mocked the protests with racist fan art, most of which was posted to Derpibooru, then massively upvoted by /mlp/ users. One much-discussed image was a pony version of a white-nationalist meme that circulated after the launch of a SpaceX rocket to the International Space Station: a photo of the two white astronauts side by side with a photo of black protesters “rioting.” The artist replaced the black people in the image with cartoon zebras—which are awkwardly coded as African in the real My Little Pony universe, but often referred to on [/mlp/] with a portmanteau of zebra and the N-word. “Beautiful,” one [/mlp/] user responded to the image. “Perfect for subtle messaging.”"

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I agree there are synth problems with the article's construction (I would try to limit the article's content to only sources that at least mention /mlp/) but it is notable as shown, and the synth isnt TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

While writing the article, I did have the same question. For example, in one of the Buzzfeed News articles, the author writes The following image was uploaded to 4chan over the weekend., but doesn't actually say it was uploaded to /mlp/. But the screenshots in the article shows that it was indeed uploaded to /mlp/ and not anywhere else on 4chan. What should be done in this case? Is it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to write an infamous incident known as the "Rainbow Dash Cum Jar" gained notoriety when images of a Rainbow Dash figurine submerged in semen left to boil near a radiator were shared on /mlp/, or should I omit this entirely because the author never explicitly wrote "/mlp/"? I've actually run into this same problem in other articles, where authors will write "4chan" to mean "/mlp/" when it was evident that the content was actually posted on /mlp/. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@GregariousMadness The screenshot is on the edge but if it is clearly verifiable in the image that relates to /mlp/ I would defend that, IMO. If anyone can look at the image and determine it was posted to the board without outside researxh that is not an OR problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per GregariousMadness's assessment. The article needs work but there is clearly sufficient coverage from reliable sources on the topic. MidnightMayhem 10:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep' per sufficient sourcing. I considered a merge to Brony, but this redirects to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 26 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.

Maxine Mosley

Maxine Mosley (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 political candidate and activist. Only coverage is routine stuff from local outlets. Don't see anything she's done that would make her notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and news outlets seem to agree with me judging by the lack of coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Strictly local election coverage , , nothing notable for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL as subject was never been elected to state-wide office nor is she a major local figure who has received WP:SIGCOV. She does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. Besides a mention in AP (in an article about the litigation that ensued after a close race between subject and another candidate, i.e. not sigcov of her specifically) I did not find anything besides routine local coverage during a search of newspapers.com and google/bing news. I also don't see a clear merge or redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Move to draftspace and I will incubate. I created this article as part of a list of members of the legislature in NH. That list was later found inaccurate. The history of this article shows that the multiple recounts made it unclear who had been actually elected. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2022 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. Maxine Mosley is a candidate for office who ultimately did not win election. Generally, candidates cannot pass WP:GNG without already being notable. A number of these appear in Category:American actor-politicians. There are some exceptions, but they are rare as the candidate is either a perennial candidates or has such an atypical candidacy they warrant a spinoff article from the election. At best, she is a person who received coverage for the single event of being a participant in a close election. The coverage is run of the mill for both the pre-decision 2022 election and the 2024 election. The Associated Press did an article on the recount, but the failure for any sort of sustained coverage of Maxine Mosely the human being is clear. The actual event of an election is the notable thing which is why we have the article 2022 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. It is tempting to think of the recount situation as a once in a lifetime event in which a participant would be notable merely for their participation. It is more common than one would think for election results go to committee hearings and tiebreakers. Off the top of my head, it happened in Illinois in 1958 (twice that year), 1986, and 2002 (in a Democratic primary, they literally just reran the election), in Alaska in 2006, and in Iowa's 2nd congressional district in 2020. Keep in mind, this was not an exhaustive search on my part. --Mpen320 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as fails GNG, and weakly oppose redirecting to the 2022 election, because the candidate has run in at least two elections there is a bit of a WP:XY problem. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Reply. While I am very experienced editing political articles, I never grasped the true depth of policies so I did not know to address this in my !vote. I disagree that X or Y are equal in this case. The 2022 election was, at the very least, much more eventful than the 2024 election. I think it is far more likely there would be someone searching due to 2022 than 2024. This was done in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hovde when he was a candidate in both 2012 and 2024. The redirect went to 2024 as there would be more content since he was the Republican nominee. I am not so staunchly in favor of my opinion that I want to fight for it, but I felt some obligation to my opinion to at least clarify why I wrote what I wrote.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:49, 23 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 Ugandan Pastors

List of Ugandan Pastors (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)

Cant see that this list is of encyclopedic value; the function would surely be better served as a category. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, with so few entries it fails WP:NLIST plus the article creator has been served with an infinite block. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - an unworkable and poorly defined list. Bearian (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep I believe that sources can be provided easily Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:LISTPURP and WP:CROSSCAT. Category:Ugandan clergy is sufficient to meet categorization needs here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete for now but restore when there are more notable names. NavjotSR (talk) 16:26, 26 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.

Dewan Md Al Osaimin

Dewan Md Al Osaimin (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 in English Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this stub has no English-language content. Jbt89 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:A1 and WP:A7. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete spam, unsourced and non-English content. Mehedi Abedin 16:07, 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.

Wayne Lee Rea III

Wayne Lee Rea III (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 see anything that establishes notability. I don't think a redirect to Proton (band) is appropriate given their very dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and I agree a redirect to the band is not appropriate. Apologies to TheLongTone for editing their comment, but the link to the band was a typo.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep if he did in fact have reached #82 on the ARIA Charts, he would meet #2 criteria on wp:musicbio. However, this article lacks proper sourcing on many sections and needs a reduction or someone to find citations.Originalflavors (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is an arguement for the bands notability, not this individual. TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:Singer Iban14mxl (talk) 19:35, 26 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.

Avathuvadi

Avathuvadi (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)

Could not find this town in 2011 census of India. As the census does include villages with small or no population, lack of this town's presence in the census seems to indicate lack of legal recognition for WP:GEOLAND. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes this can be deleted Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, couldn’t find anything about this village, except for very brief mentions of its name in 3 directories. And I’m not even sure if 2 of them are talking about the village, or something else with the same name.

And none of the other details about the village in the article are supported by those documents either. Not significant coverage, and not enough info in reliable sources to write an article on. ApexParagon (talk) 01:53, 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.

Stephen Richards (musician)

Stephen Richards (musician) (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)

Lack of independent notability. I tried to redirect to Taproot, but this was reverted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, not independatly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that this article does have independent notability because it includes work that Stephen Richards has done outside of the band Taproot. T Yorke (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

To T Yorke. Your opinion is clear that you think this article is notable, and should be kept. I agree with you. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I believe that this article does have independent notability because it includes work that Stephen Richards has done outside of the band Taproot. T Yorke (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. He has made contributions to various other bands music as mentioned in the article. Furrther, it is interesting and notworthy that he has been candid about how his illness has affected his career. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect Richards has done no notable work outside the scope of Taproot, and being candid about illness is not a good reason to have an independent page on WP. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taproot (band). In fact he has not done enough outside of his main band to justify his own article. He's made some guest appearances with other bands, as many musicians do, but those are not necessary newsworty or notable. Those guest appearances and his comments on his medical condition can be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. His work outside the band does seem newsworthy and notable and all of the information in the article would be too much to add/seem out of place in Taproot's article. Clay...Bill Clay (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clay...Bill Clay, what seems notable to you about his work outside Taproot? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:03, 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.

Four Corners, Brampton

Four Corners, Brampton (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 is the nickname for the downtown area of Brampton, which the same user created an article for, Downtown Brampton. (It's been moved to the draft space, as it's littered with inaccuracies.) Zanimum (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I don't have as much personal knowledge about Brampton as Zanimum does, I did have some doubts about this one (just not quite enough to pull the AFD trigger) when I was working on listing the related Category:Downtown Brampton and {{Downtown Brampton}} for CFD and TFD — it seems incredibly unlikely that a street intersection at the "administrative centre" of a city's downtown would ever actually need its own standalone article as a separate topic from the downtown core as a whole, especially not when two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability and the overall article is so short that a sample quote in another footnote is accounting for more than half of it. This is just barely more than "Topic is a thing that exists, the end", which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 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.

Nazar Abbas Naqvi

Nazar Abbas Naqvi (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 contains zero in-depth sources, and searches turned up zero in-depth sources. Not sure how this has survived 14 years. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails GNG and NPOL#2. I can see some WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources but nothing to sustain notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – The subject does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NPOL, and there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 20:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable at allHionsa (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Being a local-level District President doesn't meet the threshold for WP:NPOL. It's a routine position and doesn't establish notability on its own. Junbeesh (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:NPOL, and wp:SIGCOV. Clearly non notable. Zuck28 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 26 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.

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song)

Fire (Kids See Ghosts 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꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Chart performance does not indicate notability, no awards or honors, not recorded by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Moreover, mostly album reviews support the article, not a single independent source talking only about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, the song has received significant coverage despite a lack of independent sources, having 25 that are relevant to it (not including chart positions). The live performance further constitutes notability because it goes into detail about the setting and the song also charted in six countries, which is a good amount and can help with notability when the previous are all true. --K. Peake 08:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per K. Peake. dotXK 03:28, 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.

Summer Fontana

Summer Fontana (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)