Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 24

Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly

Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly (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 meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently is a database and I couldn't find anything elsewhere to establish notability here. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ivory Coast. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning Keep. Appears to have later been a Member of the Parliament, which would satisfy NPOL. I'll note that the article (as far as I can tell) doesn't explicitly confirm his athletic career, but the name "Coulibaly Yoyaga Dit Fatogoma" in that order is so very unusual – and the area represented by the politician versus the athlete's hometown are not far apart – so it seems they're the same. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I found that article but so far as I can tell they aren't the same person. Let'srun (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Is there anything that makes you think they aren't the same person? The name "Coulibaly Yoyaga Dit Fatogoma" is pretty rare, I'd think. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like to make assumptions when determining notability. Let'srun (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  These are not the same name. "dit" (note the lower case) means "called" or "so-called" in this context, and typically when you see this in French what follows it is a kind of ersatz surname/family-name. Other Fatogoma Coulibaly's exist (and were parliamentary deputies) so it is not the case that anyone with this name can be assume to be the same person. It should also be noted that the official 1968 results lists a "Yoyaga, Coulibaly" (see page 521, yes unfortunately you have to wait and click on "skip ad") meanwhile the official list of competitors in Tokyo in 1964 lists the name "Coulibaly, Yoyaga Dit F." (see p. 579 of the pagination here) prompting the natural question of whether these really were the same people - neither lists a "Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly".

  And yes, this is another example of what is now Olympedia being a bad source - at the very least "dit" should be lower-case. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll strike for now, but I don't think different names being listed in various sources results in Olympedia alone being unreliable (nor should an uppercase "D" equal being unreliable). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  The subject of this article clearly isn't really called "Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly", much less "Yoyaga Dit Fatogoma Dit Coulibaly". It is only possible to have one "dit name". Their first-name-last-name is probably just "Yoyaga Coulibaly" (or "Coulibaly Yoyoga", since "Coulibaly" is apparently both a popular first-name for boys and one of the most common surnames in Ivory Coast), but this is not the name in Olympedia, the official report for the 1964 Olympics, or the name in the official report for 1968, all of which seem to have managed to butcher it in different ways.

  Personally, I'm just going to put this in to my ever-growing list of Olympedia manifestly having the wrong information. FOARP (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @FOARP, can you name even one case of Olympedia having incorrect information on an athletics competitor? I've tried very hard to find even one piece of wrong information but haven't been able to find anything in thousands of profiles over years of looking. (To be fair, I haven't spent nearly as much time looking at other sports.) --Habst (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  We're literally, right now, discussing a case of them having the wrong name. Just FYI, Olympedia was hosted on Sports-reference.com and is the database linked to in this article. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  How does Olympedia have the wrong name in this case? --Habst (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Olympedia is the source for the incorrect name "Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly". FOARP (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is a total mess, right down to the name of the subject being unclear. Keep per WP:NPOL and Beannie's new source, but also rewrite heavily and rename to Yoyaga Coulibaly. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, I expanded the article with only athletics achievements. There's enough sourcing here to justify a P&G-based keep !vote even disregarding the political sources which I will respond to separately above. --Habst (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  None of the references added are IRS SIGCOV as required by WP:NSPORTS. There is no P&G-based keep rationale given here. FOARP (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:NBASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". --Habst (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NSPORTS is the governing standard for athletes and is a higher standard, requiring at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV. Additionally, as the second bullet point under WP:NBASIC says, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", and these are all primary sources. Finally, cobbling primary sources together to create an article is a WP:SYNTH and not permitted. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  How are the Ivorian news sites linked primary sources? News with analysis is generally secondary per WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Considering there is confirmation the athlete and politician are one and the same, NSPORT is met anyways. --Habst (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Here's confirmation that the politician and the athlete are the same: "Salimata Coulibaly ... A nourishing sap maintained by her benevolent uncle, MP Yoyaga Coulibaly, known as Fatogoma, who was, in his time, a former athlete and 400-meter sprinter at the 1964 and 1968 Olympic Games". Satisfies WP:NPOL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to BeanieFan's research - meets NPOL. Also move to Yoyaga Coulibaly. BTW, Olympedia has the name as Coulibaly Yoyaga Dit Fatogoma, which is an acceptable version, not an error. Less wikilawyering would help these interminable discussions. Ingratis (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and rename (which is not an AFD outcome but if we agree, it will be an uncontroversial bold move after the AFD is done). The page must be completely rewritten though, as he is notable for being a politician, not for being an athlete. The machine translation from BeanieFan is a touch iffy there, but the detail is OK. The writer is saying that he (the writer) benefits from the DNA of a family of athletes. His cousin, Salimata Coulibaly having an athletics career, and in this context, referring to her ability as, "A nourishing sap nurtured by a benevolent uncle [I take this to be her father, the writer's uncle, since she is his cousin], the Deputy, Yoyaga Coulibaly, called Fatogoma, who was... etc (it is right from there on). Acceptable to translate Deputy as MP, I suppose, as these are indeed legislators. I'll note that the writer rates Salimata Coulibaly's athletic achievement more highly than the page subject's, (she has medals, after all). The page subject is notable for being a Deputy (in the writer's opinion) and about whom an interesting fact is that he ran in the Olympics, and his ability and love for this nurtured his daughter. That is detail for the article, but if notable as a politician, that is what the page should lead on.
  Now NPOL says that those elected to a national legislator (here, the Ivory Coast), are presumed notable. This is under additional criteria, which says meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So even meeting NPOL as member of a national legislature should not be enough if we cannot write anything about him. The mention of his achievment in this book is a passing mention, and we are still short of good information from which the page can be written. But there is a presumption that more can be found, and I think what we have creates a reasonable case for inclusion, especially considering we are talking about a politician from Ivory Coast, rather than from the USA. I think we should keep this one - but not in its current form.
  Lastly, FOARP is correct - dit should be in lower case, and I don't think we should be titling the article with the French word at all. The current title is just an egregous error. If he is known as Fatogoma, shouldn't this be the common name? I suggest the renamed article title should be to "Fatogoma Coulibaly" with his full name reserved for the first sentence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 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.

Khan Nasrullah Totakhail

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT with no WP:SIGCOV either in the article (only databases are cited) or elsewhere through a WP:BEFORE search. Let'srun (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Let'srun (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Olympic participation, especially in two separate editions (1948 and 1956), might satisfy WP:NSPORT. I could not find any media coverage about the subject, which is not uncommon for athletes from earlier eras.--Vikram S Pasari (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vikram S Pasari, Olympic participation was explicitly deprecated as a notability criterion, and NSPORT now requires an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1956 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD - already cross-reffed to Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Ingratis (talk) 09:11, 31 May 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.

Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr.

Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr. (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)

Badly-sourced attack page for a Fillipino figure bludgeoned through the draft process (see also Draft:Robert Nazal and Draft:Roberto Gerard L. Nazal Jr.); creating editor was blocked from editing Bagong Henerasyon (along with everyone else for now) for adding undue weight and poor Reddit-based blog sourcing about a minor controversy involving that organization involving this person, so they're trying to wedge it into other articles to push their fringe viewpoint. This is otherwise a gossip/attack page for a figure with little to no WP:N already reverted on several pages before. I also suspect this page was created with LLM assistance going by its formatting. Nathannah • 📮 23:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep, the congressman/businessman has sufficient coverage and controversy (outside the fringe MCGI-related controversies the author has pushed). Hopefully I have salvaged the article enough. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Philippines congress. Attack elements have been WP:HEYed by Hariboneagle927. Curbon7 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, passes WP:NPOL having served in the House of Representatives of the Philippines from 2022 to 2024. On that alone, he passes, but I caution naming him as a congressman-elect as his party still has an unresolved disqualification case, and he might even have one on his own. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per above. but we should monitor the article as there was just a recent Philippine election. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but watch closely. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: It was passed on WP:NPOL since he's have politics background. It passed also on GNG, just monitor this article closely. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not quite related to the subject's notability, but can Hariboneagle927 and possibly other people who'd think of doing the same, to not add WP:BLPPRIMARY sources (such as COMELEC documents) to the article in regards to BLP information (birthdates, addresses, etc.)? The only possible exception is for it to be used as a secondary source (or as a backup) to another WP:RS source, but as a source to itself, it cannot be used. Please do not use those not just on this article, but on any other articles; it should be removed on sight on other articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is established by meeting WP:NPOL, as an elected politician. Darkm777 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 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.

Ali Javadi

Ali Javadi (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_27#Ali_Javadi * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – A cursory search of his name in English and Farsi returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: no online sigcov that I can see and no proof, therefore, that he meets WP:GNG to any extent. I have given it some cleanup but that doesn't excuse the blatant faliure of notability guidelines. JacobTheRox (talk) 14:35, 25 May 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 Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party

List of Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party (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, not notable enough, relatively new party which doesn't have a long established electoral history unlike the two established national parties, the BJP and INC, virtually no presence besides Delhi and Punjab. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 10 May 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 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The Aam Aadmi Party's history is not really relevant to the notability of this list, but as far as I understand it is a very significant political party, regularly making the news even outside of India. This list should be judged on WP:NLIST, which says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Importantly, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". A brief web search turns up sources like , , , and , which discuss important parts of this topic (e.g. mentioning several of the people on the list as a group or telling us how many such people there are in total). I think this is clear evidence that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 24 May 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.

Hellen Lukoma

Hellen Lukoma (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:NACTOR. References are gossip column style interviews and announcements. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN with two non notable bands. More generally a WP:GNG / WP:BIO failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Music, Television, Fashion, and Uganda. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Insufficient sourcing to meet WP:NACTOR criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:30, 25 May 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.

Night safari

Night safari (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 essentially a WP:DICDEF with an arbitrary list of examples. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Three zoos are obviously not the same thing as the two large parks. Seeing animals at night is cool but a zoo or park being open late is obviously not a distinctly notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 27 May 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.

Coral Club

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

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

I removed a bunch of clearly promotional PR fluff, and really this article fails to pass any WP:GNG requirements for a company. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - very much a promotional article, even with the promotional garbage cleaned up, it still is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 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.

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

Battle of Tashkent (1607) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment possibly not a complete hoax? See Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• What about the sources that are already present in the article? Do they exist or are they hallucinated references? (Worldcat doesn't recognise the two ISBNs).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 May 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.

Akash Murali

Akash Murali (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:NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Only one film not multiple, no other films in production like the cast of The Archies. Being able to write about his family doesn't give an excuse for an article, as that information is in his brother Atharvaa and father Murali (Tamil actor)'s pages. All of this information about his career is covered in Nesippaya. DareshMohan (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect It's too soon, does not meet WP:NACTOR, and should be redirect to Nesippaya. Pasados (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nesippaya: This is WP:TOOSOON. Akash Murali has not yet achieved independent notability, and notability is not inherited. For now it should be redirected on his debut film Nesippaya. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. Only one debut film, no major awards or significant coverage. Notability is not inherited. — Vikram S Pasari (talk) 09:51, 28 May 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.

Anshuman Magazine

Anshuman Magazine (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)

Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources (mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA) is all I can find. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 May 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.

Chokeslem

Chokeslem (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)

Terribly-sourced AI-generated article with no evidence of meeting WP:NSONG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 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.

Purnima sharma

Purnima sharma (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:ARTIST, only one significant role (but not a major) in Gulabo Sitabo. Majority of references are from Wikipedia itself and fails per WP:NOTSOURCE. Created this here by the artist themselves as per claims at User:Purnimabna and here for promotion only. Agent 007 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I support keeping this article as Purnima Sharma is a notable individual with significant contributions in her field. Her work has been covered by several reliable sources, which establish her notability. Purnima Sharma’s achievements have been highlighted in trusted publications such as [source 1], [source 2], which provide detailed coverage of her career and accomplishments. These sources demonstrate her relevance and importance in her field, aligning with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Therefore, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion and should not be deleted. Purnimabna (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

My name is Akash and I manage her social media, I created an account in the name of Purnima because I am new. I thought that the account should be in the name of the person whose page will be created. Purnimabna (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - No indication of notability. In addition WP:NOTPROMO seems applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to be semi-notable so i suggest that if available then cite the articles with notable news references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almandavi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. Please see WP:AUTO. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:03, 27 May 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.

East Haven, Indiana

East Haven, Indiana (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)

As far as I can determine this is the same as the Richmond State Hospital, which I also find referred to as "East Haven Hospital". It is a historic and still active asylum started in the 1870s; the main building is a classic of period architecture. It also appears as a rail spot because there was a branch which presumably supplied the heating facilities with coal. The one thing I see no sign of is anyone thinking of this as a town in its own right: though it appears to sit outside the city limits, it was always associated with Richmond, and I find no reference to a predecessor town. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 24 May 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.

Bajetha surname

Bajetha surname (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 completely WP:GNG, GPTZero clearly shows created using WP:LLM. Nothing verifiable or exists. Agent 007 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Agent 007 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - it seems even the creator has suggested that this topic is not notable in their own edit summary Bajetha is not very prominent caste in india so people are not aware of it. The entire article is AI junk. There are not currently any people with Wikipedia articles that have the surname 'Bajetha' so this can't be repurposed into a dab page. Lastly, even if this topic were notable, it would be better placed at Bajetha than at 'Bajetha surname'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: AI slop, nuke it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not needed. Geschichte (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No need to create this article. B-Factor 16:37, 26 May 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.

Weed Hack Premium Beta (Internet Phenomenon)

Weed Hack Premium Beta (Internet Phenomenon) (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 secondary sourcing or indication of notability, with the article itself stating As of May 2025, no major Minecraft modification community sites have reviewed the client. A WP:BEFORE give me nothing more than Reddit threads. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above. Found nothing useful (but Reddit threads!) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable secondary sources covering this mod. This seems like something more suited for a "Minecraft mods" Fandom wiki than Wikipedia ApexParagon (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, self-evidently an extremely niche mod with no secondary coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:06, 28 May 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.

Mrityu Diary

Mrityu Diary (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 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.

Previous discussion of the author and his books:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulasi Acharya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability and Patriarchy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running from the Dreamland
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mochan (novel)

Like the other books, I believe this one fails WP:NBOOK. Source review in the comments below. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Source review:

• Source 1 is the book's page on the publisher's website. Primary source, not independent.
• Source 2 and Source 3 are reviews by the same person, Padam Bhattarai (one in English, one in Nepali) - so regardless, they would only count as one source for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. These reviews are suspicious: they appear to be the only thing that Mr. Bhattarai has written for either website. Someone named "Padam Bhattarai" appears to be Facebook friends with Acharya and is interacting with his posts: Notably, Republica (Source 2) was deemed not reliable for a review of Acharya's work in this AfD due to an apparent (different) conflict of interest.
• Source 4 is a review in The Rising Nepal by Narayan Prasad Ghimire. Mr. Ghimire seems to have a special interest in Acharya's books: he has also reviewed Sex, Desire, and Taboo for the Kathmandu Post and Swapnabhumi for Nepal News . In addition, Mr. Ghimire and Acharya appear to be Facebook friends: see e.g. this recent post with a comment from Mr. Ghimire. Major COI red flags here.
• Source 5 is a review for the Sahitya Post by Badri Prasad Dhakal (in Nepali). The Sahitya Post is a "literary portal" that seems to accept a wide variety of content from writers, including promotional and self-promotional content. Its reliability and editorial controls are dubious.

Astaire (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Given the history of the other articles about this author and their books, I would need unambiguous evidence of independent reviews to be satisfied that this one passes WP:NBOOK. Per the source analysis above, I don't think this comes close to that standard. All of the reviews are highly suspicious at best. MCE89 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete- First 5 books and BLP of author were deleted for similar reasons as mentioned by the nominator. (List in nomination). Regarding this article I have following conclusion. This source Source 4 is reliable. But the content is has similar format and tone as previous books reviews. Review is not neutral. The author who has written review is also involved in writing reviews of other books and appears to be closely connected to author of this book, as rightly pointed out by nominator. This one is Source 3 not different from the above article. Other Nepali sources are not reliable and not worth discussing . Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 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.

Ry Armstrong

Ry Armstrong (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)

Ry Armstrong doesn't seem to have any significant coverage as either an actor or as a politician. Two of their three roles were uncredited and the third, in The Gilded Age, was for an unnamed side-character. As a politician, Armstrong lost a primary election for Seattle City Council by a wide margin (they only received 1.86%) and is a candidate for mayor of the city. As of today, Armstrong is currently has 1/3 of the fundraising as the top two candidates and has not been included in any polls. I've gone ahead and reviewed a good portion of the sources below, with the other half being almost entirely self published or very minor coverage.

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Microplastic Consumer

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.outfrontmagazine.com/meet-genderqueer-gilded-age-actor-ry-armstrong/	Interview	Out Front is a decently reputable magazine, suitable for LGBTQ+ topics	Interview with the subject about their role in The Gilded Age (TV series) as an unnamed character	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/neglect-by-the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-begins-performances-october-11			One paragraph about a performance of a play being announced	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/calling-all-broadway-devotees-join-a-guinness-world-record-attempt-by-singing-the-greatest-showman	Seems a bit promotional, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt		Subject is only given a passing mention as an organizer	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-to-debut-new-play-neglect			Only a single paragraph with no plot summary	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/03/13/78895136/drama-kid-ry-armstrong-wants-your-vote-in-district-3	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Routine campaign coverage but does go in-depth on the subject	~ Maybe
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/03/18/79972532/ry-armstrong-wants-bruce-harrells-job	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Could be argued as routine campaign coverage, but does go in-depth on subject	~ Maybe
https://www.bothell-reporter.com/life/kenmore-native-creates-album-featuring-broadway-stars-for-a-good-cause/	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	Local Newspaper	Seems sort of promotional and the coverage is very local	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Delete— Per the original nominator. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to meet GNG, and I don't think their entering political races every few years without lasting coverage counts towards that.

Awshort (talk) 11:37, 25 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete this seems like a promotional political page as they don't quite seem like a notable actor. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2025 Seattle mayoral election as a valid ATD. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 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.

Wilmette Junior High School

Wilmette Junior High School (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)

Disputed redirect (with a personal attack). Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• What do you mean "with a personal attack"? I see here that you replaced the entire article with a redirect and were called out for vandalism by another user. Caeryllium (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Calling something vandalism, when it isn't, is a personal attack. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into Wilmette Public Schools District 39. I found these , but I find it unlikely that they add up to establish notability per WP:NSCHOOL or are enough for a fulfilling encyclopedic article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why judge whether or not the article is fulfilling enough for an encyclopedic article? Your decision seems awfully speculative, and I think it's worth noting that this wikipedia page is being worked on by a few friends as a project. Why can't we construct it first and see if it's enough to be an encyclopedic article? What's the harm in waiting? Caeryllium (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  All content in an article should be based on a collection of reliable sources that prove that the subject is notable, meaning that those sources must prove why it's significantly different from other schools which makes it worthy of an article. So far, two of the article's sources provide run-of-the-mill facts or statistics, and the other is a primary source. From the sources that I've found from scowering the internet, I've deduced that there is simply not enough information from sources to make a good article. We can perhaps include that information in the school district's article, which is why I !voted merge and not delete, but it probably won't stand on its own. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect - to the school district per above. WP:GNG is clearly not met, and that's not surprising as lower schools seldom do. Rather than deletion, if possible we should always try to find an alternative. For US public schools, that's generally a redirect to the school district. This is the longstanding practice for less than notable public schools. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. Middle, intermediate, and junior high schools are rarely notable by themselves. An exception might include a school with an especially notable teacher, alumnus, or program. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 26 May 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 U.S. state welcome signs

List of U.S. state welcome signs (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 dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that Pi is an administrator on Commons? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NLIST. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NLIST as others have said. Also individual state welcome signs (and tourism slogans in general) generally tend to be notable with sources written about them whenever they're changed. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NLIST this looks nice. As to the comment above about other countries having lists like this, please refer to Category:Road signs by country. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Road signs by country.

• Keep there's source coverage specific to US welcome signs, see . MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article, it is a photo collage. There is essentially no prose or substance to it. I'm a little concerned at those who are looking at similar photo montages in publications and using them to support significant coverage claims - we would need articles that actually discuss the signs as a whole (and "discussed" is the exact verbiage in NLIST) rather than simply list photos of them with little or no further context. This article also asserts that each state has just one kind of welcome sign, which is not true, and does not check for the timeliness of the supposed "current" signs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY here, and the lack of coverage of these signs as a group leads to WP:NLIST not being met here. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

+delete Besides WP:NOTGALLERY, there's also the implication that each state has one distinctive sign type. I don't think that's true in Maryland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't true in other states. The style of sing evolves over time, but older signs are not necessarily replaced promptly; I also recall that on some more prominent roads there is more elaborate signage at some crossings. This feels like a commons category, not a list article. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't an article, it's a WP:GALLERY, and as Mangoe pointed out there are states with several welcome sign designs because of age or historic notability, along with several 'local' areas such as the state line between the Kansas Citys where there isn't expected to be a welcome sign at every intersection of State Line Road. Other signs are obnoxious WP:PROMO for their governor's initiatives with taglines (Florida especially, and any state which uses 'open for business') and switched out between governorships. Nathannah • 📮 22:53, 24 May 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.

Khumar Gadimova

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

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw it. But independent, reliable sources are needed, and that is a primary source, which is not great. Are there others? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  https://www.bakupost.az/xumar-qedimovaya-emekdar-artist-oldu https://mia.az/mobil/1075536 https://rublika.az/index.php?newsid=22845 https://etikxeber.az/xumar-q%C9%99dimova-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-oldu/ https://hit.az/az/senet/264643/emekdar-artist-konserte-hazirlasir/ https://musavat.com/ru/mobile/news/bacisi-xumar-qedimova-emekdar-artist-olmasindan-xebersizdir_420423.html https://www.gununsesi.info/xumar-q%C9%99dimovaya-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-adi-verildi/ https://baku.ws/show-business/xumar-qdimovaya-mkdar-artist-ad-verildi-srncam https://azxeber.com/az/emekdar-artist-turkiyede-trend-oldu/maqazin/ https://news24.az/180697-emekdar-artist-sevenlerine-seslendi.html Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Are those independent, reliable sources? Linkbombing is not enough for a discussion. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The most reliable source. The country's president's own official website Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep : Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijani government, which is a national level recognition, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Noting that the Azerbaijani spelling of her name is Xumar Qədimova (which I have added to the article). Searching on this spelling will probably bring up more sources in that language. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep above information and additional sources have been sufficient to determine notability as well as WP:ANYBIO#1 with a national honour and yes, WP:NEXISTS. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Based on the above comments and cited references in this article. It passes WP:ANYBIO. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 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.

Paradigm classification

Paradigm classification (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 concept of paradigm classification is not clear and not widely used in the sense of a two-dimensional classification structure. This article really has only one reference, and that is a blog by William Denton called Miskatonic University Press. According to that text, paradigm classification is not a subset of faceted classification. That is not accurate, according to Denton´s blog. The term can also be used in the sense of classification of paradigms, which is how it used in the Ahlberg paper. So, paradigm classification is not widely used and it is used in different senses. In any case, the concept does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Delete - "paradigm" is an infamously polysemic word, and Google Scholar turns up several different incompatible uses of this term on the first page of results. Trying to chase down all the different potential use cases for a disambiguation seems futile. Psychastes (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 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 Ngandu

James Ngandu (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:NTRACK as the Houston Marathon is not one of the World Marathon Majors, nor are it, the 500 Festival Mini-Marathon, or Columbus Half Marathon on that level of major running competitions. The existing sources are an Alamy photo showing Ngandu crossing the finish line in Houston; brief listing of stats by Tiffin University, World Athletics, and the Track & Field Results Reporting System (TFRRS); and an insignificant note by the 500 Festival Mini-Marathon that he trains in Van Wert, Ohio. The Tiffin University and Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference websites provide the only significant coverage of Ngandu, neither of which are independent of the subject 1 2. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The Houston Marathon isn't an WMM, but it is a World Athletics Label Road Races Gold label race, which satisfies WP:NTRACK #2 "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)".

I found additional independent in-depth coverage of Ngandu, e.g. from The Buffalo News: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-buffalo-news-on-a-winning-course/173048010/. I added this source to the article and removed some of the puffery because I agree the prose needed some work, but that can be improved by editing. --Habst (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Oops! Withdrawing as speedy keep now and editing Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_and_field_and_long-distance_running to update IAAF's now five-year-old renaming to World Athletics, so others do not make this embarrassing oversight in the future. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Although the Houston Marathon isn’t one of the six World Marathon Majors, it is an IAAF Gold Label Road Race (now a World Athletics Label Road Race), and the athlete won the event.

By doing so, he satisfied the WP N-track criterion—placing in the top three at any other major senior-level international competition (WP N-track, 2). Wieditor25 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 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.

Boronia Road

Boronia Road (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 article doesn't establish the notability of this road. As a local suburban road I don't think it's significant enough for a Wikipedia article. – numbermaniac 18:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, agree with reasons listed above Lordstorm (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 26 May 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.

Beesons, Indiana

Beesons, Indiana (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)

Looking at the maps, this is a rail junction, not a town, and that's how it comes up in every meaningful hit I got. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - just a rail junction. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:NPLACE. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 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.

7th Generation Network

7th Generation Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Looks like its here more of promoting websites/company and content from medium.com. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --John B123 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this article/page should be deleted. Considering that 6G technology isn’t even a thing yet , the topic feels to early and lacks enough reliable sources. CasonPlayzYT (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Just reading the first paragraph of this article, I'm also inclined to agree. Talking about a wireless technology hasn't been announced by anyone, as well as a majority of the world only now getting into 5G proper, seems like it's a hypothetical rather than factual page. PapercrownKitty (talk) 12:54, 30 May 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.

Music Nation

Music Nation (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)

Sources are PR stuff and no coverage from independent reliable sources, fails NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I tagged the article with templates pointing out the promotional content. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a company which means it must meet WP:NCORP. In order to do so, there must be sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I can only find routine coverage such as this and mentions such as this, all of which do not add up to the coverage necessary for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• User comment – If consensus leans toward deletion, I would prefer that the article be moved to draftspace rather than deleted outright. The article is based on verifiable, independent sources and documents a legitimate public–private rights initiative in the UAE. There will be opportunities to improve with additional coverage. Mrmctorso (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there is no additional coverage. This would fall under WP:OVERCOME. If the sources existed, I would gladly clean up per WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent Content? ...

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?	Overall establishes notability per NCORP
Fortenbury, Jon (19 September 2014). "Austin Company Bravelets: Helping Families In Need, One Piece Of Jewelry At A Time". Austin.com.	This is an infomercial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
N/A (6 April 2023). "Dubai Culture signs MoU with Music Nation and DGMC to boost the local music industry". Magzoid.	This is a press release published in lots of other places such as here, here and here. Not independent content.	–
Dalugdug, Mandy (26 March 2025). "Music Nation Partners with SoundExchange to collect and distribute Neighboring Rights in the UAE". Music Business Worldwide.	This is a press release, identical coverage and information published in other places such as here, here (also included as a reference) and [https://musically.com/2025/03/27/music-nation-adds-neighbouring-rights-with-soundexchange-deal/ here (another reference). Not independent content.	–
King, Ashley (23 May 2023). "BMI is Developing a 'Performing Rights Infrastructure' in UAE with Music Nation". Digital Music News.	Once again, this is a press release, identical coverage and information published in other places such as from the BMI website here and [https://uaetimes.ae/bmi-is-developing-performing-rights-infrastructure-in-uae-with-music-nation/ here (also included as a reference). Not independent content.	–

Close

• Delete Articles entirely based on press releases or regurgitated company information without additional analysis/commentary/etc are not independent content, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 27 May 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.

Bruneian–Igan War

Bruneian–Igan War (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)

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete a newspaper column in a short-lived publication isn’t solid enough sourcing for an article about an alleged war. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 24 May 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.

José Sena

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

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

Declined prod with this reason: meets WP:NATH #7.

I don't see this person meeting WP:NATH especially as he didn't complete the sole Olympics event he competed in. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. IRS SIGCOV is needed for all such articles, and yeah, they didn't even finish the race so it seems unlikely that there would ever have been much in the way of coverage. There are a lot of other Jose Sena's out there so I'd caution anyone doing BEFORE work on this to make sure that any references found are about the same Jose Sena. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics where this person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect. From the "expanded" article, source 3 is passing mentions in primary race coverage N; 4 is a namecheck N; 5 is a namecheck N; 6 is a namecheck N; 8 is a namecheck N; 9 is passing in primary race coverage N; 13 is a namecheck N; 14 is passing N. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Svartner and Clariniie: Does the expansion/comments below persuade either of you to advocate "keep"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is one of the better attempts at saving an Olympian stub lately. It shows a path to notability. His claim to notability would not mainly stem from the 1980 Olympics, but from the World Cross Country Championships where he finished 30th in 1980 and 31st in 1982. I have found what looks to be significant coverage about the POC's decision to omit/bypass José Sena at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Mind you, I'm not taking any mention as "sigcov". Maybe others would have success in searching portal.arquivos.pt too? Geschichte (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not sold on this being SIGCOV: Sena was one of three Portuguese athletes subject to the decision discussed in these articles so it seems unlikely that there would be detail about him. More likely the real story was Portugal at these events, which justifies the redirect (and covering the decision there). Of course, if people can get access to coverage of this decision that could change. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean about "the real story was Portugal". It says in plain language that the stories are about 2 and 3 individuals respectively, and this does not seem to me like such a large group that Sena would drown out in the crowd. One story is about the omission itself, the other is about wider repercussions, i.e. a solidarity action from other athletes, showing at least some kind of significance at the time beyond the individual. At the same time, I only said it looks like sigcov, not that it is without having seen the whole articles. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  IDK - I’ve not been able to access the specific stories listed here but I’ve read stories about it available from other outlets (eg La Stampa) and they have no SIGCOV of Sena specifically. They focus on the decision of the Portuguese officials to have a higher bar than the IOC and the complaints of the Portuguese athletics team as a whole. I’m not sure these outlets would be much different - the story isn’t about these individuals per se. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd believe the Italian newspaper you read it in, has much more second-hand information, and also condensed it considerably because their readers would not be familiar with any of the Portuguese individuals. Domestic newspapers would on the other hand include much more detail; I can't say anything firmly about the sources though. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep based on Diário Popular coverage linked above. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per the expansion and that we know for a fact he was covered in Diário Popular. We can't access it, but apparently the article, which covered only him and one other subject, was large, given the statement in the records "Newspaper clipping taken from the box with the quotation 00220, cover no. 78B 'Preparation for the Games', due to its size, was found together with other smaller press clippings on the same subject." That is very, very, very likely to be significant coverage. I'll further state that it is not at all reasonable to assume someone like him, whose absence from an Olympics apparently received SIGCOV, would not have additional coverage for any of his numerous world championship appearances, numerous national championships, or his national records. I am entirely certain that a search of relevant newspapers (which has not been done) would reveal abundant extensive coverage. The expanded article, along with the coverage that is guaranteed to exist, is sufficient to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics - As per FOARPs analysis, the two news reports linked above are not secondary coverage of the athlete. The story is about the Portuguese decision on admission times. We don't need to get into the fact that news reporting is primary and such like, because WP:PAGEDECIDE must be considered, and is too often neglected. There is nothing here showing why a page is merited for this athlete, and all information in the source can be covered in the redirect target - where it would be better placed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • In what way would the several decent paragraphs, containing numerous details such as his clubs, national titles, national records, world championship appearances, etc., be "better placed" at the Portugal at the Olympics article?? A vaguewave at "PAGEDECIDE" doesn't tell us anything, and there is most certainly many things showing here why a page is merited – national titles, national records, world championship appearances...the fact that we are 100% certain he has newspaper coverage – these are all things that are near-certain to have attracted abundant SIGCOV. For any American, of Swiss, or Icelandic (the countries with the best newspaper archives) in this position we'd easily be able to prove GNG for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

    In your !vote above, you say, of the Diário Popular cutting, that we cannot access it but that you believe it is very likely SIGCOV on the page subject because it is apparently larger than the other cuttings. But the article is not about the page subject, it is about the Portuguese Olympic Committee decision, so even if you are correct about its size, it is very much a guess that there is SIGCOV. But also, I am not convinced it is larger than the other shorter cuttings it is found with. It appears to have been collated in a collection of shorter cuttings. Notice that the Portuguese you have translated here is ... outros recortes de imprensa de menor dimensão sobre o mesmo assunto. De menor is indeed the comparative form there, and can be translated as shorter. But it doesn't have to be. De menor dimensão is literally "of minor/lesser size", but is often used as an irregular comparative of pequeno. Yet it is not at all clear to me that it is saying the other clippings are of lesser size than this one. Rather, it says that, owing to its [apparently small] size, it was found amongst other small clippings (other clippings that, like this one, are of lesser size). So no, we have no evidence of SIGCOV there. Everything else is equally speculative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  • I agree with this analysis. I've been watching this page hoping someone eventually got access to the newspaper articles, but seeing as we still don't actually know the extent of the secondary coverage they give directly to Sena, I don't think it's viable to presume SIGCOV exists. The expansion of the page is also totally irrelevant, as it is entirely from primary databases and thus not inherently encyclopedic material in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I think the consensus is clear, I think this will be contentious so aiming for more eyeballs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - People above are !voting keep based on coverage that they have not read and which is not directly about the subject, but is instead about the decision to bar three athletes from the 1984 Olympics of whom the subject is article is only one. All coverage of the decision not to qualify the three athletes that I have been able to access does not give any of them significant coverage and there is no really reason to believe the Diário Popular would be any different in this. For example the Reuters article on it was only 77 words in total. I do not udnerstand how anyone can say with certainty that SIGCOV for Sena specifically exists in these circumstances. Additionally, WP:PAGEDECIDE means we should redirect in any event, since without SIGCOV that we can access a stand-alone article cannot be maintained. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The nation where he is from is much more likely to cover the event in-depth than international wire reports such as Reuters (the fact that international wire reports such as Reuters even covered it strongly indicates it was a notable story in Portugal). The description of the source indicates that it is large as well. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

    The description does not indicate that it says anything at all about Sena. The decision being a story doesn’t mean that Sena was a story. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics: Subject lacks the needed coverage for the subject to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT, as the sources in the article appear to either be trivial namedrops or databases, which do not provide in depth or secondary coverage about the subject, not other events which the subject played a minor role in. Even if the Diário Popular source is WP:SIGCOV, which has not been defintiatvely proven, we still need multiple pieces of significant coverage for this WP:BLP to meet the notability guidelines. BLP's require strong secondary sourcing, and right not I'm just not finding that here either in the article or elsewhere. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should future significant coverage emerge. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. Just one significant coverage is not even enough to warrant a keep vote. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 1 June 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.

Digital signal processing and machine learning

Digital signal processing and machine learning (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 declined numerous times at AfC, until the article's creator simply moved it into mainspace. This is more of a personal essay, not an article. As per [WP:NOTESSAY]]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this topic is too important for deletion. Given the rise of ai hype and under analysis of hardware requirements, you can understand why it may have been made in the first place. 98.144.73.117 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• delete more of a speculative (and rather padded) essay than an encyclopedia article. The lack of mention in the main DSP article is also telling. It wouldn't surprise me that AI gets directed at DSP, but at this point we don't need this sprawling reflection. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This is indeed an essay, so I can't really argue for a merge, even though the topic should certainly be covered in the parent article, Digital signal processing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 1 June 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.

John Grosh

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are all primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Most are references profiles. Subject does not enough coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:19, 25 May 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.

Emerson Nieto

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage. The only references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything elsewhere to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Indiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep subject looks notable based on Indyeleven.com. (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Mysecretgarden, Indyeleven.com is his team's website. That is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, didn't notice that. Changing my vote to DELETE. Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:19, 25 May 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.

Tolani Ibikunle

Tolani Ibikunle (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 have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current references are all primary to the clubs and leagues the subject has played for, and while [] has some quotes from the subject the article is more about MLS referees having a racial bias than him. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Finland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:18, 25 May 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.

Sean Karani

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources in the article are primary and all I could find elsewhere were a couple of sentences of coverage at [], which isn't quite enough for notability to be established. While the previous AfD closed as "keep", that was based on WP:NFOOTY, which has since been depreciated. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete definitely no WP:GNG pass. best, GPL93 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 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.

Queer Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa

Queer Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a student article that has become a bit of a coatrack article with a POV split. The article itself requires a § Terminology section just to define its own criteria and then is otherwise mostly determined by exhibitions and events, festivals and initiatives pertinent to that criteria. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Sexuality and gender, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; also, the article is an essay. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 01:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll vote Draftify per Bearian. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify - while the terminology section is a disaster, it can be fixed and it's not yet the end of the semester. The student editor should be able to fix the mistakes in the article. I think college is all about learning from mistakes. FWIW, I'm a gay man who identifies as "queer". Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Noninator's comment: not opposed to draftify. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment While I think this article could use some editing, to make it both more concise and easier to read. I don’t think that warrants it being deleted. The information is still useful. Vvbudh (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Copied from AfD talk page by Suriname0 (talk), because I think it is appropriate to include here in the main discussion. Vvbudh, you are welcome to vote explicitly in this AfD by writing a comment on this page that begins with '''Keep''' (for example). Suriname0 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Somewhat to my surprise a look at the sources shows that this is a topic covered in reliable sources and not simply a synthesis of original research. No need for deletion. Should be kept and improved, or perhaps condensed into a section at Queer art or a similar article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep, issues with the writing are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources (which are in this article) and therefore passes GNG.

(Though I have no prejudice towards merging with Queer art, if others think that's a better idea) ApexParagon (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify: in its current form, its an essay and apparently original research. I suggest draftification to give a chance to the author to either split the content to relevant articles, or better delineate the subject for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Draftify, possible to make this an article at some point, but i'd rather it remain in Draftspace until its essay tone gets sorted out. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is apparently the main topic of a 252-page book . The other scholarly sources cited show that specific aspects of this topic have significant coverage as well, e.g. . It seems this topic is notable (though the title may need adjustment). Content issues aren't a good reason for deletion, and since this AfD began the creator has continued to actively work on improving this article. Draftification makes little sense for an article with so much verifiable content, none of which is harmful (in the BLP-vio sense). Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 31 May 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.

Jeong Ha-yeon

Jeong Ha-yeon (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:BANDMEMBER and WP:GNG. orangesclub 🍊 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. orangesclub 🍊 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:BANDMEMBER Destinyokhiria (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to TripleS. Group is notable, member doesn't appear to be notable individually. MidnightMayhem 11:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Think someone moved it to draft while not addressing this discussion. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, moved to draftspace without consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• For now, redirect to tripleS. I don't yet see the significant coverage necessary to demonstrate individual notability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to tripleS per WP:BANDMEMBER. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:22, 26 May 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.

Rachid Ouaissa

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

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I estimate his GS h-factor to be 8-10, which is low. However, when I look at those of his co-authors who have profiles, their h-factors are in the range 10-20. Hence I have to conclude that this is a very low citation field, so not as low as the raw numbers suggest. I have not checked if his books have had favorable reviews; I cannot find any awards to boost the case. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Some comparative GS profiles are , , , , with a couple being in the mid-twenties. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He has been interviewed a bunch , but he doesn't seem to meet any of the NPROF criteria. Noting that I speak German, but I don't see how this would help me find more sources, especially in the age of machine translation. A Jstor search shows that he has been cited several times and even quoted , but I'm not finding anything more that would contribute to notability. I would suggest a redirect to Center for Near and Middle Eastern Studies as an ATD, but that subject may not be notable either... Toadspike [Talk] 12:53, 31 May 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.

Kate Nash Literary Agency

Kate Nash Literary Agency (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)

It is not meeting WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 24 May 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.

Orechová (disambiguation)

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

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

Disambiguation page is not required. WP:G14 declined by @Pppery: with edit summary "Decline G14, does not apply (at least the feminine form of Orekhov (surname) counts as a valid second entry)". There is no use of "Orechova" at Orekhov (surname). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 24 May 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.

Samuel Hudson (musician)

Samuel Hudson (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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, is solely dependent upon primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are a few mentions (, , ) but lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Good nom. 38.85.166.137 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I was going to advocate for draftifying, but at the moment there just isn't enough coverage to justify it. Vegantics (talk) 17:02, 28 May 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.

A Forest Apart

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

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

Can't find any reviews or bestseller listings for this e-book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Suggesting a redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014). Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014) as suggested. I couldn't find any reviews or other coverage either. MCE89 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014) as suggested, don't see any coverage. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 26 May 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.

Care Institute of Medical Sciences, Ahmedabad

Care Institute of Medical Sciences, Ahmedabad (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 seems to be a straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals. Charlie (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect I didn't look for more sources online, but the ones in the article don't show enough significant coverage to establish notability.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:34, 29 May 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.

Zydus Hospital

Zydus Hospital (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 seems to be a straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals. Charlie (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No significant coverage from independent, secondary and reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. And WP:PROMO is obvious a reason. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't look for more sources online, but the ones in the article are just routine announcements and don't establish notability.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:38, 29 May 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.

Monserrate Román

Monserrate Román (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)

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and Puerto Rico. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the above reasoning. I also did a search and the best thing I could find was a 2003 article from Spacenews.com that wasn't even an original story, but a press release, as well as this brief mention from the ASBMB. Leonstojka (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep several sources and several awards, so I am leaning keep. Andre🚐 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep I agree that her publications do not meet WP:PROF, but a 2021 book (Wonder Women of Science) includes 13 pages on Roman. She is also a recipient of NASA's Silver Snoopy Award which is given to 1% of people in aerospace. This information is now more clearly presented in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program.Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems to have enough publications size and has some some media appreances to be borderline notable at least. She already has small entry in List_of_Puerto_Rican_scientists_and_inventors#Microbiology in case some see redirecting option more viable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 24 May 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.

Joseph K. Wood

Joseph K. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete cannot find SIGCOV about time as Republican Party chair, and NPOL does not seem to extend to appointed cabinet officials. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of this AfD has been complicated by issues in the article. The department was listed as transportation vs transformation. They also describe him as a judge, which while technically his title, does not correspond to the typical usage of the word most people associate with judicial and the potential for being a superstar lawyer whose legal work can pass GNG. The facts: He was the county executive of the third-largest county in Arkansas (Washington County) for four years, a candidate for statewide office, a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, and is the current chairman of a major statewide political party (the Arkansas Republican Party). None of these by themselves are presumed to meet WP:NPOL. I understand there are disagreements about cabinet members and as a result I do think there is a need to clarify WP:NPOL at some point, but I think that is a discussion best had elsewhere. What I have not seen in this the keep votes is a discussion of existing sourcing to see if he is a figure who is notable for meeting general notability guidelines.

The only non-local news coverage of his time as Washington County Judge were routine mentions of his run for Lieutenant Governor in the context of other statewide office holders surrendering the primary to now Governor Huckabee Sanders. His cabinet position was at the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. It's basically the IT department of the state with other responsibilities for state property. It is not a particularly large department and I don't think any work done there would meet any test of historic significance that would warrant its subject receiving a stand alone article. I did not come across anything other than newswires (not independent of subject) in my NewsBank or Google searches. On party chair, there is coverage of a lawsuit that involves him as a party chair, but I do not think (from Google) the partial mentions of him in his chairman role responding about a lawsuit against the organization qualify as significant coverage. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I did a Newspapers.com search for his name in Arkansas since 1982. The only significant coverage I found was , a fairly in-depth profile of him when he ran for lieutenant governor. The remaining articles are mostly passing mentions listing him as a presidential elector and a candidate for lt. gov. I only found sources calling him "Joseph Wood", not "Joseph K. Wood", so if this article is kept it should probably be moved.

His role in a lawsuit seems to have gotten independent sigcov as well , as has his dramatic temporary replacement in a state GOP conference .

A web search also turned up , which is likely based entirely on an interview so not independent; there's plenty more like this out there. There's also a lot of routine election coverage, e.g. all these .

He is also on a state Black History Commission and was incidentally involved in a scandal over a twenty-thousand-dollar lectern .

I think this is the kind of coverage we expect for subjects typically accepted under NPOL and may even meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

These probably aren't the strongest sources on earth, but I'll ping @GPL93@Yoblyblob@Mpen320 just in case they might sway some minds. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Fully meeting the WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Cydopan (Talk • Edits) 10:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep pretty much per Toadspike, that's enough different events to avoid concerns of BIO1E. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:53, 1 June 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.

Book of the Week

Book of the Week (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)

Unsourced. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. There are news articles that mention books appearing on the show, but they are stubby program-guide type articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with BBC Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I really don't think there'd be room for this in an article about the BBC as a whole (this is not a statement on whether I think this subject is notable, just a comment on the above post). RobinCarmody (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I do not think that is should be merged with the main BBC Wiki page. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is part of the fabric of the Wiki, with tons of pages linking it. (see links here). Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Tons of pages link to it because it is included in a template on every article relating to BBC Radio 4. (See the content of the template in external sources.) I don't know whether this supports 'keep' or 'delete' but it does explain the proliferation of this link even on articles that are not directly related to this specific program. Lamona (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, it is on a template. Nevertheless, there are lots of wiki pages that link here with relevant content about Book of the Week. I have had a look. Many linked pages are about well known actors or narrators whose readings of the books were broadcast. Their readings are noteworthy parts of their careers.This is nationwide radio and the series has been broadcast for decades. Almost everyone in the UK would have heard of it. This page is part of the fabric of the wiki, so it should be kept. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

    That's nice to hear. But you must develop an article which confirms what you are claiming. So far it does not, and many parts of the article remain unsourced or undersourced. Οἶδα (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to BBC_Radio_4#Programmes. No sources showing notability or significant coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the article and included independant sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    The article mostly relies on WP:PRIMARY BBC sources. Per the WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    You also appear to have used AI to "expand" this article too. Please leave that inhuman trash in the bin where it belongs. Οἶδα (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete but create a category that can be used on books that are featured on the program. (I suppose that there may need to be subcategories for the years?) This would make it possible to retrieve all of the books on WP that have been featured. As a stand-alone, I do not find sources ABOUT BotW, but I do find sources about the books themselves. Also, the term "book of the week" is not exclusive to BBC 4, so the category term should include that. Lamona (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the article and included in-line refs and sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Creating such a category would imply being selected as a weekly "Book of the Week" by this BBC programme is a defining characteristic. That is evidently not true and would constitute overcategorization. We could create analogous categories for all kinds of selections of books, film, tv etc. We do not. Οἶδα (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Worth noting that there were list articles that were deleted

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2013
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2014
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2015
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2016
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2017
    • List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2018

  and the larger List of books featured on Book of the Week was redirected.

  and the navbox between them is up for deletion Template:Book of the Week. Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks. is there another way to make it possible to search on this fact, or is such a search not desired? Lamona (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  How do you mean? WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION covers this topic. Οἶδα (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. The article also fails WP:GNG. Leaving it as a redirect is also unsuitable. It is not even mentioned at BBC Radio 4, nor would it be appropriate to deeply cover it there. The name "Book of the Week" is also extremely generic and easily confused with the plethora of other publications and organisations that routinely name their own "Book of the Week". Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
  • It could be moved to "Book of the Week (BBC)". It is an extremely well known series in the UK. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    I believe the correct dab would be (radio series) or (radio programme). But that is beside the point. You can always create that redirect if you find it necessary. The real problem remains: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (WP:GNG) The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. As I said to you at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 17, if you want an article kept on Wikipedia you must demonstrate significance, not make unsubstantiated and personal claims. Repeating "It is an extremely well known series in the UK" does not mean anything. I could make an article for my ham sandwich and say it is well known by every British household. Wikipedia does not rely on self-published sources or original research. Until I provide such evidence, the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I searched the internet and Gbooks for at least 20 minutes and could not find significant coverage myself, and you have not provided any in the article. Your expansion only added primary (BBC) coverage, insignificant coverage in The Guardian, and obvious AI summary language. Even from the way the AI is writing I can easily tell it is struggling to come up with something from the same exact limited coverage I am reading. I would love nothing more than to see this article sufficiently developed, but alas it is not. And considering you surrendered the job to an AI language, I can only assume you aren't interested in doing the work or you also cannot dredge up significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Οἶδα (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Book of the Week" could be a future dab, and "Book of the Week (BBC)" could be this article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It is in plain sight that "Book of the Week" is notable. Anyone can listen to BBC Radio 4 on the BBC Sounds between 9.45 and 10am any week day. Anyone in the world with an internet connection can do this. It has been broadcast weekdays for more than 20 years, it is almost as reliable as the Sun rising in the mornings (if you see what I mean). Anyway, the current expanded article shows that "Book of the Week" is notable and it does have reliable refs. The BBC is one of the most important sources for the Wiki. I did expand parts of article with AI assistance and I checked every source and edited the output to make it accurate. I wrote other parts manually. By itself, AI made an amazing article, but I had to reject most of it, because the sources needed a login or somehow not available to me. Using a "deep search" facility, AI found about a dozen refs. I used AI here under pressure from this deletion request. Thank you for removing some of the glossy AI language. I have made it a bid more readable too. It is worth having a look at all the "what links here"; there are many pages linking here, many books, authors, and narrators. Not just the links on the template. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  You have added BBC web pages to the article to support the data there. Unfortunately, those are not independent sources. (See WP:ORGIND and WP:INDEPENDENT). Therefore they do not support notability of the topic. Lamona (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  You have/had 2 non-bbc sources but unfortunately the Turpin one does not mention BBC or the reading of the book. I marked it as failing verification but it really should be deleted. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  You continue to repeat yourself. It is rather unusual that an editor as accomplished and longstanding as yourself is refusing to produce evidence and instead settling for personal claims of notability and significance. And you can defend your use of AI, but it produced a rather substandard article that is really no better than the stub that preceded it. Just because you can dredge up insignificant coverage does not mean expanding the article with said coverage actually improves it and elevates it to the threshold of WP:GNG. I understood that you had at least somewhat copyedited the AI's summaries, but the "glossy" language you kept conferred context and significance that remained unsourced and honestly appears like just another conceptual hallucination/fabrication that AI language models are constantly guilty of. Your entire argument here is basically that Book of the Week is notable by virtue of it being a Radio 4 programme and by virtue of its longevity. That could be true, but it apparently has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources after all this time and all of its broadcasts. And I fail to see where your argument is supported by what is written at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Can you at all explain yourself beyond making unsupported claims? I hope you understand I am not trying to antagonize you. I am sure Book of the Week is fine programme that plenty of listeners follow and enjoy. I am only trying to verify that it belongs as a standalone article on Wikipdia. But I am not sure how many times I can continue to ask of you what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Please rethink your editing style and bring your editing into compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have notified the relevant Wiki Projects. Please give enough time for more discussion. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• The a former controler of BBC Radio 4 has stated in a national neswpaper that "Book of the Week" is an important part of Radio 4, then it it notable (see one of the article's sources). I think that the articled has adequate referencess to prove notability; nevertheless, I will search for more refernces when I have time. I would say that people living in the UK would certainly appreciate this article. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Book of the Week is a vital part of Radio 4 and frequently scintillates – and I have no doubt that some of the audience will feel its absence," Damazer said on his Radio 4 blog.

  The newspaper is quoting a post from his Radio 4 blog. How does a single comment by a Radio 4 controller on his blog which was then quoted in passing in a Guardian article translate to significant coverage in reliable sources, thus meaning that the subject is worthy of a standalone article on Wikipedia? I'm not sure why you repeated this again in a extension down here intead of responding to my reply to you. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see arguments all over the map here, Keep, Delete and Redirect. Can we get a actual source analysis here? Also, there are multiple needless comments of hostility here that border on personal attacks. Do not insult your fellow editors, focus on the article and its sources, not discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my comments had consistently been related to the article, its subject, the edits that have been made to it, and their relation to Wikipedia policy. Forgive me but I was expressing frustration after examining the topic and making a simple appeal for verification and receiving a succession of perfectly irrelevant replies in return.

I disagree with the characterisation that I ignored the article and its sources and instead targeted insults at discussion participants. I had already stated that the article was composed almost exclusively of primary (BBC) coverage, along with insignificant coverage in one Guardian article. That is rather unsophisticated. But if you took issue with me questioning whether a user might not be "interested in doing the work", then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me expressing bewilderment that a veteran editor of nearly 20 years and over 100,000 edits is brazenly shirking Wikipedia policy, then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me characterising AI as "inhuman trash", well then I guess I apologise for "hostility" toward an unsentient language model, though I firmly believe they undermine reliability and erode the very spirit of Wikipedia. And that was reflected in their usage here, which inserted insignificant coverage and robotic puffery language into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV.

If we are committed to staying on topic, then introducing this characterisation without fully engaging with it becomes a distraction in itself. This only compounds how much of the discussion has consisted of one editor ignoring every appeal and instead inserting their own invented claims. Οἶδα (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per policy. WP:NOPAGE applies. Also per Οἶδα's assessment of WP:GENERIC and the paucity of a redirect to our readers. (And @Liz:, yes I too note the WP:BLUDGEONING from Snowmanradio.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  As seen again below... Οἶδα (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, but move to "Book of the Week (BBC radio series)" to be more specific. I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP, and indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes; however, the main stumbling block here is the shortage of independent reliable sources. Despite the BBC being regarded as a reliable source, self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted. None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance. BTW Οἶδα, that's a clever, meaningful username! Red Sunset (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ATADD (multiples thereof). —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I thank you for noticing, however, I should only respond to the topic at hand by affirming what was alluded to above. Your comments here advance unsound deletion arguments:

WP:OTHERSTUFF ("I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP")

WP:ATADD#Personal_taste ("indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes")

WP:SOURCESEXIST ("self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted.")

WP:HARMLESS ("None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance.") Οἶδα (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• There has been more than one comment about the name of the article, which I can understand. I have started a new discussion about the the name of the article on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• For me, Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE is relevant here. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have added to the article using indepentent sources. I think that the article has been transformed for the better, since the start of this deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article now has seven reliable independant sources, which I think makes the article worthy. There is lots of relevant independant information available; for example pently is found using an internet seach for "BBC OR radio "book of the week" site:www.theguardian.com". I have put an {{under construction}} banner on the article. Amongst other things, the banner invites help to expand the article, which would be helpfull becasue I am busy doing other things. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would like to advance the disscusion about the wiki links that link here. I have looked at the "what links here" wiki links by using "What links here" search results - note the inverted commas for a more focused search on "Book of the Week". There are over 500 pages that link to Book of the Week, probably about 550 pages. Looking at a selection of them, the vast majority are relevant to the BBC's Book of the Week, but a few refer to other "book of the week" books. The huge number of pages with relevant links to BBC's Book of the Week (not relating to the template) comfirms to me that the BBC's Book of the Week article is part of the fabric of the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Snowmanradio: You have made nealy 40% of the edits to the page and replied to almost everyone who disagrees with you. If you persist in WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will be forced to request administrative intervention. Thanks, —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

To Administrator User: Liz. Please advice me on the comment above made by user Fortuna imperatrix mundi at 11.16 earlier today. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not a needless comment of hostility here that border[s] on personal attacks, if that's what you mean. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• COMMENT Thank you for revealing some new (to me) WP guidelines, but I agree with snowmanradio that WP:COMMONSENSE could be applied here. The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right. Also, there have been a number of improvements made since my last post by snowmanradio who is evidently trying hard to address the issues raised here, so my recommendation to keep still stands. Red Sunset (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for linking to an essay. What is needed in this article is significant coverage in reliable sources. If the show is as well known as you say, it should not be difficult to find such coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why are Snowmanradio and yourself repeatedly making new bullet comments in the discussion? It gives the appearance as if you are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. You also did not respond to both of the replies that were made to you above. First Snowmanradio cited Wikipedia:Common knowledge then WP:COMMONSENSE. I fail to see where the relevance of their citation. They are not the same thing and do not support any of the claims made thus far. Can you or Snowmanradio at all explain yourselves beyond making unsupported claims? Saying "The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right." is not a valid rationale. Do you understand how many podcasts there are out there with hundreds of thousands listeners and a long list of notable guests? Most do not have Wiki articles because they have not established independent notability as illustrated by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forgive my frustation, but what are we doing here? Again, I am only trying to verify that Book of the Week belongs as a stand-alone article on Wikipdia. I am merely asking of two editors what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  The sourses are reliable, see WP:GUARDIAN, WP:THEINDEPENDENT, and WP:RSPBBC. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I really wanted to vote delete based on the lack of policy-based discussion so far, but there are clear reviews in The Guardian, The Independent, and what seems like substantive discussion in this book. It is a nightmare to search for because of its title, and should be moved to a disambiguated one if kept, but I do think there's enough here to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The book in question contains article-length "intellectual" examination of virtually every single Radio 4 programme, which is the only reason it is even covered there. However, the existence of a single book offering broad critical analysis does not, in itself, confer notability upon each Radio 4 programme up to the threshold of being suitable for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. I would also encourage you to read that book's section on Book of the Week. I did, and it is actually a clear indictment of the programme's quality and a critique for being "part and parcel of the BBC’s hand-in-glove relationship with the publishing world, which enjoys consistently free promotion of its products by the corporation of a kind that virtually no other industry does. Indeed, half of the books on this list were released by just two publishers, both of whom even enjoyed a bonanza of free promotion for an hour and a quarter a week for two consecutive weeks." Ignoring the primary BBC coverage, this leaves the article with one review in The Independent and five in The Guardian. The former features only brief commentary on a single broadcast and the latter consists of one short-form "review" and four brief sections collected within "This Week in Radio" roundup articles, all of which honestly lean more toward promotional summaries rather than substantive critical analysis. In the absence of more substantive critical engagement or broader cultural impact, I fail to see how the material in the aforementioned book and these trivial articles demonstrate a significant independent notability from BBC Radio 4 and its broadcasting. Dredging up the only obscure coverage we can find and presenting of all these possible details also does not give appropriate weight, which is precisely why I claimed that this expanded article is really not preferable to stub that preceded it. Οἶδα (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  So, we clearly have three sources offering sigcov (the book, the five guardian pieces, and the Independent (which is 6 paragraphs)), even if you don't like what they have to say about the program. Everything else is tangential. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to merging to somewhere like BBC Radio 4, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:52, 2 June 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.

Bagdi

Bagdi (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 GNG, unsourced since long time, not enough coverage Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 04:09, 17 May 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 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge With Bhil tribes. Did find this source: if it is good enough. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge With Bhil tribes - This is an appropriate editorial outcome, and should include starting a list within the target article to support information about the number of caste articles that haven't received sufficient coverage to support independent articles. Suriname0 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 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.

Lian Suharevich

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

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this teenage athlete. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Israel. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear case of TOOSOON. While draftifying could improve the article's content, it will not make the clock run faster. So not the best option. gidonb (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify. Gidonb is right, but this gymnast has now made the senior national team. It is possible that she becomes notable in the next six months. It is also possible that the page creator, who is an active editor, manages to periodically edit/update the draft to prevent G13 for longer than six months. And if not, *shrugs*. At least give it a chance. Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 31 May 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.

Chrematistics

Chrematistics (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)