Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 1

This page is about serious nominations. For April Fool's joke nominations, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2025.
< March 31 April 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Reliable source found (non-admin closure) Best Regards (CP) 21:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Communications (publisher)

[edit]
Charter Communications (publisher) (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 TzarN64 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it fail GNG? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland Academy, Mandia

[edit]
Dreamland Academy, Mandia (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 page fails to meet notability requirements. The page contains no references and I could not find any reliable sources mentioning this institution. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is what I call a big fat billboard. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom. Was a soft delete in August, but I agree with the original nom, Brunnaiz, "Non-relevant organization, the article is backed only by self-sources and there's information missing sources. In fact, the article was replicated in cawiki around the same time with the very same problems, which could even be viewed as cross-wiki spam." Onel5969 TT me 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand by my former opinion on this article. It was even deleted in Catalan Wikipedia. --Brunnaiz (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable research group. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tryon Coterie

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tryon Coterie (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)

Functionally a single chapter. Reference to Baylor Lariat contains the single fact that it was founded in 1946, reference to chapter website have information accessible in archive.org. Naraht (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While I disagree with some aspects of investigation into this article subject such as reviewing their social media accounts, it's impossible to dismiss arguments that find some information in this article factually untrue and based in self-published sources. I also see a consensus to Delete this article as several Keep arguments rest solely on his reported status as "the youngest candidate" and it appears that he was a candidate for a nomination, not a candidate in an election so he would not be covered by NPOL. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jäger Rosenberg

[edit]
Jäger Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete or dratify per WP:BIO with WP:TOOSOON in mind. Several citations are repeated, but of the sources given, the only independent publishers are Coast Reporter and My Powell River Now, two small local news sites / blogs. The rest are primary sources from the NDP or Jäger Rosenberg himself. The coverage by the news sites is largely routine due to the current election cycle, with the only point of notability being Rosenberg's young age, which in my opinion is not enough for standalone notability.
If Rosenberg is elected next month in the federal election, then he would have a stronger case for having an article due to his notability as an MP. Until then, however, this article should remain in the draftspace, especially in its current state with citations being limited to primary sources or local coverage. Yue🌙 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this kid wrote the article himself. Running for office does not make you notable, neither does being young. Winning does. 2001:569:F085:B000:B0EB:2BE3:59A7:DF80 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As already stated, I am not him. It's really funny you think I am. I think most of the point for why we should keep this article are already on the talk page, but I'll say some again. Being the youngest candidate to ever run is very notable. For someone of that age to be approved to run either for a party nomination or be approved as a major party candidate is very notable. Yes, he hasn't won an election (yet), but lots of other candidates who didn’t win have pages because their candidacy is notable in some other way. There are reliable sources talking about the historical nature of his candidacy—yes, most of them are local to his riding, but that isn’t all that uncommon. I'll admit that maybe I was a little hasty to publish this article, I haven’t written very many, but that doesn’t mean it should be deleted. At the moment, he is notable and it is likely that notability will only grow, and if it fades away, then it can be removed at a later date. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politicsenthusiast06 I'm wondering about that image you uploaded as own work, how did that work? He paid you to take the photo? He kindly sat down in a studio for you to take it? Or you took the photo from Coast Reporter? Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is used fairly regular on his social media's it was on Coast Reporter. I did not take the original photo. This was the first time I uploaded a picture to wikipedia so I am unfamiliar with the procedure around it. If I did it wrong, oops. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Politicsenthusiast06: Courtesy note that I have tagged the image for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the policy on licensing media (the graphic is a good reference to refer back to whenever you want to upload images). Hiàn 15:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
Most of the arguments seem to already be presented here. Running so young is notable and he seems to be already making his mark. The sources are fine. Arguments for removing seem a bit flimsy and based on a seemingly false assumption. RobertR47 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ran for office at 18 too. I am not notable enough to have a wiki article, neither is this kid. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His candidacy is historic enough to earn a page. Carolebax (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? 18 year olds run in pretty much every election. There have been at least a half dozen between the 2019 and 2021 elections, most of whom are probably more notable for other reasons. None of them are here for the common denominator of they all lost. 2001:569:F085:B000:F81D:FABC:B22A:78FE (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's notable is that he ran at 17. Which would make him the youngest candidate to ever run. Hence why his candidacy is historic. Carolebax (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that notable? I personally did that myself in a previous election. It’s not some mythical story that comes once in a generation, it happens every time. 2605:B100:918:7F6C:388E:9117:BEB:1C4C (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said before you ran at 18. Did you really run in the last election at 17 or are you just making it up for the sake of your argument? Carolebax (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid argument; please clarify why you beleive this candidacy is notable. DeanWithersLover (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. If he really is "the youngest Canadian to seek elected office," he could be notable on that basis - however, that claim would need to be much more strongly supported in the article's sources - which are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of his campaigns. Just running for office, of course, is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Madg2011 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article for vanity purposes lol. Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that two account expressing "Keep" viewpoints here, RobertR47 and Carolebax, are both brand new accounts with zero-to-almost-zero activity outside of this deletion discussion. Sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion is not OK; refer to WP:BADSOCK Madg2011 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that the two accounts expressing "Delete " are just IP addresses, likely both under the control of the same person. RedBlueGreen93 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. What sources provide SIGCOV establishing notability? Just being "the youngest" isn't enough, even if it is true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant media attention from secondary sources and is very notable as the youngest candidate to seek elected office in Canada. RedBlueGreen93 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do you have? Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draftify, if it would be that historic there would be more sources discussing it than local news. We don't decide what's historic, we look at reliable sources and reflect that. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As previously stated User:Politicsenthusiast06 contributed most of the content to this page. While they have repeated the assertion they are not the candidate, they also have appeared to contribute information which does not appear to be publicly available (for instance, Rosenberg's exchange to Fulda, Germany). Using the Coast Reporter's digital archive tool Digital Archive, and reading all articles around the election, I could find no reference to this detail. Searching on My Powell River Now , I could also find no such reference. It is also not on Rosenberg's campaign page https://jagerrosenberg.ndp.ca/. Keyword searching google also showed no results. How would User:Politicsenthusiast06 know this then? It seems highly likely this was written by Rosenberg, and tracks with the account's history which includes repeated references to Rosenberg.
To address specific claims:
"making him the youngest Canadian to seek elected office" The only source for this claim is Rosenberg's campaign page which is not a neutral source. Rosenberg ran for the nomination for the NDP in the riding Powell River-Sunshine Coast https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/heres-who-is-considering-seeking-the-ndp-nomination-for-powell-river-sunshine-coast-8209413. However, Neill won the race, making Rosenberg NOT a candidate in the 2024 BC Provincial Election https://www.coastreporter.net/politics/randene-neill-wins-powell-river-sunshine-coast-ndp-mla-nomination-after-close-vote-9042891. To reiterate, as Rosenberg was not nominated, he was never a candidate for the BC NDP, making the claim he was the youngest candidate false. Moreover, even if you take the logic that he was the youngest running for nomination, this is not backed with any evidence, and local nomination races are not usually throughly documented, making the claim functionally impossible to verify.
"He holds dual Canadian and
German citizenship
." This does not seem notable, and while I have not sourced this claim it likely is another piece of evidence towards the page being authored by Rosenberg.
"Rosenberg is known for his advocacy on mental health, environmental issues, and democratic reform." While these are certainly topics he is interested, I can find no tangible action Rosenberg has taken. The source for this claims seems to be an
interview with the Coast Reporter
, where he expresses interest in these topics; however, given his lack of action I do not see this as notable.
Claims such as "His campaign received notable support" are not sourced, and the NDP have not released the voting data from the nomination. Rosenberg did not receive any other media coverage, nor any other quantifiable forms of support.
" ... included a notable endorsement from Avi Lewis". When you actually look at the source, Lewis says "this is not a formal endorsement"
Lewis's Post
. While supportive, labelling this as an endorsement is a gross and misleading misinterpretation of his words.
"Rosenberg's candidacy was officially approved very shortly before the vote and faced procedural obstacles" The
source given
does not mention this, making it an inaccurate citation. Also, while this is just conjecture, the "procedural obstacles" could likely be a a lack of support, as the nomination procedure usually includes acquiring a certain amount of supporters. I mention this because it could potentially contradict the claim of receiving notable support.
"Rosenberg's campaign was the first time a Canadian under the age of 18 was permitted to run for office, as he would have turned 18 by the time of swearing-in." This is simply not true. Just for reference, I found
this candidate
who was actually nominated, and ran for election. Again, Rosenberg lost the nomination race.
"... has volunteered with the Vote16 campaign". The source given does not mention this claim. A source for this claim cannot be found online, suggesting another instance where Rosenberg contributed to their own page.
"leading to unanimous support from the local NDP association". This is called acclamation. While a small critique, writing in this manner distorts the situation.
In conclusion
: This page should be deleted. It seems to have been written by the candidate and is rife with misleading and inaccurate claims.
DeanWithersLover (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Again I am not him. I wouldn't say I am close to him but I have met him before and follow his accounts including his personal pages. We are from the same general area.
  2. German Exchange and Fulda: The article references Rosenberg’s semester abroad in Germany, which was covered in Coast Reporter. The specific town (Fulda) is listed in a publicly accessible Facebook post by Rosenberg, which is also cited. While the Coast Reporter didn’t mention the city by name, both sources support the broader point.
  3. Candidate Page Information: It’s my understanding that the NDP candidate websites are managed centrally by the party itself rather than by individual candidates. I would generally assume a major party like the NDP would have internal fact checking to back up any claims they post on their websites.
  4. Candidacy Status: Rosenberg was officially (presumably) registered with Elections BC as a nomination contestant. In British Columbia, nomination races are a formal part of the electoral process and require financial disclosure and regulatory compliance. Just like in U.S. presidential primaries candidates are recognized to have run for President, even if the candidate does not win the nomination, so too should Rosenberg’s candidacy be considered valid and notable under Wikipedia’s criteria. He was not merely a declared aspirant; he was approved and participated in a regulated nomination election.
  5. Dual Citizenship: Rosenberg has publicly mentioned his dual citizenship—Canadian and German—on several occasions, especially on his personal (private) account and intermittently on his campaign one. Which is why I am aware of it and included it. That said, I agree that since there’s not currently a permanent public source stating this clearly (at least that I have found), it should be removed or marked with a citation needed tag until a more verifiable reference is available.
  6. Policy Focus: The article’s mentions of his focus on mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement come directly from a Coast Reporter interview and are consistent with his campaign materials.
  7. Avi Lewis: Lewis did offer strong praise of Rosenberg’s capabilities and platform early on, stating his endorsement was waiting on the nomination formally beginning. While that may not count as an official endorsement at the time, Lewis did later endorse Rosenberg—though I couldn’t find a strong enough source to cite that directly. But the NDP's press release and Coast Reporter article's wording around Lewis does also strongly indicate his support and likely endorsement of Rosenberg. Calling it "gross and misleading misinterpretation of his words" is a massive exaggeration.
  8. Procedural obstacles: This was written based on a Reddit thread I read about his supporters being prevented from voting. Based on conversations I've had, it seems to be a relatively widespread belief that there were issues in that particular race. But because I couldn't find any actual reliable sources on it I kept it very vague. On his Facebook he has a post about being formally approved as a nomination candidate, and it's dated very shortly before the nomination meeting date (June 8), I thought I had included that as a source but I guess I forgot.
  9. Vote16 Involvement: While I couldn't find third-party coverage of Rosenberg’s involvement in the Vote16 BC campaign, he’s posted about it multiple times in stories on Instagram. Since stories aren’t permanent, it might be justified to remove.
  10. Acclamation: The wording was based off the Coast Reporter article.
I think I covered more or less everything. Many of your points are valid, but I hope I cleared up some of the misconceptions. I still believe I was justified in making this article and that Rosenberg is noteworthy enough for this article to remain. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. However, I am still firmly in favour of Delete.
  1. I notice you've changed your story. On March 25, on Rosenberg's talk page you said "We're from the same area though and have probably met before". Now you say you "I have met him before". What has changed? Moreover, as you now claim to have a personal connection to the candidate, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's impossible to prove who you are, but it is possible to point out your account's alarming edit history.
  2. I appreciate the clarity. However, as the only source for the claim is a personal facebook post, this hardly seems notable for inclusion. Moreover, it points to a broader lack of substance regarding Rosenberg's candidacy.
  3. It's not possible to ascertain the NDP's internal processes in this scenario, and an assumption is not a valid base for a significant claim. You still have not provided any evidence for this claim, which, I note, you have repeated on numerous occasions in other articles. In addition, Rosenberg was never a candidate for office at 17. While he ran for nomination, he lost, which is significantly different than running for office.
  4. I never disputed that Rosenberg ran for nomination. However, you draw a false equivalency here: A presidential primary and a local provincial riding nomination differ significantly in notability. I reiterate my claim that his candidacy is not notable enough for a page.
  5. Thank you for acknowledging that. Adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy.
  6. You did not respond to my claim: I contested his notability in the areas of mental health, the environment, and youth enfranchisement, not whether these are his interests. I cannot find any notable action he has taken on any of these topics; if he is to be labeled as notable in these fields I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence.
  7. Calling something which is clearly labelled as "not a formal endorsement" and endorsement is a gross and misleading interpretation of his words. Yes, he indicates support, which I did not dispute, but he does not provide an endorsement. A "likely endorsement" is not an endorsement. An uncited endorsement is also not an endorsement. Moreover, I also dispute the relevance of an endorsement to the overall page; while certainly Avi Lewis is of note, not everything which he supports is notable.
  8. A reddit thread you read, or conversations you claim to have had are not a reliable base for even a vague claim. An accusation of this nature against the NDP's voting system is significant and potentially libellous. I can find no mention of this in local reporting, nor by the NDP. If you have any evidence, I would strongly encourage it, but as of now I strongly believe this claim is invalid. A late formal approval could indicate a variety of things, including, as I previously conjectured, a lack of support.
  9. Again, adding information from "his personal (private) account" is not a valid source for claims, and a violation of his privacy. Moreover, as the organization has seemed to make no reference to his involvement at any time, this seems highly irrelevant. Also, I question how you retain so many details about Rosenberg's prior stories, unless they are saved that seems quite odd.
  10. While this is of less note than the other issues, I will note that Wikipedia entries should not be simply based off of other wordings. Rather, they should prioritize accuracy and conciseness.
I believe my points remain valid. While it is impossible to know if you are Rosenberg, the specifics and inconsistencies seem quite evident. However, that is secondary to the main point of my disagreement: Rosenberg is not notable enough for a page.
  1. He has not won any elections for public office.
  2. Simply running for MP is not notable.
  3. Young candidates run for election all the time, it is not of significant importance.
  4. The media attention surrounding his campaign is insignificant, and is likely afforded to anyone who puts their name forward for election.
  5. The individual has done little of note beside attempting to run for office, leaving there insufficient information for a page.
  6. Many of the claims made about his notability are either demonstrably false, or severely unsubstantiated.
In conclusion, I maintain this page should be deleted. DeanWithersLover (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeanWithersLover has raised several key points here. There is no reason for this article to exist, even if the numerous problems with it were rectified. The sheer amount of misinformation, demonstrably false, or unsubstantiated claims here is incredible. 2001:569:F085:B000:1402:2C5C:CB35:C2B8 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP address, probably run by the same person, just repeating the same things. Carolebax (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any argument here. While you seem to be very confident the page should be deleted, you haven't provided any substantial evidence or arguments to back that up. Moreover, seems like an odd criticism from an account which has little to no history besides this page. DeanWithersLover (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna respond to the first thing said because the rest is more or less us just repeating the same points. And I respectfully disagree with you. As I said there is no conflict because me and him have no close or personal relationship. Before I said probably because I think I met him before but wasn't entirely sure. Now I know I have because I briefly met him at an event. Still no conflict however, I have also met Pierre Poilievre, John Rustad, Patrick Weiler, and other politicians, but have no personal relationship to any of them and try to keep any biases I have out of my edits. Also nomination candidates are legally candidates for election in BC and Canada, so it counts regardless of your own personal philosophy. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is repeating the same point: the article should be deleted. I find it quite telling that you will not respond to most the claims. If his candidacy was so notable, it should not be hard for you to argue.
I do not make my assessment of whether he was a candidate based upon "personal philosophy"; it is based off the definition provided in the Elections Act.
  1. Becoming a candidate is regulated under Section 63. For your reference: "An individual becomes a candidate when all the required nomination documents are accepted for filing and a certificate is issued by the district electoral officer under section 56 (8) or by the chief electoral officer under section 57 (8)"
  2. Now, referring to Section 56, a candidates nomination papers cannot be accepted until the time the election is called. The nomination meeting took place on June 8th, making it impossible for Rosenberg to have fulfilled this requirement.
  3. Referring to Section 57, while papers can be filed beforehand, they will not be processed until the election is called, again making it impossible for Rosenberg to have fulfilled this requirement.
  4. Rosenberg never appeared on the election ballot, and therefore was never a candidate.
To reiterate, Rosenberg was never an election candidate for the 2024 BC Provincial election, making him legally NOT a candidate.
While it is impossible to prove you (Politicsenthusiast06) aren't Rosenberg, let's recap:
  1. Your story on your relation to Rosenberg is inconsistent, and your only response is just you had a sudden recollection of "an event". Seems odd.
  2. You frequently have added claims about Rosenberg to a variety of pages, which seems like odd behaviour for someone with only passing knowledge. While not telling by itself, in combination with these other factors is odd.
  3. Your source for Rosenberg's Vote16 involvement is remembering Instagram stories from his private account, which seems incredibly strange for someone who couldn't even correctly remember if you had met.
  4. A new point: Looking at the edit history of your account, you have a variety of edits focussed on the German election. Note, that Rosenberg was also recently in Germany and claimed to have been involved in that election. Did you just happen to share the exact same interest in German politics, at the same time as Rosenberg?
  5. Similarly, you have also made edits relating to youth suffrage, such as on the Age of candidacy page. That is also a topic Rosenberg claims to be interested in. Just a coincidence?
  6. Your page for Rosenberg includes a variety of information which is poorly sourced and very difficult to impossible to find online. While I do not care to check every claim you have made, there seems to be a pattern of you retroactively finding sources that back up your claims. One that did stand out to me was Rosenberg's middle name: where did you obtain that information
I could go on, but the point is clear. DeanWithersLover (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a little side note: I notice that since my comment Politicsenthusiast06 has edited the page to change the middle name to simply "M" from the previous "Matthias". DeanWithersLover (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's what on the elections Canada page and 2025 Candidates Wikipedia page. Just making it consistent. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how those pages only include "M" yet you knew his full middle name. Perhaps it is publicly available, but by not actually responding to any of my claims you make it seem odd that you knew that information. DeanWithersLover (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Evidence of COI
Adding to my prior point about COI, I have found near-damning evidence showing that Politicsenthusiast06 is Rosenberg. While editing the page Randene Neill (who won the nomination for Powell River-Sunshine Coast), I found edits by Politicsenthusiast06 and 2 IP accounts on November 8th, 2024. The edits by the first IP account added detail including:
  1. Calling the nomination contest "hotly contested"
  2. Adding "Jäger Rosenberg - who was the young person to ever run for office in Canadian history, still being 17 at the time of the vote"
The second IP account fixed a citation error from the previous edit 20 minutes later. Looking at the IP addresses of the edits, the first was made by 2003:c5:bf3a:9d81:e868:2de9:27fd:93c5 and the second by 2003:c5:bf3a:9d81:b4e6:ac40:c33d:d519. Using https://ipinfo.io/, these addresses both trace to Fulda, Hesse, Germany (account 1)(account 2). This is during the time Rosenberg was in Fulda as confirmed on his facebook.
Now linking Politicsenthusiast06 to these edits. The account Politicsenthusiast06 was created on November 8th, 2024 at the same time as the IP account edits. Nine minutes after the second IP account edit, the account Politicsenthusiast06 makes its first edit, editing the page to continue adding more detail about Neill.
-
At this point, there is overwhelming evidence that Politicsenthusiast06 is Rosenberg. This article exists only for vanity purposes. DeanWithersLover (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan M'Bango

[edit]
Bryan M'Bango (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)

Made three appearances for SC Bastia over two Ligue 2 seasons. A web search for "Bryan M'Bango Bastia" finds nothing remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV. There may be offline sources but it seems unlikely. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Venezuela at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Swimming as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge van Balen

[edit]
Jorge van Balen (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. The added source does not appear reliable. Worldgn appears to be a marketing website. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. WP:SK#2a. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Germany

[edit]
Alliance for Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOCK Namealreadytak (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That alliance formed the united German government. Don't see why it should be deleted. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giok Djan Khoe

[edit]
Giok Djan Khoe (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 an AFC reviewer I accepted this as a draft on the basis that it was likely that an emeritus professor passes WP:NPROF. This version, the one I accepted, was poor, but I trusted the community to work with it. The issue is that this has now been turned into an advert by an editor who appears to be the subject of the article. I might have flagged it for CSD as an advert, but choose to ask the community to discuss it. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop editing. The editors asked to add categories, citations and links and I was trying to fix just that. I received a lot of encouragements to continue editing. I had difficulties at the beginning with the editing format but found out how to do that properly. I hope that the article will not be deleted because of my actions. Khoe0005 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep. A highly inappropriate nomination; just because there appears to be COI is not grounds for an AfD. His Google Scholar h-factor of 50 qualifies for WP:NPROF#C1; Fellow of IEEE, Optics and other awards fly through #C2-#C3. This is definitely not an advert, it is a non-peacock academic page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above per WP:PROF #C1 and #C3. The autobiographical edits should indeed stop but they are not a good reason for deletion (we could instead merely block the editor from editing this article if necessary) and in this case did not appear to have problematic effect — listing awards that we should list anyway is encyclopedic rather than promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR: Erroneous nomination 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the nomination to delete is withdrawn, but it still shows on the article page ? Khoe0005 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are merely waiting for someone not already involved to notice that it has been withdrawn and close the nomination. I would do it myself if only I hadn't already !voted. It should happen soon enough, anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cramer

[edit]
Clayton Cramer (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)

Proposing deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Cramer played an important role in a scandal about the book Arming America and is an adjunct professor at College of Western Idaho.[1] I have found no evidence that he meets an NACADEMIC criterion and insufficient coverage for BASIC.

Of the current references, [2][3][4] are by Cramer; [5][6] are not about Cramer; [7] is run-of-the-mill primary election results. I found additional references[8][9][10] that mention Cramer in passing, apropos his role in the Arming America scandal. Even if this coverage was more extensive, it would fail Wikipedia:BLP1E.

References

  1. ^ "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.
  2. ^ "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
  3. ^ Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
  4. ^ My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.
  5. ^ "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
  6. ^ "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
  7. ^ "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
  8. ^ Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.
  9. ^ Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.
  10. ^ Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.
userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only scandal about Michael Bellesiles book, Arming America, was the content of the book itself and the fact that virtually all the purported history contained in the book was fraudulent. How this should in any way be cited as a reason for deleting a Wikipedia article on Clayton E. Cramer, who has published several historical books none of which have been accused of using falsified source material, is incomprehensible. Wally3438 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I mentioned Cramer's role in the Arming America scandal for context, not as an argument for deletion. Cheers :) userdude 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we keep a standalone article, or merge/redirect to the subject's clearly notable book?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you refer to as "the subject's clearly notable book"? None of Cramer's books have a Wikipedia page. userdude 04:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzor Ngoladi

[edit]
Uzor Ngoladi (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:NWRITER as a writer or journalist and fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Albalag

[edit]
Isaac Albalag (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 known sources exist in this article. It contains some general references but lacks inline citations, which means its near to not becoming notable on Wikipedia. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Participants are encouraged to add sources to this article and also, in the future. not to make meaningless comments like "sourcing is whatever" (talking to you, User:Ramos1990). Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Bay, Tanzania

[edit]
Oyster Bay, Tanzania (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 of article not notable Munfarid1 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Bitch (disambiguation)

[edit]
Psycho Bitch (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)

With only one article with this title, this is an unnecessary disambiguation page. Hat note at Psycho Bitch should be sufficient. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How It Should Have Ended

[edit]
How It Should Have Ended (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)

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [12] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About coverage on Screen Rant as it relates to notablity for our purposes here, I will say this: Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep After spending more time searching, I am leaning keep for How It Should Have Ended. It has received some attention by academics studying youtube channels and was noted for having deep community engagement (i.e. many community members contributing to subtitle translation): [13] (unfortunately source may be paywalled for most users). There are the awards that have been noted. When it comes to animation/comic movies, I think having Stan Lee cameo in your work (and ask you animate his own how it should have ended episode) also suggests notability, though I recognize this is an unorthodox reason. The mentions in books sources are also suggestive of notability as the channel is receiving some academic attention. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read full passages to better establish notability/sigcov.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Young Labour (UK). Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Young Labour

[edit]
West Yorkshire Young Labour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing much found to suggest that a county-level youth branch of a national political party would be notable. The one reference on the page does not appear to be directly about the subject of the page JMWt (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Young Labour (UK). An editor from Mars (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2024–25 NBA season as an WP:ATD. Plausible enough search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Timberwolves-Detroit Pistons brawl

[edit]
Minnesota Timberwolves-Detroit Pistons brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable NBA fight, with no long-term significance. Yes, players were ejected, and there are upcoming suspensions, but the longest suspension handed down is 2 games ([14]).

Comparisons to the Malice at the Palace are hyperbole, and this will be forgotten in a month or so. Content from this article could be merged into the season articles for the Timberwolves and Pistons if desired. Natg 19 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this option. Didn't consider that target initially. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article, I think that a merger or redirect may be possible. However, I do feel like this event that caught national news should be considered as a maybe keep. I mean, there are 7 million articles on English Wikipedia don't you think that this isn't in the 7 million most significant event in modern history. CostalCal (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reasons to keep. We explicitly have the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Kiarashi

[edit]
Alireza Kiarashi (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)

Previously salted as Alireza kiarashi. No clear evidence of notability, and riddled with promotional trivialities. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are no promotional items. All sources are correct. This article follows all Wikipedia policies. Please do not give personal opinions on a topic. Shayanbehrad10 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not giv[ing] personal opinions. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article should be deleted because the subject of the article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Specifically, the artist has not received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Literally, the Google news search for this artist comes up completely empty. - tucoxn\talk 10:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlacVolta

[edit]
BlacVolta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable digital company; the sources are either paid or not with reliable coverage of the subject (based on interviews or press-releases) Unicorbia (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Market Adventures

[edit]
Meet Market Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. No significant coverage found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albana Bilalli

[edit]
Albana Bilalli (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)

After being deleted less than six months ago, this promotional page is back, different enough that it's not G4-able but still with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The sources are music database pages, marketing copy for events, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS ([15]), her Spotify page, and brief tabloid-y mentions of her videos/singles being available ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) -- not any independent reviews that confirm NMUSIC eligibility. (I didn't find anything else in my BEFORE search, but of course open to reviewing other sources should they be found, considering they are mostly in Albanian.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG or NMUSIC. WiinterU 17:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the source analysis done by the nominator and come to the same conclusion that the subject does not meet NMUSIC, ANYBIO or the GNG criteria. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still has very poor sourcing. Most of the sources given are at most one paragraph of text and a link to a Youtube video. Could be seen as promotional, but with the limited sourcing, should be deleted. I find no sources about this individual either. I don't see proof of a charted single, a major album release or anything else we'd use for musical notability. Simply appearing at an Expo in Dubai is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - there is at least one reliable source, Telegrafi, but that still doesn't make it significant coverage. It's a good try anyway. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since the previous AfD she seems to have placed some press releases with more prestigious news sources (as noted by the last voter), but they are still basic introductions and promotional statements that do not add up to significant coverage. To be charitable, let's go with too soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources or coverage. Does not deserve to exist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: I strongly oppose the deletion of the article about Albana Bilalli and request that it be kept.

While I acknowledge that the article could benefit from additional sources, I believe it is premature to delete it entirely. Albana Bilalli has demonstrated clear notability in the music industry, even if she is still in the early stages of her career. The existing sources, while not extensive, do provide insight into her work, and there is potential for more significant coverage as her career progresses.

It's important to recognize that not all musicians receive immediate widespread media attention, but that does not automatically disqualify them from notability. Many notable musicians started with smaller, niche audiences and gradually built their reputation. Albana Bilalli has already gained some recognition within her field, and with time, more reliable, independent sources will likely surface.

Instead of deleting the article, I propose that we give it more time to develop. The article can be improved with additional sources as they become available, and I firmly believe that it will meet notability standards in the future. A quick deletion would disregard the potential for growth in her career and limit the article's ability to reflect this over time.

Thank you for reconsidering the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWanderer87 (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: WikiWanderer87 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Your concerns are addressed in Wikipedia's "too soon" policy. In short, if she qualifies for an article in the future then an article can be accepted at that time but not now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buçe Ambush

[edit]
Buçe Ambush (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)

Looks like a minor event in the grand scheme of a war that doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. The only reference in the article that actually discusses the incident, "prizrenpress.com", is a non-RS web portal that describes the insurgents as "brave", "freedom fighters" and "martyrs". Griboski (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's more than one source used, but to meet notability, a topic should be given more than trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The Serbian military website only lists the name and date of the soldier killed, without even mentioning the battle. --Griboski (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Serb Military Website says „He died in a Military Operation trying to capture a Terrorist Group“ It describes the Battle. Also if there aren’t much sources the Battle happend and the Soldiers died why would you want to delete that if the Battle was real? Diti04ZOP (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is no support for deletion beyond the nominator and a robust consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaean colonization of Africa

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sabaean colonization of 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)

The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History is a high quality tertiary source that summarises the literature, and in Documentary Sources and Methods for Precolonial African History (2018) it says

Thanks to archaeological and linguistic research, scholars now know Aksum was preceded by a state in inland northern Ethiopia and Eritrea that by the first millennium bce appears in epigraphic evidence as D’MT or Daamat. Damaat, centered at Yeha, was long understood in connection with political and economic contacts with ancient Egypt and Saba in South Arabia as well as the expansion of Roman trade into the Indian Ocean in the early first millennium ce. Saba is generally associated with the biblical Sheba, the famous queen said to reign in the early 10th century bce, at the same time as Solomon. Until the 1980s, scholars viewed the emergence of the state as the consequence of the colonization of the Horn of Africa by Sabaeans from South Arabia in the early first millennium bce.

According to this narrative, South Arabians colonized indigenous populations and, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in Yemen (4th–3rd centuries bce), they created the kingdom of Aksum in Tigray. The assumption derived from the early modern myth that Africans were not capable of producing complex states themselves, and thus state formation must have been the result of external colonization or influence.

In fact, neither archaeological, epigraphic, nor linguistic evidence supports Sabaean influence or the sudden rise of a polity that would suggest colonization. Rather, evidence demonstrates Damaat was preceded by complex societies dating back to the beginning of the third millennium bce. This is significant because it demonstrates that the formation of the states of Damaat (and later Aksum) were the result of local historical developments, likely driven by the integration of the Horn of Africa into the economic networks of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea, a process that began in late prehistoric times, rather than external colonization or influence.

In summary, it's a colonial narrative based on the Hamitic hypothesis. The source Japp et al 2011 used to cite The Sabean colonisation of Africa was a process of colonization by Sabaeans that occurred in the Horn of Africa during the first millennium BC in the lead does not support it, the closest thing it says is

One research opinion, based on archaeological and epigraphic finds, assumes a Sabaean colonization of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in the first millennium ВС and the South Arabian origin of the political system during that period (Bent 1893: 134-151; Anfray 1967: 49-50; 1968: 353; de Contenson 1981: 354; Fattovich 1997: 341).

, citing old sources. It’s conclusion is frankly a bit unserious and doesn’t mention colonisation. It’s almost pure grandiose speculation based on one assumption that other scholars have dismantled. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing Jstor:
Edit: these were from a survey of Jstor searching "Daamat Sabaean"
  • Fattovich 2010

    Until the 1980s, most Ethiopianists assumed that a state emerged on the highlands in Eritrea and Tigray as a consequence of a South Arabian (mainly Sabean) colonization of the northern Horn of Africa in the early 1st millennium BC. According to this reconstruction, the South Arabian colonists dominated the local populations, and after the decline of the Kingdom of Saba in Yemen in the 4th-3rd century BC they gave rise to a local kingdom with the capital at Aksum in Tigray. The Aksumite kingdom progressively incorporated the whole region into its territory and laid the foundation of the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia, which survived until the 1970s. This hypothesis was mainly based on the indisputable evidence of a South Arabian influence in Eritrea and Tigray in the mid-1st millennium BC (Conti Rossini 1928; Ullendorff 1973; Ricci 1984). Beginning in the 1960s, this narrative has been challenged by archaeological research, which suggests that the development of complex societies and states in Tigray and Eritrea was not a linear process of state formation, consolidation and decline, but consisted of at least two distinct trajectories to social complexity, indirectly related to each other, in the Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands and the Eritrean and Tigrean highlands respectively. This process was characterized by a shift in the location of complex societies from the lowlands to the highlands in the early 1st millennium BC (Fattovich 1997b).

Concludes:

At present, the development of early complex societies and states in the northern Horn of Africa can be tentatively outlined as follows: 1. In the 4th millennium BC, an incipient hierarchical society emerged along the middle Atbara valley. 2. In the early 3rd millennium BC these people moved northwards, following the progressive shift of the Gash river to the present delta, and occupied a strategic position as a gateway to the sources of frankincense, gold, and ivory in the lowlands and along the western slopes of the highlands. 3. In mid-3rd to mid-2nd millennia BC a complex society consolidated itself in the Gash Delta, and was part of an exchange circuit with Egypt, Nubia and southern Arabia. 4. Beginning in the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Gash Delta was cut off from the exchange network with Nubia and Egypt, although a hierarchical society survived in the region. At the same time people culturally related to the occupants of the Gash Delta occupied the Barka valley and acted as intermediaries between the Nile Valley and/or the coast and the highlands. 5. In the early 1st millennium BC, the progressive inclusion of the highlands into the South Arabian area of commercial expansion most likely stimulated the rise of hierarchical societies in Eritrea. 6. In the mid-1st millennium BC, an early state arose in northern Tigray and central Eritrea, maybe as a commercial partner of the Yemeni kingdom of Saba. 7. In the late 1st millennium BC, the pre-Aksumite state disappeared in Tigray. A new polity emerged at Aksum and was included into the Roman trade circuit of the Red Sea. 8. In the early to mid-1st millennium AD, the kingdom of Aksum was consolidated as a large territorial state, becoming an important commercial partner of the Roman and Byzantine empires. 9. In the late 1st millennium AD, the kingdom progressively declined, most likely because of environmental crises, migrations from the Eastern Desert, and the Arab commercial and political expansion along the Red Sea.

  • D'Andrea et al 2008 says

    Inscriptions make reference to a kingdom named Daamat, which has been described as an Ethio-Sabaean state, but the nature and extent of this polity remains uncertain (Fattovich 1988, 1990; Fattovich et al. 2000; Munro-Hay 1993). This PreAksumite kingdom had roots in local cultures but also experienced strong South Arabian cultural and economic influences (Anfray 1973; Fattovich 1988,2004; Munro-Hay 1991; D. Phillipson 1998; Curtis 2004). Recent research has proposed that the origins of social complexity in the highlands were the result of multiple factors, including increasing aridity and the elaboration of cultural exchange networks extending across eastern Africa and the Red Sea (Curtis 2007).

  • Sernicola 2021

    The nature and extent of the connections with South Arabia have also seen considerable controversies and revisions over the years. These range from the claim of a Sabaean colonisation of the northern Horn (Bent 1893; Conti Rossini 1928; Robin, de Maigret 1998)

    (citing old sources and talks about this no more)
  • Fattovich 2012

    The origin, development, and nature of the "D'MT" polity as well as itsrelation to the later kingdom of Aksum are virtually unknown, as the archaeological record is very scant and textual sources provide only fragmentary and ambiguous information (D. W. Phillipson, 2009, 2012, pp. 22-41)

At the core of the scholarly debate about "D'MT" is the role of South Arabs in the formation of this complex society. The occurrence of nine sites in central Eritrea, eastern and central Tigray with evidence of monumental buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style, as well as Sabaic inscriptions in South Arabian script (de Contenson, 1981; Anfray1990, pp. 17-63; Fattovich, 1977, 1990a; Bernard, Drewes and Schneider, 1991tpp. 67-83; Finneran, 2007, pp. 117-141; D. W. Phillipson, 2012, pp.24-32), has suggested two different interpretations. Scholars emphasizing the South Arabian elements claim that a South Arabian tribe migrated to the Tigrean highlands and/or Sabeans colonized the region and imposed their dominion on the indigenous people in the early to mid-lst millennium BCE (Bent, 1893, pp. 134-151; Glaser, 1895; Conti Rossini, 1928, pp. 99-101; Sergew Hable Selassie, 1972, pp. 26-34; Ullendorff, 1973, p. 47; Ricci, 1984; Japp, Gerlach, Hitgen and Schnelle, 2011; Gerlach, 2012).

(citing old sources, other than Japp et al 2011 mentioned above, and Gerlach 2012)

Scholars stressing the local component (mainly pottery and lithics) of "D'MT" stress an indigenous origin of this polity, suggesting that local elite used South Arabian elements as symbols of power in the mid- 1st millennium BCE (Anfray, 1969; Schneider, 1976a; Fattovich, 1977 1990a, 2004; J. Phillips, 2004; Curtis, 2008; Manzo, 2009). According to several scholars, a few South Arabs settled in the African highlands and spread elements of their culture among the local population (Anfray, 1994; Scheneider, 2003; Fattovich, 2010).

(citing more recent sources)
  • Phillipson 2009:

    By at least the mid-eighth century bc, monumental stone architecture and inscriptions were being produced in the northern Horn, in both cases in styles very close to those used in southern Arabia, although the language of most- but not all- of the inscriptions showed significant local differences. It is probable that these elements were the prerogative of élite sectors, whose distinctiveness and prestige they served to emphasise. At this time or shortly afterwards (the date cannot be determined precisely), small numbers of immigrants from southern Arabia may have arrived in what is now Tigray. Their separate identity as a distinct population element may have been very short-lived, raising the possibility that individual specialists- e.g., masons- rather than family groups may have been involved. From this time onwards, cultural elements originating in southern Arabia seem to have been adopted by sections of the indigenous population- particularly the élite- to a very varying extent. Indeed, long-distance influences may be detected with other regions also, notably with the Nile valley. At Yeha, a scattered population seems to have been drawn together by the establishment of an élite centre. Local rulers are indicated, owing no demonstrable allegiance to contemporaries in southern Arabia. Elsewhere, as in the Asmara region, there is very little evidence for foreign cultural elements or for the presence of local élites. Stimulating suggestions by Curtis (2008) notwithstanding, the reasons for these developments remain poorly understood.

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This WP:WALLOFTEXT afd nom with literally no arguments at all of a well sourced article that has 24 sources supporting the fact that a colonization had happened where the nominator just quotes random paragraphs from sources (some of which are almost a decade old). They completely ignored the message that I left in the talk page of this article where I brought up the fact that there was a conquest of the region by Karib'il Watar which triggered the colonization process but instead of replying, they nominated this article for deletion, placed a pov tag on the section of the sheba article where the invasion was mentioned (which was cited by new and high quality sources) and canvassed the discussion with User:Havenseye (who they know damn well that they want this article gone and had no reasons for that except that they dont like this article's existence, see Talk:Sheba#removal) and placed the exact same quote from the oxford source which has no mentions of the conquest. I also find it very weird that they had to mention that the sources they are bringing up in this discussion are "not cherrypicked" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 19:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, per WP:APPNOTE, it is appropriate to notify users involved in previous discussions. I can only assume that if you are not WP:POVPUSHING, then you haven't read the sources on the page. They do not support a "colonisation", and the one that does is from 1895. The other one, Munro-Hay 1991, attributes what he says to Michel 1986, nearly 40 years old. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually made a mistake pinging only that user. I'd already notified Abo Yemen and assumed the other person in the discussion was a 3O based off a glance, but the 3O had been declined. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of quotations given say that no colonization happened , what they say is its disputable that this caused complexity in the area or created Dmt. The article already mentions this under Cultural features - "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do, the first quote disputes it totally. The others either say Daamat was indigenous in origin and were influenced by Sabaean culture, or that the Sabaean influence came from migrations to the region. None say there was a colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading it disputes that the rise of Dmt indicates a Sabaean colonization. And the absence of the affirmation of "colonization" is undecisive as you have selected the sources. Even if you succeed in challenging the colonization angle, the deletion is rejected as the sources like Nebes 2023 and Schulz 2024 call Dmt an Ethio-Sabaean kingdom and discuss Sabaean migrations into the area and describe a lot of cultural and political and architectural influence. This should be a rename discussion not a deletion discussion. Pogenplain (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not “selected the sources”, I did survey of Jstor searching “Daamat Sabaean”. Migration is not colonisation, not even close. And regardless, we would need recent sources calling this a colonisation which there aren’t. I’m going to try to stop now as I think I’ve made myself clear. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please open a rename discussion to Sabaean migrations into Africa, we dont need to delete a well sourced page on a notable subject. Pogenplain (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what others think, but given the above I have little faith in the rest of the sourcing. What’s salvageable could be merged to Dʿmt? Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the best way for us to cover the origins of Daamat, Dʿmt is very underdeveloped, I plan to add to it from the above sources and cover the two POVs in recent sources, briefly mentioning the colonial narrative and Japp et al. Preemptively addressing a rename and rewrite, I don’t think we need an article on this.
Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A well-sourced article with 24 sources against a low-quality revisionist history expressing a minority view. The suggestion is ridiculous. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the article discusses Sabaean influence, which no one is disputing. This is about colonisation, only mentioned twice in the article, cited by Japp et al 2011 and two others which don’t support it, and by Munro-Hay 1991 and one from 1894 which are far too old. Calling the output of the ORE revisionist history as a pejorative is frankly laughable. Have you read the quotes or any of the sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of African history is revisionist, it was first written by colonisers. See African historiography#History Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is the deletion rationale here? If x sources say it didn't happen, while y sources said it did then balance the article out for a neutral point of view. You can't just toss out credible sources because you disagree with them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is that if we’re going to retitle and rewrite an article, we might as well delete it and create a new one. I’m not throwing out any recent sources, as discussed at Talk:Sheba#African conquests I would still include Japp et al, but it is only one source among many and only supports a Sabaean conquest, not colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you are suggesting WP:TNT then? Remember that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, if there are problems that can be fixed then this isn't the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is only my 2nd AFD (in my first one I think someone said it was the worst one they’d ever seen). WP:TNT says Similarly, WP:ATD states: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of viewpolicies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Imo this severely fails NPOV and ought to be deleted. TNT would mean we’d have to also go through an RM, where again I’d have to list quotes that demonstrate its not NPOV, which just uses more community time. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feel hard to think that it severely fails NPOV when there is a part of the page called "Criticism of the Sabean colonization hypothesis". And it says as well, "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how NPOV works. Weight has to be proportional to its a appearance in sources. When there is only one source in the last 25 years tentatively supporting the colonisation POV (Avanzini 2016 which isn’t even cited in the article, and just says Japp et al’s Sabaean conquest seems like colonisation), it is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I’ve quoted two sources above which say that this POV fell out of favour by the 1980s, and the ORE (imo the best source on African history out there) completely refutes it. But because people keep assuming bad faith and can’t be bothered to read quotes or do a survey themselves (and my nom didn’t include a deletion rationale), this looks like it’s going to be kept. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Kowal2701: you've made more than 10 comments on this discussion (WP:BLUDGEONING) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation

[edit]
School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation (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 School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation was an academic unit of Arizona State University. Though the article claims it was established in 1998, referring to when the Polytechnic campus began offering courses in education, it appears to have properly been founded effective January 2006. In a major reorganization in 2009, this school was subsumed by the College of Teacher Education and Leadership (in order to have one teacher preparation school on all four campuses). In 2010, CTEL and another unit were combined into the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, which mentions SEITP by name.
On its own, this unit fails the WP:GNG. Significant coverage is nonexistent. A search of The Arizona Republic reveals only 14 hits, none of which are in-depth articles specifically about the school. A search in ProQuest turns up just 21 results, some of them duplicates with the Republic and others in mentions of journal article writers' academic affiliations.
Contested WP:BLAR. Disclosed paid editor on behalf of ASU. Melted Brie (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThePapare

[edit]
ThePapare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources is about the subject of the article. There is no mention of this subject in it's supposed parent company Dialog Axiata article, therefore I am unable to request a redirect to the parent company article but if found to be a subsidiary of that parent company, then redirect. Mekomo (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ThePapare is not a subsidiary of Dialog Axiata. Instead, Dialog Axiata serves as a sponsor and broadcasting partner for ThePapare. This collaboration is evident from ThePapare’s official website, which states "© Copyright 2024 - ThePapare Powered by Dialog." This indicates a sponsorship or partnership rather than ownership.

Additionally, ThePapare operates as an independent sports media platform, providing comprehensive coverage of Sri Lankan sports through live updates, news articles, and live streaming services. This independence further supports the distinction between ThePapare and Dialog Axiata.

Therefore, redirecting ThePapare’s article to Dialog Axiata would be inappropriate, as the two entities maintain a partnership rather than a parent-subsidiary relationship.

Here's a link as proof ThePapare - About Us

— ✦ KurumbaKing ✦ — (talk) KurumbaKing (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's promotional then, thank you for explaining it. That helps with the discussion about notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleos insurance

[edit]
Eleos insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability, as it is primarily supported by limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The nomination claims Eleos Insurance lacks notability due to limited sources and insufficient significant coverage. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Just a search on Google news highlights many. They seem to have partnerships with well-known financial companies. Additionally, industry papers & media have covered Eleos’s role extensively. All these points to a level of recognition and impact that supports notability beyond limited scope. Bytanco (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful, see WP:ORGTRIV. There is not much in mainstream media. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caprinos Pizza

[edit]
Caprinos Pizza (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)

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone, failing to provide enough credible, verifiable content to justify its presence as a standalone entry on Wikipedia. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- WinterJunpei :3 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Review: Colchester Caprinos a great option for pizza-lovers". Daily Gazette. 2024-03-03. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.

      The review notes: "Caprinos Pizza opened in North Station Road last September. ... Walking in, I was instantly very impressed by the décor, which felt modern and clean. I was greeted warmly by a staff member and the service was quick, not just because I was the only one there. After deliberating and then realising I was actually not that hungry, I decided to go for a small margherita pizza with a BBQ dip, as well as a side of fries. For just £9.48, £6.99 of which was for the pizza, the price was definitely a positive. It was a short ten-minute wait for the cooking and prep before I collected the goods and headed home to try it out. I was pleasantly surprised with the pizza itself. It was full of flavour and tasted delicious. ... The fries were a little disappointing. However - as with many things, they were made better by the dipping sauce."

    2. Aldridge, James (2024-09-27). "Pizza chain in Reading could keep selling food at 4am". Reading Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.

      The article notes: "Caprinos Pizza in Wokingham Road is a chain takeaway that serves up a range of pizzas, sides, salads, wraps, desserts, milkshakes and more. Caprinos is a growing chain, opening up in Reading in the Spring of 2021, taking over from the closed Christian Community Action charity shop. It has nearly 100 takeaways in the UK, with other locations in Thatcham, Newbury and Slough. The chain is a decade old, with the first Caprinos Pizza opening 20 miles away in Didcot in 2014."

    3. Manuschka, Jacob (2024-08-08). "Oxford United kit to feature Caprinos Pizza logo this season". Bicester Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.

      The article notes: "Oxford United has partnered with a pizza company in a deal which will see the firm become the official sleeve sponsor of the men's team. Caprinos Pizza, a chain founded in Oxfordshire, will sponsor the team for the 2024/25 season. ... Established in 2014, Caprinos Pizza has expanded to now have 99 stores across the UK, Ireland and Pakistan. In 2021, it opened its 40th branch, in Northcourt, Abingdon, having started with a store in Broadway, Didcot. ... The pizza takeaway service quickly became extremely popular within Didcot, causing the owners to branch out to other towns across the South East."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caprinos Pizza to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The news articles of this chain are limited to local papers talking about new stores opening. The only exceptions are a couple articles saying that one franchise wanted to open late and a local paper saying that they sponsored a regional football team. Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is like Jimbo Wales writing about his the restaurant he went to and WP isn't Wikivoyage, so Delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to United Arab Emirates at the 1984 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdullah (Emirati athlete)

[edit]
Mohamed Abdullah (Emirati athlete) (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. The added source when translated is a mere 1 line mention of this athlete and not SIGCOV. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Abughazaleh

[edit]
Kat Abughazaleh (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 have never seen a random House candidate be considered to pass WP:NOTABLE prior to an election, let alone the primary. Jesus, we've had primary winners in D/R+25 districts who are all but guaranteed victory in the general not get articles published until they're officially members-elect. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist having two articles about her prior to a campaign does not meet GNG imo, let alone using that very thin standing to crack the door open and prop up essentially a promotional piece article dedicated to her primary campaign. We don't have articles for the abysmal primary campaigns by Matt Lieberman for GA Senate in 2010 or Levi Sanders for NH-01 in 2018 that both got fairly ample press coverage. Mondaire Jones didn't have an article in main space at least until after the 2020 primary with a ton of press in the lead up. Diana Harshbarger didn't move into mainspace until after the 2020 general in a district who's primary she won with an R+30 Cook PVI. I can't think of any other "insurgent challenger" or "progressive/MAGA in a crowded primary" candidate getting an article this early in recent memory, let alone on their first campaign and before they even win the nomination. Marie Newman/Cori Bush had at least run before; Ayanna Pressly/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib and Jake LaTurner/Katie Arrington were elected officials already. AOC was a totally unique bombshell campaign that I'm 95% sure didn't have an article until after she'd won the primary. I don't think Lauren Boebert had an article until she succeeded in primarying Tipton, Bob Good didn't after primarying Riggleman with a ton of press coverage until after the general. This reeks so much of WP:RECENTISM to me. She wouldn't have had an article on the standing of just those two articles alone before this campaign, and the coverage of her launch like 18months before the election does not uniquely distinguish her to merit an article compared to all these others to me. Nothing personal to you here, to be clear, it is just boggling to me what makes this candidate so different. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this to say, I think this does fall under WP:BLP1E, and we should wait until the primary to see if she wins before considering an article at that point. Not to go too far down that road, but think in general that if she beats Schakowsky, a very lontime and notable incumbent, in the primary with this wealth of news coverage that it would merit an article. But if Schakowsky announces a retirement, based on past first time candidates winning in heavily partisan districts (like Harshbarger or Brandon Gill this cycle, who was himself a cuspy semi-notable online person based on his father-in-law) that we've held off until the general to move them into the mainspace. In the former scenario, the primary win over the incumbent is the notable event regardless of eventual victory in the general. In the latter, even if the chances of her losing are extremely small, I would agree with those other past editors in viewing it as still under WP:CRYSTAL because life/politics does happen and she could lose; and I can't see a case for a failed one-time nominee who vied for a retiring member's seat meriting an article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went into this discussion expecting to !vote delete and was surprised to find what I decided was GNG-qualifying coverage. Both articles pre-date the campaign by years, so they're not the same event. What happened to other article subjects is irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF; in this case we should look at the sources in front of us. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and fundamentally disagree that an article based on those two pieces would pass muster either. I would support deleting any article with just those two events. And while I hear you about OTHERSTUFF and frequently think the "rules"/"guidelines" of wikipedia are over enforced by some users here like they're international law over using WP:COMMONSENSE, I think the very strong history of practice has been wise. Again raising RECENTISM and CRYSTAL, I strongly feel the primary at a minimum should be the determining factor moving from draftspace to mainspace. The campaign was launched one week ago with a flood of (much of it likely planned) media attention; that's smart campaign tactics! There's no evidence as to the efficacy of her campaign maintaining this level of momentum and attention beyond week one. I just can't see the encyclopedic/editorial case for it at this stage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TOOSOON. I've gone back as far as Gnews will allow, and you can only find articles about the run for office (in Rolling Stone, the Washington Post and others), but these are all in the last week, some going back as far as last fall. All entirely related to the political run. Outside of that, doesn't appear to have been known enough for being an "influencer" or any of the other things listed. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time today with paywalled sources and found commentary on the prominence and influence of her media work in 2023 and mid-2024, significantly before she ran for office. I also found some coverage of her social media influence in 2022. I've added these to the article accordingly. Sumana Harihareswara 02:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see articles going back "years" mostly from late in 2023. "Online person does stuff and people talked about it/didn't like it" is about the extent of the two sources used. Had this person not been running for office, they wouldn't be notable as an influencer due to a lack of sourcing. Running for office doesn't put them over the hump for notability. Could always revisit in six months, if they win. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, the primary will be between in March to June 2026 next year, and not in six months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very extensively elaborate in the discussion and support moving it back into draftspace, so the accusation that it's just IDONTLIKEIT is off base. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect someone voting in this nom to know your full backstory with this article and you should've disclosed that in your rationale to begin with and just neutrally commented about why you're seeking an AfD decision. That said, the article has been expanded and WP:HEYed with good sourcing, so I'm now a keep vote. Nathannah • 📮 21:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like I can expect them to read the preceding discussion. But... hey. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: at least a half of the article is based on (authoritative) material written in 2023-2024, prior to her campaign, and describes her as an influencer/internet personality Opostylov (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In 2023, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed were covering her work, in detail. In 2024, Politico and The New Republic named her a political commentator/influencer to watch, and she was influential enough that the Democratic National Convention wanted her there in person. (I've improved the article to include those -- as well as 2022 coverage of her social media influence, which also speaks to WP:SUSTAINED.) Those periodical articles, and regard demonstrated for her media criticism work, indicate that the subject fulfills WP:JOURNALIST. Sumana Harihareswara 02:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wth the improvements by Sumanah, we're in WP:HEY territory for this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yogodyan

[edit]
Yogodyan (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)

Zero reliable in-depth sources in current article (2 of the 3 sources are deadlinks). Search turned up the same, zero in-depth from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 10:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. No support for deletion beyond the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BGG correspondence

[edit]
BGG correspondence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Haraszti

[edit]
Péter Haraszti (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 notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A lot of media references are personally relevant. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Corrigan

[edit]
Kate Corrigan (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)

Minor fictional character; article sourced entirely to primary sources, a quick search didn't reveal any substantial secondary sources. Not notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Kumar Bijli

[edit]
Sanjeev Kumar Bijli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his corporate role. Most references focus on his position at PVR Cinemas rather than demonstrating substantial independent recognition Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Interviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 2405:201:10:C288:F5F0:B96B:9BA6:C496 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the sources listed by the second IP would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at the second set of sources above, most are written by "staff" and read as PR items, or they are trivial items (less than half a page). Interviews don't show notability. I don't see anything we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources linked above demonstrate notability. They consist of nothing more than trivial coverage and churnalism. The article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry just a couple of days ago. Yuvaank (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Seems to be a promotional article with a lot of paid for news/press releases. Zuck28 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community Leadership Education Fund

[edit]
Community Leadership Education Fund (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 cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiia Ivanova (fashion designer)

[edit]
Anastasiia Ivanova (fashion designer) (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)

Seems promotional per WP:PROMOTION, fails WP:BIO,WP:GNG. Drat8sub (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Made in the A.M. as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I Could Fly (One Direction song)

[edit]
If I Could Fly (One Direction song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSongs. There is not significant enough coverage of this song to warrant an article.

When searching no other sources appear besides those on the article (American Songwriter) which provides 1 sentence; there is also another source with fans opinions (MTV NEWS); the producer who co-wrote various songs for them also used in the article, trivial (RS). There are also two album reviews that do not count towards notability. Other then chart entries that again do not give a song notability.

The rest of the sources in the article should not warrant this song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogimiyau

[edit]
Hogimiyau (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 refs on the page since 2017. Maybe there's some issue with transliteration in English because I'm not seeing much in terms of references to consider. I will be interested to see what others can find which meet the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Charlton

[edit]
Matt Charlton (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:BIO, Fails WP:V, And my WP:BEFORE failed to find anything significant. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Topal Gökceli

[edit]
Mark Topal Gökceli (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)

Mark Topal Gökceli should be considered for deletion due to insufficient independent sources that establish his notability and impact in the field. Additionally, the article mostly focuses on recent positions and roles without providing any significant achievements or widespread recognition, making it lack depth and relevance. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sarofim

[edit]
Phillip Sarofim (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)

Phillip Sarofim should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage from independent sources that demonstrate notable achievements, making the subject appear less relevant. Additionally, it contains excessive citations that detract from the clarity and conciseness of the information presented. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No editor (besides the nominator) believed the article should be deleted and all participants suggested that the nominator's concerns could be fixed through normal editing. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Werapong Prapha

[edit]
Werapong Prapha (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)

Werapong Prapha should be considered for deletion due to the issue of citation overkill, which undermines its readability and may clutter the overall text excessively. Furthermore, it appears that the content primarily summarizes recent career developments without providing substantial notable achievements, historical context, or coverage from independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's significance. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback. I would like to respond with a couple of points:
(1) The citations of Werapong's works were included to ensure credibility of the content. All the citations are from publicly available and reliable sources, including respectable newspapers and websites of established international organizations. Nevertheless, to improve readability, some citations can be removed.
(2) On the issue of notability, Thailand Trade Representative is a minister-level position in the Thai government. The four trade representatives work directly as an advisor to the prime minister in trade and investment areas. Therefore, the public may find it useful to learn the background of trade representatives from a wikipedia page.
Overall, although I agree that some edits can be made, I think this article adheres to the principle of a wikipedia page. The existence of this page would serve the public's interest and I would strongly advocate for the inclusion of this article in wikipedia. 61.90.30.89 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion for inaccurate nomination: "Citation overkill" is not an appropriate rationale for deletion. Sharing the relative section of WP:before
--If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
--If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag.

Article needs work, but this is not appropriate way to remedy article's issues. Nayyn (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aly

[edit]
Aly (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)

Appears to be a place without a population and without other claims to notability, which suggests it might not meet WP:NPLACE. I don't read the relevant languages but am not seeing anything other than the name in a database and the other language wikis are not offering any additional information. For interest, it is in Eveno-Bytantaysky National District which is very sparsely populated so it is plausible is has a population of 0 although I can't explain why it appears in the censuses as a place. JMWt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Best Regards (CP) 07:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Whiti, New Zealand

[edit]
Te Whiti, New Zealand (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 both WP:NPLACE (it isn't legally recognised) and WP:GNG

I cannot find any evidence in a reliable source that this is a real locality. The main source for this article is a UGC website (something akin to Geocities). The Gazetteer source does not mention 'Te Whiti' nor is a 'Te Whiti' gazetted in that source. The most I could find is a Te Whiti o Tu pa site [26] and some roads bearing the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT19110421.2.15 See newspaper article from 1911
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tower restaurant

[edit]
Tower restaurant (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)

Doesn't appear to be a actual or at least commonly used category of restaurant after a BEFORE. Unsourced since 2009. Phrase not used in any dictionary, including wiktionary. In search, most uses of "tower restaurant" are part of a larger phrase, such as "Eiffel Tower restaurant". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, this has been around unsourced since 2005! Most of the items on the list are just the buildings, not even the names of the non-notable restaurants. This is a pretty generic concept with no specific sources and the list is obviously quite incomplete. Revolving restaurant is certainly a notable and less ubiquitous concept, but there's not anything really distinguishing about a restaurant on the 50th floor vs. one on the 5th, just a view but I'm not sure what else to say about that. Reywas92Talk 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how a more ubiquitous thing is thereby less notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopædia. The more ubiquitous thing might be less exceptional, but we're not just covering the rare and unusual here. This is an encyclopædia, not Ripley's Believe It or Not. Also, if the category is not as commonly used, that would tend to support these things being less ubiquitous, wouldn't it? I tentatively concede that if tower restaurants are really quite as ubiquitous as you suggest (press X to doubt), then perhaps examples aren't notable just for being tower restaurants only, and thus perhaps there is no need to list just any and every unexceptional tower restaurant. But not every article has to have War and Peace vibes. Perhaps a simple article barely over stub-length might suffice. That's all fixable without article deletion though. Granted, fixing that might be boring, and the article might remain neglected for a long time, but that's also not a good reason for deletion. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ReadOnlyAccount The overall question isn't if it's ubiquitous we should keep it. Something even more ubiquitous than tower restaurants may be red towers, but if sources don't describe "red tower" as a grouping, we don't write Red tower. Do you have RS showing "tower restaurant" exists a concept? I hope you do, and we can WP:HEY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon just a tiny bit of cursory "research" (read: googling), it seems the related term "rooftop bar" is better established (these places often do serve food too, so there is significant overlap, and the differences are a matter of degrees, though not all of the former would be the latter and vice versa). I might have proposed merging with rooftop bar, except that doesn't exist, so shucks – or aw-shucks, even!
Possibly even more shucksworthy might be the fact that a good part of such third-party coverage as tends to hang out near the top of google results appears to often refer to tower restaurants by the superlative-minded moniker/description "tallest restaurants (...in the world /clarkson)". Even though that may be the more common term for actual tower restaurants (not mere rooftop bars), I prefer the less common name on grounds of technical accuracy: It's not actually the restaurants that are yay tall. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This reddit post made me smile, because "high-rise restaurant" sounds as European as a continental breakfast – which latter, btw. is another perfect example for something that's very ubiquitous but also not exceptional, yet probably deserving of its own article.
That's why the should be called "The highest restaurant in X" Moritoriko (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think rooftop bar really captures this concept. Take the example above of the "Eiffel Tower restaurant", it's not a bar, nor is it on a rooftop (imagine). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a hierarchy here: The most general concept is physically elevated establishments to eat, drink, and be merry. (WANTED: Pithy term.) Rooftop bars, cliff-top restaurants, and tower restaurants are all types of that. A revolving restaurant is probably always a type of tower restaurant, probably the most desirable type. You want the place to have a view. Just because it rotates, and you eat/drink in it— oh hello, Manuscript Found in a Police State (Brian Aldiss, 1972). Jokes aside, I think the—duly linked—presence of a tower restaurant article actually helps explain the revolving restaurant, and I'm still more in favour of keeping something like this in place. I realise that deciding upon a taxonomy verges on original research, to an extent; again, 'matter of degrees I suppose. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More include Le Jules Verne and Vue de Monde. The article includes revolving restaurants as tower restaurants, so Seventh Heaven and Blue Orbit would be included, although duplicating much of List of revolving restaurants. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"panoramic restaurant"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has no sources whatsoever, and is basically just a definition with a list of dubious notability attached to it. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article fails to establish "tower restaurant" as a recognized or well-defined category of restaurant. Despite existing for a significant period, it remains entirely unsourced, and searches indicate the term is primarily used descriptively rather than as a distinct classification. The list format is problematic, often listing the towers themselves rather than notable restaurants, and there's significant overlap with the existing article on revolving restaurants. Without reliable sources that treat "tower restaurant" as a distinct concept, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, making deletion the most appropriate course of action. Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, basically. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Times

[edit]
Wesean Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please check wikiproject Newspapers. You will barely find sources to establish notability for any newspaper as media houses generally don’t write about each other. These newspapers have been used by the Wikipedia community to cite various articles and thus it’s important to have them. Please also see Shillong Times and other such newspapers. There are barely any sources for them as well. I have used the sources that I was somehow able to find. The "Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability" guideline acknowledges that not all newspapers may have extensive secondary sources but can still be considered notable due to their role and impact within their communities. Additionally, the "Wikipedia:Notability (media)" guideline offers criteria tailored to media outlets, emphasizing their significance even when traditional notability standards are hard to meet. Given these considerations and the precedent set by similar regional newspapers, retaining the "Wesean Times" article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to documenting diverse and regionally significant media outlets. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)​[reply]
    @Flyingphoenixchips: The WikiProject and notability guidelines for media that you cited above are not Wikipedia policies. They include the statement: “An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Therefore, these are not policies but merely opinions.
    Please do not use a WP:WHATABOUT argument here at AfD. How can this news website be considered notable? It was just started last year with no significant history, and after checking the backlinks of their URL, I found that no reliable sources have ever linked to them. GrabUp - Talk 11:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyingphoenixchips: Please don’t provide LLM generated responses here. GrabUp - Talk 06:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Manipur. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, shows little notability, fails GNG. Also promotional. GoldRomean (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. Plus you cannot judge dailies using WP:GNG as dailies themselves are the source of 3rd party information. You won't be able to find sources that are independent and talking about dailies. Its essential we keep this article, to help wikipedia as we users ourselves cite sources from such dailies, and it is natural, for people to want to look up information about these sources. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't mind giving regularly cited or locally prominent newspapers a bit of extra grace, but this one (created by high school students earlier this year) is so far afield from any conception of notability, under the GNG or otherwise, that it's a clear delete for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of breweries in California. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

[edit]
List of breweries in San Diego County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California retaining only notable ones. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was disambiguate. (I assume that's what Geschichte agrees with; if I've misunderstood, let me know.) Any interested editor is welcome to create the disambiguation page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsardom of Bulgaria

[edit]
Tsardom of Bulgaria (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)

Largely unsourced for seven years. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPJO-LD

[edit]
KPJO-LD (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)

Largely unsourced; more OR slop Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushi Tiwari

[edit]
Ayushi Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable actress; roles appear to be minor roles in notable productions and if there are significant roles they are only in non-notable productions, so fails WP:NACTOR. I don't see a WP:GNG pass either; the coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid or unbylined coverage in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stryder7x

[edit]
Stryder7x (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, WP:NBIO. While some of the sourcing is reliable, the issue is that none of the reliable sourcing provides significant coverage of the article subject. For example, the extent of the Kotaku source's ([27]) discussion of the article subject is: "As Paper Mario expert Stryder7x explains in the video below" and "Stryder did just that on October 23, 2016". This and similar mentions are not enough coverage to write a reliably sourced biographical article. ~ A412 talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in sources. Madeleine (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filevine

[edit]
Filevine (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)

Promotional article for a non-notable private company. The sources are limited to: the organization's own website and press releases; sponsored content; trivial mentions; or WP:ORGTRIV like capital raises. Nothing else found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of independent coverage. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Ahmed

[edit]
Youssef Ahmed (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 notability guidelines for sportsperson. The only coverage of this person was regarding their recent unfortunate death which seems to be the reason for the creation of this article, which was made very recently and after their death. Therefore, the only potential article would be one focused on their death which also fails notability with lack of signiificant coverage and no lasting effects.

The article also seems to have been created by someone that knew the person personally. The article talks about unreferenced personal touches such as their career ambitions and hobbies. Half the sources are links to Facebook posts. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fr 46.125.44.118 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Intro (End of the World) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. Maxwell Smart123321 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which argument(s) from the last? That discussion had a series of votes with absolutely no basis in policy (including that the song is charting well despite being an introductory track, that the article's author put lots of effort into the article, that it's charting in Asia) and one vote claiming that it meets GNG, which was unsubstantiated and the article's sourcing (as well as a search online) shows is clearly not the case. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having peaked in the top ten and top five in numerous Asian countries, it's the most notable album track from Eternal Sunshine. The article is incredibly detailed and includes coverage such as the song's live performance video on its own. An extended version will be included on the deluxe and be the subject of more commentary as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where it charted doesn't have anything to do with the notability guidelines for a song. A single report from Rolling Stone that a live version of the song was released online does not count as independent non-trivial coverage of the song in multiple sources. Future commentary can't be accounted for; this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). Any and all arguments for wanting to keep this article I feel completely misrepresent WP:NSONG, and I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition.
NSONG clearly states that a song charting or being certified might be an indicator that it is notable, but it usually needs to work with something alongside it. That could obviously be articles exclusively about the song that discuss it in detail (not "this song was performed live today for the first time!" or "here's an interview discussing it's creation!"), or rankings of the best songs in a certain category (e.g. best songs released in a year). Hell, in most circumstances I'd say that a song placing in a ranking of a band discography can be acceptable to prove notability if there's some meat to it. Even run-of-the-mill coverage like what I just mentioned could be useful if there's meat to it. But this song doesn't have any of that. It is near entirely pieced together by run-of-the-mill coverage such as the aforementioned Rolling Stone piece that says a version of the song was released online but not much more, or in articles specifically talking about the album in the context of a review or a track-by-track analysis. Sure, this is worthwhile information detailing the song... in the context of the album. In-fact, NSONG makes it very clear that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". I do understand that the article is reasonably detailed and I commemorate the authors work here to make it a GA, but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album)." But there, hopefully it is more clear now.
Redirect/merge I find that NegativeMP1 explains my argument better than I can. My thoughts on this article's notability remain the same as it did during the previous AfD. This view of charts as an indicator of notability is heavily misunderstood. Just because an album track charted higher than the rest does not guarantee it's notable; SIGCOV outside of album reviews does. A lot of tracks that appeared in two charts - or hell, none at all - are notable by WP:GNG standards (Joni (song) as an example, or many of the articles on Category:Unreleased songs). Conversely, many songs that did chart in a lot of countries are not. And re. "this is detailed enough to have its own article," (1) the details about the song here, such as the series of Eternal Sunshine surprise performances, can easily be covered in the album article. (2) a lot of incredibly detailed articles, many of which were of FA-quality, were merged into their parent articles. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those calling for a Redirect or Merge, please specify the target. Don't assume the closer will guess you meant Eternal Sunshine (album) or any other target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the track to its parent album.
MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the creator: This is my first time participating in an AFD, please tell me if I did something wrong. The last AFD for this article was one of the most impactful reality checks for me as a Wikipedian editor. Before that, I used to create and expand Taylor Swift's deep cuts and assumed that it wouldn't hurt to create such articles if they have decent coverage or are relatively successful commercially. It was the same for this article, but compared to Swift's, most of which still exists to this day, Grande's song have less substantial coverage nor have article sources pertaining to it.
Now, I agree with all arguments for this AFD that the article is warranted for deletion, and I completely understand with the intentions of redirecting it to its parent album. However, now that the extended version was released, please give me a chance to expand this article more thoroughly up until next week for the sake of saving this, as new/upcoming articles concerning the album's deluxe edition will hopefully focus more to this track. Gained (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the album is not sufficient to establish notability for this song. It would have to be new coverage of the song itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Given chart history, coverage in reliable sources, and amount of content in the article, I think this is a helpful fork from the parent article. I'd prefer to see this Good article expanded and improved, not deleted. An extended version of the song was just released today, so some updating is in order. I've shared a few very recent sources on the article's talk page and added links to the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe edition and the article about the accompanying short film of the same name (which uses the song). ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch to be clear, you favor redirecting to Eternal Sunshine (album)? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is mere bureaucracy to believe anything else. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but the relisting comment asked for specificity. Just hoping to wrap this up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch I recommend taking a deeper dive than just skimming article titles. An extended version of the song was released this week in a deluxe edition and short film, so there's another wave of press coverage focused on these new songs. Some of the sources even compare the extended version of the song to the previously released version. I've added a few additional recently published sources, but more updating to the article is required. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't specifically know why Brighter Days Ahead would make this song notable on its own if it is still a deluxe edition of the parent album / film by its own singer. There seems to exist a general reason on why users assume that mere charting or having dozens of links discussing a song tangentially from the perspetive of an album will qualify as a standalone article as per GNG. Even GNG stipulates that the song must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, the subject is Eternal Sunshine, not Ariana Grande.
So I clicked on every link and is was a disappointment. As of [28]
  • Primary sources discussing the song: 1, 8, 31
  • Secondary sources that don't even mention the song: 2, 3, 5
  • Secondary sources discussing the song from the album perspective: 4, 6, 7, 9 (tracklisting), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (rank of Grande's songs), 28, 29, 30 (rank of Grande's songs), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44
  • Secondary sources actually discussing the song (most of them are charts): 10, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
  • Source 10 ([29]) is about the live promotion of the album, but it is the only source that does discuss the song. Ariana Grande discography#2020s already covers the charts anyway. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this breakdown! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting Brighter Days Ahead "would make this song notable on its own", I was just saying there's a recent wave of press coverage that's barely been applied to the article and should also be taken into consideration. Not expecting to change your vote, just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL, and a far-fetched one at that ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my earlier comment: "I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition." Your comment is openly voting to keep an article based on coverage that does not exist. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG and NSONG. The existing cited sources about live performances and composition/critical reception are good enough to make a relatively detailed article, and there are more available. Per GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." IMO the spirit of NSONG is about not creating articles for songs that are merely mentioned in an album review. That is not the case here, as the song received detailed commentary in album reviews, not just mentions that it exists. The cumulative material is such that it would be inappropriate to place in the album article. GNG says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." I read "or" to mean that NSONG does not supersede GNG. I think it meets both anyways. The subject is "Intro (End of the World)", not Eternal Sunshine. Coverage is independent of people affiliated with the song. This is what "independent of the subject" means. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NSONG states that "notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This is a reasonably detailed article about a song that also charted in several countries. Medxvo (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That clause means that even songs that meet notability requirements may not warrant their own articles—it does not mean that detailed articles about songs that don't meet the notability requirements should be kept. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would prevent the songs that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" from having a reasonably detailed article that can grow beyond a stub? Medxvo (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has multiple, non-trivial independent sources that allow this (more than) reasonably detailed article, and not all the sources are album reviews (at least Sheffield, Unterberger, Curto, and Henderson is a review of songs from an album, not the album itself and a different album than Eternal Sunshine). Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne