Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

26 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 25	April 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Battle of Sangrana

AfDs for this article:

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

"The Great Gurus of the Sikhs: Guru Tegh Bahadur & Govind Singh" does not mention this battle at all. Hari Ram Gupta (1984) dedicates 7 lines to this battle[1]. Madra, Amandeep Singh; Singh, P. (2016) mentions in footnotes that the first conflict between Sikhs and Mughals was fought in 1628 and provides no further details[2]. Daljeet Singh, Kharak Singh (1997) does not mention this battle. Gandhi, Surjit Singh (1978) covers the Battle of Amritsar (1634) and not the Battle of Sangrama fought in 1628. This article is perhaps conflating the two because all other sources are covering the second battle which we already have an article on, from the reading of the sources it seems the incident at Sangrana in 1628 (I doubt there was even a battle in 1628) served as a background/provocation to the Battle of Amritsar (1634), therefore I think it can be covered over there. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Battle of Amritsar (1634). Evident event conflict and much a minor event to be a standalone article Hionsa (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbingers (Valiant Comics)

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

Fictional people that fail WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stankievech

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

The article does not establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. It does not cite significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most mentions are local newspapers and none are properly cited. Without clear independent sources demonstrating lasting notability, this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Cagrantsas (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article actually only has one primary source about a 2007 video project, I suppose that sentence could be removed. Otherwise, the subject has been covered extensively by independent outlets such as CBC News, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, etc. A simple search on Google and Newspapers.com shows that the subject passes WP:GNG with flying colours. I will see about adding more sources and expanding the article over the next day or two. MediaKyle (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack

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

Half of this new article duplicates the reactions section of 2025 Pahalgam attack, the other half consists of boilerplate condolence tweets that editors have consistently removed from 2025 Pahalgam attack as non-notable. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Transfer it as a subsection under 2025 Pahalgam attack RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio Rinaldis

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

Current sourcing is comprised of two brief mentions of this working audio engineer. Definitely accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huijiwiki

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantahun Hailemichael

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

Most of the current sourcing do not even mention this person, or are simple mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

AfDs for this article:

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle FA

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

Contested redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Kunhuang

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

Contested redirect (as an ATD) without improvement, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, nor to satisfy WP:VERIFY, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date (Unix command)

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate colleciton of information, not a guide, and not a man page. There's no evidence (including what I could find from WP:BEFORE) that this command has been covered in reliable, independent sources – except for 'Linux for beginners'-style books that tutorialize its usage but offer no encyclopedic context. I know that a lot of these kinds of articles exist like env, but that's a notoriously bad argument for keeping or deleting an article. They entirely contravene long-established Wikipedia policy to make something that exists between a man page and a GeeksForGeeks page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17% viewership in Kanto (Japan's most populous region) as noted by above editors. DCsansei (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BASIC is a notability guidelines for people, and doesn't apply to the notability of TV shows. Also note that viewership numbers have never been valid proof of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hōnen Shōnin 25 Sacred Sites Pilgrimage

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

Contested prod with improvement. Currently, not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG as well as not enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY. Searches turned up zero in-depth sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

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

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BF Borgers

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

Contested prod without explanation or improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Rose Tessier

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

This is an article about a supercentenarian, the oldest living French person on earth. This might be controversial, but I think this article violates WP:OLDAGE; just because something or someone is old does not make them notable. Looking at this article, there are no claims to notability besides the fact that she is really old. Yes, there is coverage in WP:RS, but it is not sustained coverage, and it barely clears WP:SIGCOV. What do we think? I don't think that people should have wikipedia articles purely because they happen to be very old. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OLDAGE says that if there are reliable sources covering the topic then it might merit an article perhaps a source analysis is in order (i would do it but im not very confident about the accurary i would have in determing the sources) if the sources arent good then i will vote delete but i cant just vote delete based on it isnt notable because i think it isnt Scooby453w (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

Non-notable film company. Sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Author appears to have a COI, since they also created Luminosity Entertainment (American film studio), which was an exact duplicate of this article. Possible PE as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, kindly move this article to Luminosity Entertainment which is a red link. The current title includes a unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cherry

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Of the four sources, three aren't even about Alan Cherry, just mention his name in passing. The fourth is a very sparse IMDB page. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the nominator's comments relate to the notes section instead of the references section where there is direct coverage about him here, and here. There is also this lengthy piece here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sympitar

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

Musical instrument created by Fred Carlson and mentioned on his website, and mentioned in an interview by the person who commissioned him Carson to make Sympitar. The only independent source I could find on Sympitar with sparse-to-moderate coverage is this [3]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudu-Osun

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

Appears to be a brand-specific promotional fork of African black soap. Almost all the references are about black soap itself, and this page routinely uses general black soap references to make specific claims about the brand. Thought about g11 speedy delete but this one looks just real enough to possibly escape a speedy delete. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. I can find many sources that are not included in the article. Shoerack (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, mostly what I was finding were product pages but in the last few months Google has changed their algorithm so if you search for something that can be bought, you’ll only see product listings. Mind sharing some of what you found? If this passes GNG I’ll withdraw it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rondebosch Boys' Preparatory School

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

Non-notable primary school. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Champoy (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Santos

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. (non-admin closure) Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article has been sentenced to 7 years in prison.^[1] Do you think this guy still deserves to keep his article? Kldaeroiu (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no valid reason for deletion has been provided. Being sentenced to prison is no reason to delete and someone having an article isn't based on whether they are a good person or not. We have articles on people currently in prison such as Ghislaine Maxwell and Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Wikipedia has articles on serial killers and genocidaires. Santos is a notable figure, all the more so because of his conviction. 143.239.9.7 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - ridiculous deletion rationale. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - invalid deletion rationale. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This is not anywhere close to a valid reason for a AFD. And don't forget to trout the nominator. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:13, 26 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.

Nick Weber (artist)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Arts, and New York. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Artsy	Primary source database	~ User submitted content by galleries/auction houses with paid subscriptions	Non-independent user submitted data	✘ No
Harpers Gallery	Artist's gallery showing their work (PR)	Press release in the form of a personal letter from the galleries to the artist	PR, not a review	✘ No
27East	~ Press release in local paper submitted by the artist's gallery	Press release	PR, not a review	✘ No
Dan's Papers	~ large portion of the text is the artist talking about himself/his work	Profile in local paper	~ Hybrid profile/interview/PR for show	? Unknown
Glenn Horowitz Bookseller	Press release from a bookseller	PR	PR	✘ No
Women's Wear Daily "Fashion Scoops"	Women's wear trade journal	Trade journal for fashion, lifestyle and women's wear	Fashion scoop/society lifestyle (not a serious art magazine; text about Weber is partly occluded by a paywall.)	? Unknown
Gothamist	Local news blog	~ Widely distributed blog	Article is about a local controversy regarding his work, does not seem to be an art review	? Unknown
Grenning Gallery	Art gallery showing his work	Artist bio - user submitted content for selling artwork	Gallery listing	✘ No
Ochi Gallery	Filler. Art gallery press release for another artist	The gallery exist and but this is a press release for a different artist; it is only a name check mention of Weber	This is a press release for another artist, who simply mentions at the bottom that they had shown their work at Nick Weber's studio	✘ No
Boo Hooray Summer Rental	Press release for a show at Boo-Hooray Summer Rental, a "gallery that can be rented for shows in the summer"	PR	Press release, connected source	✘ No
KD Hamptons Art Scene	PR Puff piece local coverage	Press announcement in local "luxury lifestyle diary"	PR, press announcement in local lifestyle blog	✘ No
Chelsea Walls	Interview in the gallery's blog	Interview between artist and gallery	No editorial content, just a few questions	✘ No
Dan's Papers	~ Routine local coverage in local paper, interview with the artist's gallery	Local coverage in local paper	PR for the gallery showing Weber's work	? Unknown
Printed Matter	Book seller listing	Printed Matter is a bookstore selling his book	Book seller listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete The source analysis table, a nice touch, is very compelling and I couldn't find anything else of worth. Couldn't find a single museum that contains a collection. References are profiles. Nothing really. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnus

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:BANDMEMBER with no significant coverage from WP:BEFORE other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if something here could be rescued by rewriting this into an article about the music group or the scandal itself? This Korean source, cited in the article, states that "the plagiarism suspicions surrounding singer Lee Hyo-ri's album, which had been causing a stir in the music industry for a month, have been partially confirmed to be true, causing a huge backlash. The expression 'the greatest plagiarism fraud case' is also appearing." This suggests that there are other sources out there - and also, that the article focus should be on the scandal, not the individual (who seems not very notable - we don't even have their birth date or pretty much anything about their life outside this scandal). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mateja Njamculović

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

He only played nine minutes of professional level before moving to lower leagues. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia is slightly longer with more than ten references, but even secondary ones are just passing mentions (including mondo.rs and Mozzart Sport). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Modi

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addverb Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. I am nominating this page for deletion again, as the last AfD ended without a consensus and took place over two months ago. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotalk

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. I am nominating this page for deletion again, as the last AfD ended without a consensus and took place over two months ago. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeeksForGeeks

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of World War I

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

Near (but worse) copy of List of Battlecruisers that adds unnessessary redundancy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan for full discussion. GGOTCC (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GGOTCC (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is just an unnecessary portion of List of battlecruisers. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - per nom and Tyler; the main list is not so long that it needs to be split into sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - How about merging them with the List of battleships of World War I? so it would be "List of battleships and battlecruisers of World War I", I think there's still interest on seeing what kind of "big guns-armed capital ship" that were in service during the war, and it maybe useful to those that are unfamiliar with naval history. Jauhsekali (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of World War II

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

Near-complete (but worse) copy of List of Battlecruisers that adds unnessessary redundancy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan for full discussion. GGOTCC (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GGOTCC (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have List of battlecruisers. NavjotSR (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is just an unnecessary portion of List of battlecruisers. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - no reason to list a handful of ships (potentially as few as 3, depending on how strictly one defines the scope of the list). List of battlecruisers is not so long that we need to split it into sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - How about merging them with the List of battleships of World War II and turning it into "List of battleships and battlecruisers of World War II"? and so the list would contain all the "big guns-armed capital ship" during the war. Jauhsekali (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations provide barely any coverage of the website, let alone significant coverage.
These are the complete mentions of CFDW in those sources:
The only information that can be gleaned from any of those sources comes from the New York Times piece: that CFDW is a "website" and that David DeLassus is a proprietor.

WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

These are all trivial mentions at best. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by cbl62 appear to contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV of the website to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Where are you seeing WP:SIGCOV in those sources? The citations only say that "College Football Data Warehouse" was used as a source for each article. They contain basically no details at all about CFDW itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced with other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comment regarding moving to projectspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Prakash

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

Article subject requests deletion per Wikipedia:NPF and Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE . See VRT Ticket 2025031410001554. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is barely notable, and the sourcing is a mix of good, bad and ugly, so I see no harm in deleting this article. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where can the VRT Ticket be found, please? I would like to know the reason why this person requests deletion of the article. As cinematographer on 5 notable films, he certainly appears to meet WP:CREATIVE, and I don't see anything negative or defamatory in the article. He has easily findable profiles on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, and articles about him in various media, so he's not really a low profile person. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can ask questions about VRT tickets at the Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Fu

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

Negative undersourced BLP. Most of the article text is a WP:COATRACK for negative undersourced BLP material about someone else. I prodded this but my prod was removed by User:A. B. who provided as evidence for notability a newspaper article stating in vague terms legal charges against the subject and another newspaper article with a very brief mention that he was sentenced, neither used as footnotes for anything. I don't think these provide WP:SIGCOV. His position as deputy mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and the conviction does not have the evidence of lasting interest needed for WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to David’s comments:

I added 3, not 2, refs including a NY Times front page article
News and newspaper searches turned up more out there.
The South China Morning Post article is exclusively about Lan Fu’s troubles
When searching for refs, add Xiamen mayor to filter out other people with that name.
This was my edit summary when removing the PROD: ” remove PROD. Notable but the tagged concern remains: this may be more about the _alleged_ kidnapping of his son, Lan Meng, by Chinese authorities in Australia as a hostage for Lan Fu's return. We don't have a Lan Meng article”
This article is likely not a BLP since all the refs said LAN Fu was sentenced to death 2 decades ago as I noted in another edit summary. (There’s no lingering on Chinese death rows).
WP:NPOL: Xiamen has over 5 million inhabitants; it’s larger than every North American city except NY and larger than any city in the EU.
Re not adding footnotes to go with the refs: I’d already spent 60+ minutes doing the WP:BEFORE and I was late for lunch
- I tagged the article with an inline template and moved on.

I encourage others to look at the existing refs and what else is out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's best to cover this as a biography article, but the scandal itself and his involvement is covered in several books [4] [5] [6] for just a few, there are many more. He was a very major player in this scandal and he was a public figure that was convicted so at the very least his name should redirect somewhere. Xiamen is a city of 5 million so there's also probably coverage of him as a mayor in Chinese. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above as well as PARAKANYAA‘s. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: or merge to an article about the corruption scandal. The NY Times article is about a bigger scandal, Fu is mentioned briefly, archive here [7]. The SCMP source is probably better [8] (archived copy), but they both deal more with the scandal than about the individual. I suppose Fu could be notable, but there is a decent amount of sourcing about the corruption trial/event (even the books cited a few comments above mention more about the event than about this person, who is only mentioned). Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Well, you say redirect, but we don't have any article to redirect to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely sourcing in Mandarin, the scandals were probably the only thing dramatic enough to make it to Anglophone printing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to create the article I suppose. We have at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this until we have a stub to merge it with. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep. The article has his name in traditional characters, not simplified. This is hardly noticeable to humans but impacts whether you find anything via ctrl+F searching. The simplified version is 蓝甫. I am looking for solid sources, but my gut feeling is that this guy is likely notable as deputy mayor of Xiamen and for being involved in a corruption scandal that garnered national interest. Here is a 2023 piece describing the scandal in great detail [9] – I'm not sure how reliable the source is though.

One could argue that the subject was only one person involved in a scandal (the "Yunhua smuggling case") that got hundreds of people arrested and sentenced, but he is named by sources as having received one of the harshest sentences of all defendants [10], so presumably he played an outsized role in the scandal. This would also be the counterargument to BLP1E. Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a lot of sourcing on this guy, probably because the corruption case was in the very early days of the Chinese internet, but this [11] might constitute sigcov. He is also mentioned twice in this [12] scholarly review of the case – again, showing that his role was more significant than that of the hundreds of other defendants. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Cypresses (song)

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

Does not meet GNG, could merge with Grizzly Bear (band) but the only listed sources is one website and a Instagram post; not notable. Also, significant portion of article is a quote. GoldRomean (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two new notable websites to the page, and will look into adding more. Idon'tknowwhattomakethis (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I do believe that I have edited and added to this article enough that it is sufficiently notable. If you have any more advice I would be happy to try and add more, but if not I think it is worthy of keeping. Idon'tknowwhattomakethis (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Four Cypresses redirects to Painted Ruins. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Domani

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

not notable actress, not meeting WP:ACTOR, Anybio. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets Wp: NACTRESS. Can be improved and sourced with sources from corresponding article in Indonesian (and pages about the numerous productions she had significant roles in from the same Wikipedia), for example; the same goes for the awards she won or was nominated for. -Mushy Yank. 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:Mushy Yank, you'll have to actually produce some evidence and sources here. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Again, I am directing you and others to the Wikipedia article in Indonesian. And so is Kentuckyfriedtucker. This page-and some sources- are two clicks away; you click on the title on top of this page and then on one of the 3 links under Languages. You’ll find some sources. You also have a page in Telugu and one in Malay but with less sources. Through those pages you can explore pages about her roles in notable productions, with sources. Mostly in Indonesian. Or you can do a BEFORE if you don’t like that method. Plenty of bylined articles in Google news about her, some significant, some ”people”-oriented (she might even meet WP: GNG, for all I know but it allows to verify the roles and their significance-it will take you muuuch more time, though) No evidence the nom has done a WP:BEFORE, btw. Ask them -and the user who refers their !vote to their rationale- what they found. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Tiny detail: I am a bit busy and will probably leave it at that but if you want me to know you replied to a comment I made and respond [which seemed to be the case], please either ping me or leave me a message (or mention my user name; a link to the user's tak page does not create a notification, as far as I know; at least, I did not receive any). -Mushy Yank. 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OatPancake: did you review available sources at all? MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are two correlating language entries available where references could be pulled from.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kentuckyfriedtucker, I'm not sure what that means. Please show/link/produce the reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See above. WP:NEXIST indeed states that "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (emphasis mine) but that's not the case here: Kentuckyfriedtucker and I clearly indicated where you could find the sources and what method to follow to check whether this actress meets the applicable guideline. As a token of good will (although even D !voters could do it too and nominators SHOULD do a BEFORE and indicate what they found and why they think it is not enough in their opinion), I have added a few sources and links to help navigation and facilitate verification of the importance of her roles in notable productions. But you will also note that the nominator did not address MarioGom's very valid concern. Again, thank you for your time and concern. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[but, again, her significant roles (including lead roles) in notable productions can be checked through corresponding WP Indonesian pages].[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Showing these sources and explaining why they meet or do not meet notability criteria would be helpful. Complaining that the nom did not do a WP:BEFORE check is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at the page's recent history before writing your relisting comment would have be a good idea, maybe?@Asilvering I had indeed added quite a few sources, and the AfD-changed template and my comment indicate that quite clearly. Nothing says to "show" the sources both at the AfD and in the article. If such a requirement existed, it would be purely vexatious and extremely bureaucratic. Another user and I also indicated where and how you could find sources and check the notability of this actress, if you didn't want to open the article or do a BEFORE for some reason. I indicated the nominator had apparently made no effort to check existing sources (and had not replied to another user's inquiry about that), whereas they should have and I consider it is a relevant and helfpful comment, in particular given the fact that another user bases their 2-word !vote on the nom's rationale. I also clearly indicated why I believe the actress meets WP:NACTRESS and even probably WP:GNG. So that I am very sorry to say that I very much disagree with the implications of your relisting comment, and pretty much everything in it, to be honest. -Mushy Yank. 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalis rusciformis

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

Plants of the World does not recognise this species. William Avery (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

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

Article is primarily about his parents and grandfather and very little about Hubertus himself beyond genealogical information. I see no reason for notability independent of his ancestry. WP:NOTINHERITED WP:NOTGENEOLOGY D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Islam Khan

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

Not even close to meeting notability (people). Somajyoti ✉ 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorfoz

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

Article about an album that fails WP:GNG. It has 36 sources, but all of them are ether unreliable, dead or not related to it at all. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsCentreLeft yeah? so sabah, hürriyet, radikal, which are major newspapers, are unreliable, and which of the references are unrelated? Just because something is in a language you don't understand, doesn't mean it's unrelated. Use google translate. Link rot is a natural occurrnce on the internet over time (ever checked when this article waswritten?) How about first trying to inform the writer about link rot, before nominating something for delition? This album sold 300,000 copies in Turkey. Tarkan is to date the most sold artist in that country. Which part of the notability requirements does this not meet? Xia ^{talk to me} 06:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This album is simply not notable. I checked all the sources cited in this article and none proved its notability. I searched about this album on Google and got zero results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here, the Mü-yap certification of 300,000 copies sold, which means Diamond certification. [13] These sources are all in the article and are all about the album: Hürriyet (Hürriyet); Hürriyet; full breakdown of the album song by song in SABAH (Sabah); Vatan (Vatan) -- these are all reputable publications in Turkey. Even if we only consider these 4 links, that's already covering the notability requirements... Just because you don't know how to search in TURKISH, doesn't mean the album isn't notable. Not everything has to be on the English language internet, you know. Xia ^{talk to me} 15:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Null sign

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

(Removed prod.) This article conflates mathematical and linguistic uses of the symbol, implying that these uses are related. Two problems: First, the concepts in the two fields are quite different. The linguistic use is to represent a linguistic element that might be in that place but is not. The mathematical use is for a set that contains nothing; in particular, the set containing the empty set is different from the empty set, whereas no such distinction is evident in the linguistic use. Second, the term "null sign", in my experience, is not used for this symbol in mathematics.
It is possible (I wouldn't know) that this is in fact the standard name for this symbol in linguistics. In that case, an alternative to deletion would be to rewrite the article so as to make it entirely about linguistics, and remove the implication that the name "null sign" is used for the empty-set symbol in mathematics. Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that this article is about the typographic symbol. Typically typographic symbols have multiple uses in different fields and it is normal to discuss the different uses in an article about the symbol. In the Unicode standard (first ref in the article), we can verify that codepoint 2205 has the description "EMPTY SET" and represents the "null set" in math and the "null morpheme" in linguistics, both described in the article. If you look at for instance, Exclamation mark, the article has the same kind of structure. Factorials in math are unrelated to exclamations in linguistics, but they both use the symbol and are described there. I think it would be good to clarify in the article that math and linguistic uses for the symbol are different concepts and that the symbol is referred to by different names, if it is not already clear. That is a matter of editing, however, not deletion. If you have beef with the title of the article, that could also be discussed on the talk page. I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, what would you say to merging into Ø (disambiguation)? On reflection that would address most of my concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's a little tricky because disambig pages shouldn't have expository content. This article doesn't have much but it has a little. Maybe instead merge into Ø? --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gessner

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

Non-notable swimmer. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE. A search brings up SIGCOV such as this, paywalled stories that are almost certainly SIGCOV such as this, and it is very, very likely that a world championship swimming medalist in the offline era will have further coverage in German newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The links posted above basically link to the same story with the same title ("Schwimmer Christian Geßner war für ein paar Stunden Republik-Flüchtling", or in machine translation "Swimmer Christian Geßner [Gessner] was a refugee from the Republic for a few hours") which is about their missing a flight and being thought to have defected from the East Germany. The piece is one of those narrative-with-comments-from-the-subject stories where the author clear spoke to the journalist writing the story. If that were all there was I'd lean weak-delete, but I see there's also a Munziger bio that appears to be referencing a news article. The Spiegel piece referred to in the Munziger bio is a one-paragraph mention of Gessner. Neues Deutschland had an interview with Gessner, but given that this was the party mouthpiece it is not exactly a reliable source. None of these is the kind of solid SIGCOV that I'd like to see for an article but there does at least seem to be biographical detail in them beyond the usual stats. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ahmed (businessman)

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

the sources are dependent and only one has something similar to deep coverage, but the sources itself is not reliable and independent (this one Ethiopian birthday) other are WP:Trades and nothing similar to significant coverage OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is known for the success of Africa's largest airlines. According to Fana Broadcasting Corporate "The late Captain Mohammed Ahmed, a pioneering force in the aviation industry and a cherished leader of Ethiopian Airlines" [14]Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, lacking significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If it relies on promotional content or self-published material, it would also fail to meet the site's neutrality and sourcing guidelines.--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [15], book mentions [16]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per David Eppstein, and own search. did not find significant coverage to establish GNG or NCREATIVE. Would be helpful if keep !voters could link some of the coverage they allude to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

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

Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no broad consensus among reliable, independent sources that a distinct, notable "Canadian economic crisis" has occurred beginning in 2022. The article relies heavily on opinion pieces, politically affiliated think tanks, and partisan commentary rather than neutral, verifiable sources such as Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada, the IMF, or the OECD. Furthermore, the framing of the term "crisis" appears to be politically motivated rather than supported by neutral economic reporting (WP:NPOV). Coverage of economic challenges such as inflation, productivity stagnation, and housing affordability already exists in appropriate general articles like Economy of Canada and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. This article promotes a particular narrative, conflating political and economic developments, and fails core Wikipedia policies including WP:NOR and WP:RS. Recommend deletion or, alternatively, merging any truly neutral, verifiable material into broader economic coverage. Fusio15 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is it that an article supposedly describing events 2022–present has few sources prior to 2024? I haven't found any of them that date back to the 2022 origin of the so-called crisis. This suggests to me that the doom-and-gloom scenario is a recent invention.

This article was the first time I'd heard about an economic crisis in Canada. It's clear that the country has problems, and the word "crisis" has been applied to very recent political events. However, it seems exaggeration to lump a lot of negative opinion together to depict the country as a failed state. Such an appearance is a political POV.

Most of the world has been in turmoil since before the pandemic. So it really isn't notable. Most of the world has been upset by the actions of an American president who acts illegally and changes his mind frequently. Canada has been the subject of a series of "big lies" from within and without. This article seems to continue that theme.

An opinion in the Washington Examiner loses credibility with me when they refer to the head of Canada's government as "the Premier". Perhaps it is such sources which gave an editor the idea that Canada had a president. Most of the references are to partisan opinion pieces. Such references have been cherry picked to support the existence of a crisis since 2022.

I think the subjects would be best covered in separate articles such as Investment, GDP, and Unemployment. As it is, beginning each topic with a condemnation strikes me as lacking balance, if not evidence of questionable motivation. Put together, they amount to a point of view which lacks neutrality. Hence, I think it best to delete this article.

Humpster (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vague + opinionated article. Much of the sourcing of "facts" appears to come from the fraser institute which, being a libertarian/conservative "think" tank, is prone to cherry picking their data to favor a certain viewpoint. Article definitely violates WP:NPOV.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and egregious NPOV violation

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Morrison

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical auto profile

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

I don't see significant coverage,contains information from primary sources or AI (some artificial programming model) or or copyrighted Iban14mxl (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Area Community Awareness Action Team

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

Run of the mill local organization devoted to some local causes with a local scope. Coverage completely fails WP:NORG fail and too ultra hyperlocal to be even considered for WP:NONPROFIT Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, and Colorado. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BioSapien

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not add up to WP:ORGCRIT. Declined through AfC then moved to mainspace by submitter so would be opposed to dratifying. CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, United Arab Emirates, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate

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

Probably fails WP:ORG A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, United Kingdom, and England. A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Jackson

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

No indication of notability for this Costa Rican footballer. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Costa Rica, Colorado, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John 20:3–4

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

I'm going to tread carefully, but I do not think that these short bible verses about two disciples running to look at a tomb (with none of the further context) passes Wikipedia notability guidelines for bible verses, and "media." See: Wikipedia:Bible verses. This is not a major bible verse. It was analyzed by John Calvin, but then again he commented on many, many bible verses. I'd like to say in advance that I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and my assessment is that notability guidelines aren't met. I'm pretty sure that if other verses (before and after) are included, all of those verses together become notable. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't looked, but I would guess there is not a single bible verse that does not have sigcov. It's the bible. But haven't looked, so not voting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is, in fact, plenty of RS commentary on any verse in the New Testament, but what's being asked for is some undefined merger into a larger unit of text. That's sensible, but, again, not what is being sought here. No objection to a specific proposal on how to better cover these few Bible verses, but this one article is not a place to solve a different problem, like where coverage should stop and end... Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with John 20:2 to John 20:2–4, since really these three verses go to one complete story (she ran to Peter+dwjl who ran themselves back). Hyperbolick (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could be expanded, but hundreds of scholars have written analyses of each verse of the Bible. - SimonP (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novotny

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined due to rationale of "many incoming links" so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco Vodka

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

Very small artisan vodka label, article is written as a puff piece. This article, fails notability guidelines for products. Sourcing is either puffy profiles or the label's website, so sourcing is biased. Almost the entire thing is promotion, puffery, and bais. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Texas. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider broadening the article to be about Azar Distilling per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Martini, Nico (2024). Texas Cocktails: An Elegant Collection of Over 100 Recipes Inspired by the Lone Star State. Kennebunkport, Maine: Appleseed Press Book. Cider Mill Press. p. 271. ISBN 978-1-60433-768-6. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "At about 8:15 AM on October 24th, 2014, there was an explosion at Azar Distilling, strong enough to send a man flying through (yes— through) a wall. A small fire was started and it took Bexar County firefighters about 40 minutes to put out the flames. The worker was sent to the hospital, but sustained no injuries... but now he has a hell of a story. When he arrived on the scene, Trey Azar feared he'd lost everything. To lighten the mood, the volunteer firefighters suggested that he rename the brand "Cinco Fuego." Through sheer force of will, they re-opened just 95 days after the blast. Proudly hailing from San Antonio, Trey and Kimberly Azar started Azar Distiling in 2010 named after (kinda) their five children. ... Azar Distilling is in the process of expanding, not just the scope of the brands, but the distillery itself. Cinco Vodka and Seersucker Gin are now available at most major liquor stores throughout Texas, Ten-nessee, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island."
2. Rindfuss, Bryan (2011-04-06). "Fiesta's New Spirit". San Antonio Current. p. 38. ProQuest 865334215.
  The article notes: "Fiesta A-listers should plan on seeing (and/or drinking) locally distilled Cinco Vodka at some of the season's most exclusive celebrations- The King's Ball, The Queen's Ball, The Order of the Alamo Garden Party, and The Town Club Party among them. ... Other than the amber wheat (which is shipped to Texas from Idaho), Cinco owes its "clarity, cleanliness, and unsurpassed smoothness" to Texas and the Edwards Aquifer, water from which is naturally filtered through Cordova Cream limestone and further refined by reverse osmosis before being added to the spirit in the final stages of production."
3. "Azar Family Brands". San Antonio Express-News. 2017-03-23. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "That’s right — one of the country’s best and most-respected vodkas is distilled right here in San Antonio. It’s Cinco vodka, produced with non-GMO wheat, distilled in a hand-hammered copper still with no filtration. Founter Trey Azar maintains that a well-made vodka doesn’t need filtering."
4. Petty, Kathleen (2013-12-31). "Trey Azar: Founder of Cinco Vodka". San Antonio Magazine. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "As many great ideas do, this one started with scribbling on a cocktail napkin. Four years later, Trey Azar and family’s Azar Distilling has earned a stellar reputation with Cinco Vodka. It was named a top 10 vodka at the 2013 New York Ultimate Beverage Challenge and awarded gold for best vodka (usually snagged by European brands) at the Los Angeles International Spirits Competition. Production since the distillery opened in 2011 has increased 10-fold with its four-person team (and some part-time help) now creating 10,000 cases a year that are sold throughout the state."
5. McInnis, Jennifer (2011-03-30). "San Antonio's Cinco Vodka poised to take on big boys". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "Packaged in an attractive bottle with five blue stars across the center, Cinco Vodka is produced at a distilling facility in Southeast Bexar County. ... Cinco Vodka is purchasing an automated bottling machine that can bottle versatile sizes and shapes, leaving the company's options open for other products it might develop in the future. There's also space in the facility to hold 12 tanks."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azar Distilling and Cinco Vodka 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) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luhansk Oblast campaign order of battle

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

This is an inappropriate content fork and fluffery (fluffing up something to give the appearance of much more substance than it actually has. It takes this version of units in the infobox at Luhansk Oblast campaign (six or less units on each side) and pads it out by using a tree structure - which is misleading if all of a formation is not supported as participating. It also uses MOS:FLAGCRUFT and is decorative rather than encyclopedic. Some of the structure is probably assumed from WP articles rather than being sourced Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

^{This is an inappropriate content fork and fluffery (fluffing up something to give the appearance of much more substance than it actually has}

To be honest, I’m still unclear about what exactly constitutes 'inappropriate content,' but I don’t believe the term 'Fluffery' applies here. The Luhansk Oblast campaign spans approximately 130 km of frontline combat and is currently fragmented into three fronts (Kupyansk, Borova, and Lyman)[17]. If you think this page is purely 'Fluffery,' then you are mistaken

It takes this version of units in the infobox at Luhansk Oblast campaign (six or less units on each side) and pads it out by using a tree structure - which is misleading if all of a formation is not supported as participating.

I didn’t copy-paste from the old version you mentioned because the references there were too outdated (2022-2023). I also didn’t add units without checking. Like, you can see almost all my references are from November 2024 at the latest. If you don’t believe, go check the references one by one to see if those units were really involved.

It also uses MOS:FLAGCRUFT and is decorative rather than encyclopedic. Some of the structure is probably assumed from WP articles rather than being sourced

Also, I’m still confused why I violated MOS:FLAGCRUFT. If you could explain, I’d really appreciate it. Bukansatya (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that you’re using the term “inappropriate content fork” very loosely, as this article, simply put, is not inappropriate and serves a useful purpose. Like Bukansatya explained above, the campaign is across a 130km frontline across 3 main fronts. As it is already, these fronts have lots of units involved as all 3 fronts are focal points of Russian offensive operations.

As well as that, I think that your accusation of “fluffery” is being done in assuming bad faith. As I said, it is a large front with many, many units involved on both sides. There is nothing wrong with listing all of the involved units, as that is the entire purpose of an order of battle article; to list all of the involved units when the list is too large for a regular info box. On top of that, all of these units are cited directly from the ISW, which the article’s citations prove (I just checked the cited sources). And adding onto all of this, the article’s structure is completely fine as it is. It is a standard dot point list, with no “fluffery” and any extra details or anything of that nature to try and inflate the size.

This article also lies exactly in line with other order of battle articles (example: Pokrovsk offensive order of battle), effectively identical, with the only differences being the actual individual units and the locations. If you are going to nominate this article for deletion based on the reasons you provided, you should treat all other articles meeting the same standards equally. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sewerslvt

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as failing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Largest High School rivalries in Northwest Indiana

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

This page does not contain any references and obviously does not meet WP:N. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is copied and pasted from Duneland Athletic Conference. Can be speedy deleted under A10 ApexParagon (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via A10 per ApexParagon - the same author also just created the similarly-named Biggest High School rivalries in NWI which will probably have to go through AfD too since it doesn't appear to be copyvio. Zzz plant (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, Lists, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been deleted. This AfD can be closed. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:04, 26 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.

Tiki Pets

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

No reliable coverage per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) either on the page or across the web (wp before). Not notable company. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that whether or not this is actually notable OP is wrong... There are reliable sources, both on the page and across the web... Whether or not we should have a stand alone page or merge to General Mills or an associated page is still an open question and I would probably lean towards merge but the assertion that no reliable sources exist is patently false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I only see across the web General Mills acquires Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 billion, General Mills to acquire Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 bln and similar ones Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't see Tiki Pets in those articles? Because I do... And the sources appear reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources means reliable independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions don't count Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources means reliable sources. If you mean independent in-depth coverage you have to say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! I changed the initial rationale for deletion. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still wrong, you need to add significant, in-depth, something like that before reliable. I don't think you understand that trivial and routine coverage can still be reliable, it just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Indiana

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

A spot on the railroad just east of Newton, close enough that on Streetview you can see the structures of the latter off in the distance. This is now the site of a warehouse and nothing else; back in the late 1950s there was a different, smaller building and a single house, but hardly a town. Seems to have just been a rail spot, though at least it amde it onto the topos without the help of the highway department. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Mangoe. A quick Google search turns up nothing notable on the subject. Only two results relating to the topic. One result is this article, and the other is its entry on mapquest. Neither entries show anything notable. Editor113u47132 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LD Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

To me this is a pretty clear WP:GNG fail. The sources cited are either self-published or not reliable, and I can find very little independent coverage of the subject. For example, the Forbes article cited in this article has the disclaimer "The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists" at the bottom. In addition, I suspect undisclosed paid editing because the article is somewhat promotional in tone and was created by a new user who has only ever edited in such a way to promote the article subject. Aspening (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and India. Aspening (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources include the subject's Instagram page, his LinkedIn profile, and his own YouTube channel. It reads like self-promotion. Fails WP:NPOV. As noted in the nom, the two Forbes articles I found are tagged as equivalent to advertising. Business Standard article is tagged as "Sponsored Content". — ERcheck (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do let me know, what all can be removed to make the article relevant and not deleted. 2406:8800:80:DA33:30B3:2F4B:2AD3:4268 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pabón

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Argentine footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blutonium Boy

AfDs for this article:

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

Blutonium is German DJ. The article was nominated for deletion in 2008 and kept based on this source, which seems notable but doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. The other sources I found are: [18], [19], [20]. This self-published book mentions him in a list of hardstyle djs. German Music Archive doesn't give anything. It feels notable but notable sources couldn't be found. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This album review, available via TWL, calls the subject a "biggie in the genre". One of his remixes got a positive review in Muzik. Appears to have an extensive discography as seen here. Tending to agree with the nominator, the subject "feels notable" but this still needs better sourcing to meet MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 18:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete: Possibly WP:TOOSOON? 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 22:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He started playing as a DJ in 1988" - if 2025 is too soon, there is no hope Geschichte (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitpur Mayor Women's Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These are some coverage for the tournament [21][22][23].Godknowme1 (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per above. With the sources above mentioned, it indicate that there is coverage available about the subject. I'm leaning towards feeling that the article needs citations, not the subject.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARO-APOC3

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

ARO-APOC3, an RNAi treatment under investigation, is showing efficacy but is still in the experimental phase. At this point, it's too early to talk about this drug. Iban14mxl (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG 181.197.40.232 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little to NO content. And per nomination reason Thegoofhere (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xsnow

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Current article is unsourced. Sources that I have found are largely instructional on bloggish *nix sites (i.e. how to install xsnow) or are primary and cannot establish notability.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huygens Software

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Search shows pages from company and pages describing how to use the software. Don't see any independent reliable sources discussing the software. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation site

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? NSOFT is (an essay) about computer programs, not concepts in computer science. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -referring to WP:NSOFT,which means the article is related to non-notable software. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said NSOFT is about, but I still don't see how it's the least bit applicable here. It would be like applying WP:NSPECIES to a concept in anatomy. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSOFT applies, but I also think a computer scientist could offer a more useful response. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that this really is specifically germane to OOD, merge to Constructor (object-oriented programming), as I don't think you can say much about it out of that context. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QSvn

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to be confused with “Quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic soft sets”, sometimes abbreviated “QSVN”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FileMan

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rinda (Ruby programming language)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Andre🚐 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DrJava

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of google scholar shows this IDE was (is?) commonly used in college instructional programs. Some articles compare its pedagogical value to much larger IDEs like eclipse. Google scholar even asked to correct Dr Java to drjava, so it seems its a fairly common term. Sourcing deserves a closer look, but as WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline, I will invoke WP:PRESERVE here and suggest this be kept in the absence of accepted deletion rationale + the availability of academic sources for improvement. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Ruby

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ddoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found outside of primary sources specifically related to the D language. Sources are far too niche to be meet GNG standard. I would not recommend a redirect to D language in this case as the acronym DDOC has multiple meanings.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELMAH

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EAccelerator

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epydoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyBeans

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Suppliers Network

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Lack of independent, reliable sourcing. No evidence of significant impact. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This was created by an IP in 2004. Sourcing fails notability. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 26 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.

OJ (programming tool)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NSOFT 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSdocman

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truss (Unix)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-gop-congressman-george-santos-sentenced-87-months-prison-federal-fraud-case.amp

[1] ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-gop-congressman-george-santos-sentenced-87-months-prison-federal-fraud-case.amp

[1]