Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< May 10	May 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2027 Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad election

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

Contested prod with the comment "2022 is in the past" despite the article being about the 2027 election. Article is just a copy/paste of the 2022 election with "TBD" placed in tables where results will eventually go. Summary is about 2022 which may be the reason for the comment in the contested prod. Have not found significant coverage of future 2027 election. Most hits only bring up info about 2022 or wiki-derived sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zendaya's Hat Theory

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. At best, can be merged into main article and mentioned there. Article was AfC before possibly moved into main space without review. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like routine internet joke/temporary conspiracy theory. Currently lacking coverage in sustained coverage in reliable sources to deserve an article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Revell

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

Only an associate professor and does not seem to have a prolific publishing record in her field. Has published a couple of books, although I' not sure if they count as being widely reviewed (I found a few reviews, and they weren't from mainstream sources).

Basically, I wanted to invite discussion on this because I'm not convinced she passes either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Leonstojka (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Archaeology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree that Revell likely does not meet GNG or NPROF. She has one heavily cited book Roman Imperialism and local identities but beyond that her contributions to the understanding of Roman history don't seem too significant.

Not sure if there is a better place to check for citations of books than google scholar --- my experience with using gscholar is that it often creates duplicate citations. May be convinced to switch vote if better info on citations can be found. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

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

Lacks Notability. Sources are either primary or in the form of press releases. There is promotional intent too. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Products, Engineering, India, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. The current references are company profiles/press releases and/or are too short. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason that this "lacks notability". The current state of the article is poor and needs better sourcing, per WP:V, but that's not the same thing. Clearly this company exists, has existed for a long time, and is substantial (market cap of >500 Crore / £4B). Given that the article was only created today, I'm in no rush to delete it on such a weak basis. Editors are always welcome to do some of the legwork here and help to expand coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Jendrek

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

He only played between 10 and 17 minutes at professional level. Although this name is uncommon, the only secondary sources I found were passing mentions in match reports such as Pravda and Športky. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Tor

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently in the article are primary to clubs Tor played for, and a WP:BEFORE only found some passing mentions in routine match coverage. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Nigeria, New York, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hernandez

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. I did find [[1]], which appears to be the same person, but that piece would still be a WP:YOUNGATH failure. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Football, Florida, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Sultan Midani

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a game designer and businessperson, and added an interview. The current references are two interviews, a non-independent source which mentions him in passing (fi.co), a deadlink and a site which doesn't mention this person. I cannot find more to add, although I may be missing coverage in other languages. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Computing, and Tunisia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dixon

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Housefull 6

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

Fails as per WP:NFF that clearly mentions Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Here WP:RS/sources are about Housefull 5 that will release mid of 2025. Also WP:CRYSTAL applies. Agent 007 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Agent 007 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft fantasy - all of the "references" are to Housefull 5 - because Housefull 6 doesn't exist. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Disaster Response Agency

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

Subject is a fictional government agency in a video game franchise and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article reads a bit like fancruft, written almost entirely in-universe—very little real-world perspective, more suitable for a fan wiki—and the sourcing is fairly weak, largely Valnet and other unreliable sources (Looper, SVG) that describe the agency rather than say anything of interest about it. Subject is already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, Military, and Organizations. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that this should not be a separate article. It is sufficiently covered in the pages for The Last of Us. Available sources are mostly unreliable/low reliability and nothing establishes GNG of the subject outside the context of the game franchise. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fictional organization. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in 2025: [2] [3] [4]. Significant coverage in 2023: [5] [6] [7]. Significant coverage in 2020: [8] [9]. Multiple significant mentions in books which were published in 2022 and 2024: [10] [11]. There are tons of other sources. Just because this article reads bad is not a valid reason for deletion as it can be easily fixed by copyediting instead of deleting it. The argument that its "already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles" is also invalid, as it can be used to delete any article on Wikipedia. For example, we can also delete Parkland high school shooting because its already sufficiently detailed by news reports. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Bevan

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

A journeyman actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can tell, all of his roles were bit parts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not have any major roles in any films, only minor ones per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most roles are uncredited or minor roles, I don't see sourcing we can use. I don't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FamilySearch and IMDB are not enough to support inclusion of a page. It needs more secondary RSes. Fails to meet basic requirements for a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am coming late to this discussion, but note that, while the article states that he was an actor on stage and screen, there is no list of stage performances. I am finding results in the British Newspaper Archive, and would like to compile his stage performances and consider whether he meets WP:NACTOR. Of interest so far - he played one of 4 main roles in 1912 in a farce about the "suffrage question" starring and co-written by Lillie Langtry, and appeared in the first performance of a play by Hall Caine at the Theatre Royal, Manchester, in 1911. He did have more than bit parts on stage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to afford some more time for consideration of Rebecca's comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League World Cup all-time table

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

Unsourced and unnecessary articles. Rugby League World Cup records already has an overall records section, so this one in a different format is not needed. Also WP:NOSTATS violation as article is purely stats. Mn1548 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Legion (Ukraine)

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

There is no doubt that there are voltunteers from Armenia, but none of the references support the any official status with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There is no evidence for the modern use of the official ensign; the name looks back to the Armenian Legion in WWII, but there is no evidence for it in Ukraine. Some of the references are untraceable. The page is at high risk of misleading readers. Klbrain (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect There does seem to be evidence for the Armenian Legion's existence, but most of it is from unreliable sources. Does not have the more considerable coverage of other foreign legions like the Georgian Legion. Would redirect to International Legion (Ukraine). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Avenue (band)

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

Seems to be just a cover band. Sources listed in article are all local, routine coverage. After a google search, not seeing enough sources to justify WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selale University

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

Undisclosed paid editing/conflict of interest fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A government source, the university's own website (which throws up a secure connexion failed error) and some routine coverage. Nothing here is any good. Wieditor25 has attemped to canvass this discussion on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep public Universities are generally presumed notable, even though here there isnt a ton of secondary coverage we can at least establish that this University exists and trains students. The article is in reasonable shape and has sources, we can improve COI issues but I simply dont see a reason to delete this. --hroest 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambella University

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

Undisclosed conflict of interest...fails WP:NORG primary sourced advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wieditor25 no need to blank it nor should you. This discussion will determine if the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Other editors will hopefully opine. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - I'm shocked to see the comments about COI, but there is no proof that the editor works at the university. Then again, most of the sources are from the university's website, so it could fall under a WP:SOAPBOX violation. JTZegers (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, most of the sources are from the university itself (connexion to subject). The rest are two counts of routine coverage, a dead source, and a PDF labeled as a "self-evaluation". Nothing here works. Also, Wieditor25 has attempted to canvass this conversation on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep this needs some cleanup but this is a public university with some independent coverage from the Ethiopian News Agency. --hroest 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Said coverage is routine and is of little value in determining notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a major state-level university. See national TV news pieces here, here (new library inauguration), here, here (on COVID issue at uni). I note the reposted TV news coverage on 2024 strike at the Uni here. Again, AfD is not a space for cleanup of articles. --Soman (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think that public universities are automatically notable, but they usually are, owing to the size of the instiution, and their output. This is a case in point. There are mentions in many books. Mostly because books are written by or about people who studied there. Likewise there are a lot of news reports. Separating primary news reporting from secondary information is tricky, but not all the news is primary. Then there are research reports, actually studying aspects of the university, such as [12] which has a section starting on page 212 that contains secondary coverage of the university. There's a lot here, especially considering it is an African university, where English language sources can be harder to come by. I think we should keep this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Safety Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG, I did not find sources offering significant independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the network is notable in the UK. There are secondary sources about it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and even academic research recognizing it ([7], [8], [9], and more). But I recognize Eddie891's point so I suggest some of these references being incorporated into the article so it is better sourced and more complete. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources have significant coverage and are reliable, and independent from the organization? I see reliable sources with trivial coverage, and non-independent sources with substantial coverage, but none that are all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1, 3 and 4 are not even independent. MarioGom (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources above, and aside from the fact I just had to remove a speedy deletion tag from this same page just a few days ago because no-one bothered to check that the content was different and was based on new sources unavailable when the first version was deleted, many of the new academic sources mentioned above are even newer that have been published since this version was created. Somehow I don't think its good idea to delete an article as "non-notable" when it seems to be continually generating new usable sources. Iostn (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iostn: Which of those sources is an independent and reliable source that provides WP:ORGDEPTH, if any? MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources mentioned before he academic citations were once I had no included for not being very useful, but aside from that, 7 is predicated on works by the TSN to a not-insignificant extent, including citing them through proxy via Andrews 2023, and 9 contrary to the "trivial mention" claim makes use of five separate citations leading to them across the document. In addition, 2 may also pass WP:SPS as the blog it belongs to is from an academic in this field, and that is not mentioning the additional coverage linked by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Iostn (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources being predicated on an organization's work, or citing or quoting that organization, do not contribute to notability. None of the provided sources have in-depth coverage of the organization itself.

Per WP:ORGDEPTH: significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

Per WP:ORGTRIV: trivial coverage includes brief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Astaire (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources presented by Afonso Dimas Martins do not meet the WP:NORG criteria for multiple independent sources with significant coverage.

Source 1: A technology company that redesigned the organization's website. Not independent.
Source 2: WP:SPS that is also not independent: I am also hugely grateful to grassroots organisations such as Trans Safety Network... for gathering a lot of the information I collated in this post.
Source 3: A pair of artists who have given a grant to the organization. Not independent.
Source 4: An activist collective announcing that the organization has joined it. Not independent.
Source 5: Trivial mention of a single sentence.
Source 6: Trivial coverage of 4 sentences total, and likely not independent because the source is encouraging readers to donate.
Source 7: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in three separate sentences throughout the document.
Source 8: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in two separate sentences throughout the document.
Source 9: Trivial mention of a single sentence.

Of the sources currently in the article, only this Pink News article constitutes significant, independent coverage. The other sources are interviews (i.e., not independent) or trivial mentions. WP:ORGCRIT is not satisfied. Astaire (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is acknowledging TSN as a source for research in 2 (i.e., essentially providing a citation in 2) "not independent"? Iostn (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading, it's not clear whether the author was specifically provided the data by TSN, so I withdraw the "not independent" claim. The real issue is that source 2 fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Three sentences with passing mentions of TSN scattered across two different blog posts. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very weak sources that really wouldn't help expand the article - eg. source 8 is a blogpost from a defunct activist group that has been subsequently uploaded to someone else's personal website. Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In addition to the sources previously noted, particularly the academic sources discussing, contextualizing, and citing their research, there's sustained coverage in news publications for the last few years, ranging from in depth analyses of their reports to quoting them as subject experts on misinformation:
- TBIJ: Trans Safety Network, which records attempts at institutional and organised harm against trans people in the UK, has expressed concern that Bayswater actively promotes a manual for conversion therapy, coercive practices that aim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.[13][14]
- Members speaking to parliament and giving quotes to Open Democracy[15]
- The Advocate (magazine) discussing viral research of the TSN: Now, new evidence has come out that suggests Twitter is restricting the visibility of LGBTQ+ content sent via direct message. The restrictions were first noticed by Twitter users before being publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network.[16] This was also covered in the Independent.[17]
- Pinknews article devoted to just one of their open letters: Advocacy group Trans Safety Network published a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually.[18]
- The BBC asking TSN for comment on misinformation about trans people.[19]
- The byline times reporting on TSN's comments to open democracy and seeking comment from them themselves.[20]
- Coverage of TSN publishing leaked NHS training material in Xtra Magazine: Researchers at the Trans Safety Network, a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community, managed to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation.[21]
- Vice covering how the TSN tracked another piece of misinformation: a baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. This is full-blown conspiracy theory has been tracked by the Trans Safety Network – a UK-based group that monitors anti-trans hate – to a statement by the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (WHRC).[22]
- NBC News quoting them on misinformation.[23]
This was a small sampling of news sources, and a quick check found about another dozen academic articles which cited and or discussed the TSN's research. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are frequently quoted in the media, but I still don't see any sources that clearly pass the WP:SIRS bar which we require for any organization. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all examples of trivial coverage: brief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. (WP:ORGTRIV)

These sources would be useful to flesh out the article if notability were already established, but cannot themselves establish notability. Astaire (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not just quotes or brief/passing mentions, but coverage of actions:

The Advocate and Independent both covered their investigation into Twitter.[24][25]
The Pinknews piece is about an open letter organized by the TSN, discusses and analyzes their arguments over an article[26]
Xtra Magazine covers information that TSN leaked, analyzing and discussing it over an article[27]
Vice isn't a quote, it's a description of their research in an investigation[28]

The multiple articles solely devoted to investigations and lawsuits by this organization meet the S in SIRS easily. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth (WP:SIRS). The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions such as a "UK-based research collective" or an "advocacy group" or a "research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community". This is plainly not enough for notability. Astaire (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions - No, PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN, Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation, etc. An article saying "group, described as XYZ, did something. Here's more info about what they did. Here's how others responded. Here's how that's relevant to the broader story" is qualitatively different than "group, described as XYZ, said something". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN The letter is not the organization. There is no significant coverage of the organization in that article. It is described as an "advocacy group" with no further discussion.

Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation There is a single sentence describing TSN as "a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community" and mentioning that TSN was responsible for obtaining these materials. Xtra then discusses the materials without further reference to TSN. This is not significant coverage of the organization itself.

This article is an example of what significant coverage actually looks like. Astaire (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I've previously seen WP:SIGCOV taken to mean an article must cover an organization in depth and doesn't count if it covers an action of theirs in depth. Organizations are notable for their actions, services, etc. Under this criteria, if we had 100 RS covering actions of an organization in depth over years, but none devoted solely to "here's a profile of the org", we wouldn't be able to write an article. We'll have to agree to disagree on how SIGCOV applies and see what others think. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH is a fairly clear criteria, it requires in-depth coverage about the organization. And it is not clear how any source here meets it. MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements

Articles devoted to actions of TSN are neither "brief mentions" or "routine announcements". The sources above go into "commentary", "discussion", "analysis" and "evaluation" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my last comment here, because it is feels a bit like we are talking in circles and not likely to agree here, but this is my analysis of the sources presented.

The Advocate/Independent don't offer substantial analysis of the tweet they are reporting on. The advocate is entirely dependent on the organization, and TSN only comes up in The Independent briefly The restrictions were ...publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network. They could support claims of twitter censorship, but tell us very little about the Trans Safety Network (~1 sentence)
Coverage of the open letter is somewhat more substantive, but again the only thing it can tell us about the Trans Safety Network is that they are an Advocacy group that published a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually. It's a much better source for the court case itself, and again has no independent analysis of TSN's role. Additionally, it is from the same source as our only agreed upon source of sigcov, so wouldn't count as a second piece
Xtra tells us that the TSN is a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community which managed to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation. The rest of the article tells us what those materials say, but do not talk any more about the TSN. It is a good source for the content of those materials, but only mentions the organization in passing.
All Vice tells us about the organization is that they tracked the spread of a baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. We honestly can't even tell whether the rest of the article describes TSN's research, or Vice's own.

As best I can tell, none of these sources offer more than a sentence of direct coverage of the Trans Safety Network, so I can't understand how they could be used to build an article. They are exactly the sort of sources that we would reject from contributing to the notability of a company- containing little to no independent analysis of the organization's work. For example, you cannot tell from these articles anything about the TSN: how they conduct their research, what exactly they are (beyond a 'research collective' or 'advocacy group'), where their information is coming from, when/why the group was founded, or what impact the group has had. Compare those articles to the SIGCOV [29]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources discussed so far do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, being cited by media is not enough to establish notability for organizations. MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: broadly agree with other editors' assessment about lack of WP:ORGDEPTH in existing sources. Plenty of passing mentions and citations in academic work etc have been mentioned that could theoretically be used to build the article, but the most significant in-depth coverage in an RS that would establish notability is this Pink News profile. Does this alone pass the notability bar? Seems to fail WP:MULTSOURCES from what I can see. Void if removed (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't usually wade into AfD discussions these days because I have been burned in the past, but based on the sources shared in the discussion, plus those in the article itself, it is specious to say this organization is "not notable." I don't understand why the person who raised this AfD did not bring these concerns onto the talk page first. That should be a standard thing people do on here, but sadly I see they do not. As is said many times, deleting an article is not a substitute for cleanup. It never is and it never will be. Historyday01 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per YFNS. Sourcing indicates notability. notified from Wikiproject LGBT Talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soun Takeda

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

Note tag placed. I think its non-notable. References are extremly poor, some promo. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do a WP:JAPANBEFORE before nominating. JP wiki has such this source: Oricon, JP name seach yield this NHK, Mainichi Shimbun and many more on JP GNews. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro even got a PBS source lol Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Miminity - Could you please list below which are the three best citations that are: verifiable secondary reliable sources that provide in-depth significant coverage, and are fully-independent from the subject himself? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: sorry for the late reply: It passes GNG, Despite the (1) PBS source being about a local event, it is still not a WP:MILL news, it is still has a significant coverage about who the author is. (2) This Sankei Sports review. (3) This Nihonbashi Keizai Article

Additionally:

(4) This Sports Hochi source. I exclude paywalled sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I also found (3.5) this Journal by OpenEdition Journals , though in french might have a significant coverage about him Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miminity, Thank you for getting back to me. We differ in our analyses of the sources. I’ve already expressed what I thought about the PBS source (so I won't repeat myself here); the Sankai Sports piece is in a sports publication rather than an art or art history publication – it’s PR for a show at a department store and seems to be a press release not in any way a serious art review of a show at a museum or notable gallery or national gallery. The is promo for a calligraphy performance event, not an art review of his work. The Sports Hochi has the same problem in that it is not a serious art reference in an art publication, it’s about his performance of calligraphy as a kind of sport performed in a store. It’s human interest story, content created for the sports public not serious art criticism or art history. He does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Don’t get me wrong, he seems like a great guy and an interesting calligrapher. I just don’t think the sourcing is what is usually present for a notable artist. Maybe in a few more years but now it is WP:TOOSOON.

This citation is pretty good: Cipango is a peer reviewed publication. I’d count that towards GNG, but not the others. If you can find two more like this I might change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miminity, and the subject seems to be a prolific author. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Winning a 2019 "Best Father Award" from Japan Men's Fashion Association (MFU) is not notable. The PBS reference noted above is a review of a local exhibition at the Porch Gallery Ojai. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image to the article. See RIKEN Advance Institute for Computational Science (AICS-RIKEN) photo gallery for more pictures. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources in the article seem to be PR or promotional puff pieces. What are needed are serious critical analysis of his work within an art historical framework. It doesn't matter that he's written a lot of books, if his books have not received critical attention he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. WomanArtistUpdates rationale is very clear, as is their point that PBS is local coverage for a hyper-local event. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific author. Popular calligraphy artist. In practical terms, his work can be seen on the K computer (article available in several languages); image found in Commons. Originally, the article "Soun Takeda" (jp: 武田双雲) was translated from Wikipedia in Japanese. Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a commissioned work doesn't make you notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tortillovsky, being a "popular" or a "prolific" is not the same as notability; nor is being "seen" on the decommissioned K supercomputer. Just because an article exists on another language Wikipedia does not mean that they are notable per English Wikipedia criteria. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll go through the references today. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [30] and this [31] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [32] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [33], here [34], here [35]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [36]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [37], [38], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning delete as the article appears to fail GNG since sources only cover that the subject exchanged questionable texts with a married man and took a selfie at a Holocaust memorial which doesn't seem like significant coverage. I found a few small articles in her hometown newspaper including [39] but I still think it fails WP:BASIC, unless notability is via WP:ENTERTAINER but I don't see a case for this in the sources. I'm wondering if these same sources had different content if I'd see things differently which is why I'm not officially !voting yet. Nnev66 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dug up a few more [40], [41], [42]. That should be more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions here, Oaktree b. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
This was technically relisted several hours ago, but I'm noting this now as a procedural matter. Some comments above this line may actually have been added before the relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no WP:SIGCOV of this individual's career, but rather, a whole lot of tabloid nonsense and a handful of passing mentions in more reliable sources. In addition to the lack of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, the criteria outlined in WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMODEL are also unmet. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Buddhism. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no benefit as a list. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2607. jp×g🗯️ 04:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting page with enough sourcing to appear valid. Doesn’t directly pertain to either games or Buddha and would be a distraction on either site. 02:16, 10 May 2025 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Re: claims of inaccuracy, sources supporting such claims would be welcome. Sojup (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Intelligence

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

Genuinely surprised by the lack of coverage that exists for this character. I was hoping to improve his article, as its current Reception is primarily plucking smaller quotes and trivial mentions from larger episode reviews, but a search through News, Books, and Scholar yielded very little. All I found was plot summary of the character's appearances and trivial, scattered mentions that don't amount to SIGCOV. The few hits I found that were even close to significant- and indeed the only coverage in the current article that is- are about the Yeti, creations of the Intelligence who somehow have more actual tangible discussion than the Intelligence. This character just lacks any form of significant coverage to justify a whole article, and per NOPAGE, I'd support a redirect or merge to the Yeti article, as they are the subject most closely associated with the Intelligence and thus the best place to put information regarding the Intelligence's character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some reception in the article; there is some more praising Ian McKellen's performance as Great Intelligence in news articles; and more commentary in such sources in relation to other individual appearances. There is something strewn throughout Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, mostly plot summary but also some commentary (positive comparison with Fenric (Doctor Who), and specifically talking about how Moffat's version has decidedly little linkage to the yeti!); half a page at The Science of Doctor Who which includes commentary on the possible inspiration; and two pages as "The Psychic Papers: The Great Intelligence" in Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who, again mostly plot summary, but also with commentary. So I did not see a lot of commentary in any one place, but enough of commentary in total to support a full article in the vein of WP:WHYN. And yes, all of this could be partitioned among the individual relevant episodes, the Yeti article and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence. I just see no benefit in such a splitting up with regard to WP:NOPAGE. To the contrary WP:NOTPAPER seems to apply to me here. If push comes to shove I would prefer a merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence to deletion in the vein of WP:AtD, but prefer to keep the article. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the reliability of the publisher of Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, especially given it's advertised as being written "by fans" on a publisher whose website apparently hasn't been updated consistently since 2015 and has a non-functioning FAQ. Regardless, even if we take it as reliable, I'd argue it's largely moreso discussing the Yeti than the Intelligence. The cited statements describe the Yeti for being silly antagonists and theorize if it tied into why they didn't return with the Intelligence, while giving comparatively little depth to the Intelligence; just saying the Intelligence was similar to another antagonist without much further depth isn't what I'd call significant analysis.

Science is largely a summary of the Yeti more than it is the Intelligence, and its brief musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, which is needed here. The Psychic Papers has some pretty solid coverage on both halves, and it's a pretty good find, but the source largely discusses the Yeti and Intelligence in tandem, which doesn't debunk the NOPAGE criteria outlined in my nom.

What I'm largely failing to see, and why I made this nomination, is a lack of actual distinct SIGCOV of the Intelligence separate from the Yeti. If the Yeti and Intelligence are discussed entirely together, then NOPAGE very strongly applies given the shared overlap of both of their appearances, roles, and reception. In all the sources above, the Yeti take up a lot of coverage on the Intelligence, and arguably dwarf the Intelligence in comparative coverage despite being described in the same context. The shared coverage indicates to me that anyone looking for either of the pair would likely be looking for coverage on both of them, something better accomplished in one article where all the information can be contained together, than in two separate articles that are intrinsically tied to each other and require the other article to wholly understand. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one comment: I agree with musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, but not with which is needed here. For notability, we need a sufficient amount of coverage. Per WP:ALLPLOT, in addition to plot summary, coverage needs to include real-world context. As examples of such context are listed development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis. So reception is one valid topic here, developmental background another. Daranios (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Iraqis

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

The article makes significant claims, such as the forced displacement of over one million Iraqi Arabs by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) between 2003 and 2005, yet the cited sources do not directly support these assertions with verifiable evidence or numeric data.

For example:

The Forced Migration Review article addresses displacement but does not specifically accuse the KRG or offer detailed statistics.
The New Humanitarian report discusses internal displacement broadly and doesn't attribute mass expulsions to the KRG. (WP:SYNTH)
The Guardian article provides anecdotal reports of tensions in post-Saddam Iraq but does not claim widespread deportation by the KRG, nor cite figures.
The VOA News report focuses on Arab return movements and property disputes, but does not support the article's claims of organized deportations.
The CRS report broadly surveys displacement in Iraq without identifying the KRG as responsible for any mass forced removals.
The Brookings article examines Iraq's IDP crisis but contains no specific accusations or quantitative data about KRG-led deportations.

Especially who says 1,000,000 million? Additionally, the topic overlaps with more comprehensive and better-sourced articles such as Ba'athist Arabization campaigns in northern Iraq and Arabization of Kirkuk, making this entry largely redundant. What reasoning supports calling it "deportation" when Arab settlers, originally relocated to Kurdish areas by the Ba'ath regime, were simply returned to their places of origin? Finally, the topic fails to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 20:34, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the displacement of Iraqi Arabs in the post-2003 period, which is supported by sources like Human Rights Watch, the Guardian, and VOA. HRW explicitly uses the term “reversing ethnic cleansing” and discusses Arab expulsions in detail and another 2003 article from The Guardian titled “Arabs flee revenge of the Kurds” describes how, in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion, Kurdish groups moved to reverse Saddam Hussein’s Arabization process. And the VOA says “Forced deportations of Arabs from Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq has the United Nations' top human rights official concerned”. this article reflects well-documented patterns during this time. The topic is distinct from Ba’athist Arabization—it focuses on the post-invasion period and its own displacement crisis. I’m open to refining the wording or structure, but the subject itself is notable and sourced, there is absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. DataNomad (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat wording that already exists in the article. My concern isn't that some sources aren't reliable, I never claimed that. The issue is how they're being used. You didn't even explain where the "1,000,000" figure comes from! there's no citation or numeric data supporting that huge claim!. Also, the sources don't accuse the KRG alone, most of them talk about general displacement, with multiple actors involved. Only one of them even says "Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq" and none directly blame the KRG by name for organized, systematic deportations. So why are other participants and contexts missing from the article? That's a clear WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sikorki (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't even need to check sources, I can judge based on the person who made this and their response which doesn't even address the biggest problem, the 1,000,000 claim. It's clear asserting this to only the KRG as this is a Kurd nationalist who wants to flex the deportations rather than help out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, please focus on the article and its sourcing, not on your personal opinion of the editor. You should check the sources before offering your opinion at an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, however it was just a random thing I mentioned. Either way the rest which I have stated is something I find to be valid, as once again, the user has not addressed the main issue. Setergh (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, the user could simple change the “perpetrator” section of the infobox. Other than that, what else seems to be the issue? I’m aware that the KRG wasn’t directly responsible, but does that justify the entire deletion of the page? Etcnoel1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:MOS. This user has a history of creating unencyclopedic content. Just because something appears on Google doesn't mean it deserves a place in any encyclopedia. just look at this (and its nomination for deletion). Some of the numbers in the sources pertain to neighboring countries of Iraq and even Fallujah! Since when have the Kurds established their own country and become Iraq's neighbors? This clearly shows the article was written in a biased manner. Zemen (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally targetting me this is the 4th page of mines you are on DataNomad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laura240406 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like to be eligible for keeping; but this is fine if it attaches further references . 110 and 135 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering All substantive concerns regarding the article have already been thoroughly addressed in the previous discussion. What reasons are there to support keeping the article? Zemen (talk) 09:52, 11 May 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]

Opposed to deletion: Studio audio engineers like Nuccio Rinaldis, fulcrums of the discography in Italy with their constant work in pursuit of "vocal and instrumental sound perfection" (from the first to the last note down to mixing) in front of recording desks alongside proven successful artists with millions of records sold and million-dollar turns of business, have no media sponsors to pull from to retrieve sources. But this is not a culturally significant reason to propose deletion of the entry. The works done, widely historicized, are the equivalent of reliable sources. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's date added bibliography. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Mina, not notable outside of his work with the singer. Also, the previous comment claiming "producing successful records is equivalent to reliable sources" is hilarious lol

ApexParagon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not any material worth merging to Mina (Italian singer). Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Click Play

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

As I said in my redirect edit, "One Instagram post from the artist with zero reliable coverage for the album itself (I'm not convinced coverage for the singles is enough here since the album is a footnote in those articles)." Even a few hours into the next day, there still has been no new coverage of this announcement. Even Billboard, which had an article about Max just a month ago which is included here, have not published anything about this album announcement. I do not see notability here at this time, still believe the article is premature, and that a redirect to the artist's page is still the best option until more coverage comes along. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted, it's not consistent with practice for other articles. I guarantee you if Taylor Swift announced a new studio album and all we had was posts from her on social media and no news coverage, that there wouldn't be a deletion discussion. While she certainly is no Taylor Swift, Ava has BILLIONS of streams, hundreds of millions of YouTube views, won MTV & iHeart awards, topped charts in 20 countries, certified albums platinum, etc which qualify her as a major pop artist in several countries. An artist's official announcement (with reposts by the official record label) is enough info. There really are no MAJOR pop music magazines, websites, that the general public is aware of. Not everything is a news article, like many, many other articles on Wikipedia, this refers to a specific niche which has attracted notability within a certain group, in this case the European music industry. And you have to be aware that the announcement was made yesterday afternoon. 216.106.93.194 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make this album notable. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards for notability are not based on assuming whether the general public knows about something. There is a long history as to why we look to what are considered reliable sources such as professional music publications. If they aren't covering an album announcement, then we shouldn't have an article for it just on the assumption that it just has to be huge deal, even if it's from Taylor Swift (though I see headlines about every other time she breathes so I doubt that'd ever happen). And Ava Max being notable herself, a fact that I have and would not deny, does not mean that every album she releases is automatically as well; notability is not inherited after all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore not notable. Likely a case of too soon if anything. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 [43] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some released music and has multiple reliable sources discussing the teasers for the upcoming album. TOOSOON is an essay that calls attention to there being a problem with there not being enough reliable sources to talk about a thing yet, but two reliable sources talking about the album are in the article, which is well-cited. It seems fine to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As the nomination states, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources for this album. It's just an instagram post, and the billboard article that does not mention the album is literally about the artist trolling which makes the instagram post seem even less reliable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the cited articles? No mention of upcoming album in the billboard article. RollingStone and Uproxx just mention teases of a new album and there is no significant coverage in either. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz [44] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still concur with QuietHere below. The single billboard reference still reads mainly like routine coverage of an album announcement.

That said, I think Draftify is probably more appropriate than deletion at this point. It's clear that there are interested editors who will update the article as the album release approaches/happens so I don't think it will languish there for eternity like some articles sent to draft space. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely support draftifying. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect back to Ava Max — it fails WP:FUTUREALBUM I think? Limmidy (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Limmidy [45] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article, namely the album is already notable, and the other medias must be going to publish about this album soon. No reaso to be deleted like this, and also many users may not recognize this fact:

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[46] Now I got a source for it. So I sustain ~~Keep~~. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Camilasdandelions you're only allowed one vote per discussion; regardless if it's just you reiterating your point, you shouldn't post a bolded vote twice.

2. Unfortunately, while I'm glad to see one major publication finally covering this, typically it's preferred to see at least two or three for an upcoming album. After so many days, somehow, Billboard are still the only ones to have done so, so I am still unconvinced that this album is ready for an article at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Billboard's article about the album's announcement was published yesterday, just a day after this article was made a candidate for deletion. The album was only announced three days ago. I think it would be purposeless hassle to delete this article and then inevitably bring it back in under a week. Abby Abangan (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"inevitably" and "under a week" are both assumptions that Wikipedia does not have room for. We have no idea when or even if more coverage will appear, and we can't just leave articles live on the expectation that it could. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The album has a Billboard article for its announcement, and multiple major music publications referenced the album in articles related to pre-release singles. There is no objective standard by which this article should definitively be deleted, so it's really a matter of whether someone wants to go through unnecessary trouble or not. Abby Abangan (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is better to delete it unless by attaching more sources. 110 and 135 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sympathetic to the points made above that Max is a very well-known artist and her third album is guaranteed to be notable, so per WP:NOTBURO deleting this temporarily is a waste. In addition to the Billboard piece, the album announcement has been covered on some other sites [47][48] and a promotional campaign for it has also been covered [49]. This isn't the strongest sourcing ever, but in my opinion, when combined with the context of the artist, it's enough to keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 11:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [50] [51] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN.^[1] Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce

I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

Keep WP:N, WP:V [52] [53] [54] [55] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY, A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them "primary sources". This is a bizzare reinterpretation of what "primary source" is, and it's a troubling one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
[...] Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.^[a] Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material.^[1] Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:
"[...] A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".^[2]

"[...] A recently published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".^[3]

"Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described[.] [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".^[4]

"[...] Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".^[5]
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a bizarre reinterpretation that an air accident investigation is a primary source. These are classic primary sources for the question as to what happened in an aviation accident. That they analyse the question of what happened, and pull together evidence, recordings and interviews is not enough to make them secondary. They are primary in the sense that any piece of research analysis is primary. They are a studied account of what happened. Research, government reports etc., are all primary sources for the same reason. See, for instance, [56], or any such guide. The official air accident investigation report is certainly a primary source.
But the question usually has some shades of grey. The question as to whether information is primary or secondary often depends on the question asked of the source. But what question are you asking here? If the question is "is this air accident notable" then it clearly makes no sense to argue that notability is demonstrated by the existence of the air accident investigation report. Every air accident has one of those. So either the argument is that they are all, by definition, notable, or else the existence of such a report can add nothing to an indication of notability. If they are all notable, there needs to be an SNG saying so. The existence of this primary source can add nothing to the question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're confusing Wikipedia:Party and person. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
^ "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
^ "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
^ González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

^
See for example:
- Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.
  
  Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.
  
  Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents, suggested by the nom. in a reply above, so presumably the nom. is content too. This over the other suggestion as this article already contains mention of this accident and salient details. It is not a keep, because we have no secondary sources, and no sustained interest in this event. All we have is the accident investigation (all crashes have these) and a couple of contemporary news accounts that are primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and nothing that is WP:SUSTAINED. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

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. IAWW (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), these individual event articles are not presumed notable. I can not find sufficient coverage of this subject in reliable secondary sources for it to meet GNG – the current article relies entirely on primary sources. Courtesy ping to Editør, who nominated this for GA. IAWW (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. IAWW (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Europe, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is not hard to find sources with reports about this relay event, to give just a few: Athletics Weekly, BBC, La Gazzetta dello Sport, De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad, Nederlandse Omroep Stichting – Editør (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I missed the Athletics Weekly post somehow. I couldn't find the others because I don't speak Dutch and the BBC mentions it only in passing. I'll withdraw this nomination when I next have access to my laptop. IAWW (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to incorporate some of these secondary sources in the article as well. – Editør (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[57], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[58] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[59]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[60][61][62], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[63][64][65][66]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[67]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[68][69], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to !vote weak keep. The The Cloud piece is substantial enough to base an article on, and the other news mentions taken together help back that up. The Nataraja win is also an indicator of its significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recipient of national major awards: Nataraja Awards (รางวัลนาฏราช, a top-tier award in Thailand) [70], TV Gold Awards (รางวัลโทรทัศน์ทองคำ, should be the most prestigious TV awards in Thailand) [71]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources and awards provided here would be helpful in forming a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:25, 11 May 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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - has a German-speaker done WP:BEFORE? Most/all sources will be in German. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history of this article, it appears to be a translation of the poorly sourced German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Sikora. No sources there to help sustain the biographical information and claims made in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have revisited this article several times. I've made some edits, but am unable to find RS to show notability. Sikora designed an observation tower and a footbridge. The sourcing for this information is miriquidimedia.de (Miriquidi Media), which looks to be a site about Sikora that promotes his books, project and tours. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. The citation for the biographical information is a dead link. The listing for books have citations that don't link anywhere, just hyperlink for ISBN and hyperlink to the Wikipedia pages of the German region the book covers. I have not found anything on the internet to show notability. The fact that there might be something somewhere in German needs to survive WP:BURDEN --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansy

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

Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. The two Instagram sources cannot be used to establish notability (and one of the sources doesn't even mention her name at all). The PDF is just a table of scores from a competition. Although she has won an award, it was with a team, and WP:NGYMNASTICS requires individual awards. I searched for sources and even did a regional search for Egypt, but found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched and couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. No individual awards to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS either. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, may become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas MacBean

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

Although this person had an interesting name, there is nothing in the article that demonstrates this person was notable. Why is the music video for You're My Best Friend cited? Aneirinn (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (Forrest Frank song)

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

Redirect to Child of God (album). Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 04:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varamar

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

This article possibly WP:COI Might have been created by someone affiliated with the group which violates WP:NPOV policy. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, Transportation, China, Middle East, Germany, Ukraine, and Canada. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem like this company meets WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Bhati

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

This article seems like a promotional bio rather than an Wikipedia page, which violates WP:NPOV policy. It may have been created by someone connected to the subject possibly WP:COI. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Poetry, Wrestling, India, and Uttar Pradesh. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you unhappy just because your article Akash Singh Rajput has been deleted?? Zuck28 (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Zuck28, Why should I be ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not target and nominate any article like this. If you believe the article needs to be improved, you can edit and make updates, but not afds are not for this.

Zuck28 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that I’m not targeting anyone or any specific article. I’m simply following the usual process as part of my routine contributions. If there are issues with the article, I’m happy to improve it through edits my intention was never to disrupt anything out. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Bąk

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

Contested prod. Single source. Cannot find any other in-depth sources about this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might about the person [72], I can only see an extract so I can't translate it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some articles coming up in Google Scholar which mention this Zbigniew Bąk (I think, although his father had the same name ....), so it would probably be possible to add more sources. For someone living in the 15th century, we do seem to know quite a lot about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Polish Wikipedia uses this ref:

Alicja Szymczakowa, Zadorowie z Bąkowej Góry w: Herald – pismo Instytutu Heraldyki i Genealogii w Köln, 1993, Nr 7, s. 34-39

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not find Zbigniew Bąk in the 31,247 entries in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (not to be confused with The Polish Biographical Dictionary which is offline and has only 900 entries). I'm leaning towards "delete" right now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Swaying towards a relist rather than a no-prejudice delete, but one relist might clear the air.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Pachauri

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

Most sources are minor mentions or routine coverage, insufficient for a standalone entry under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khwarizmi International College

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

I prodded this last 2022 with this rationale:

Fails WP:GNG. No substantial hits from Google Books, News, Scholar and News Archives.

Google search also turned out typical business and map listings.

Do note that there's an existing institution in UAE that has a similar name so expect false positives.

I've also checked the reference in the article which only gives a passing mention of the institution.

--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union

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

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Abravanel

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

Subject only played three games at the third tier of American soccer. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: Kitsap Sun (p2), more in the Sun (p2), Ventura County Star (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He did play at the professional level, but not for long, I also see he did get notable secondary coverage, such as the Ventura County Star. I see no problem with keeping the article, but it does need to be expanded as it is a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was gonna include some articles I found, but noticed that Beanie already did the honors. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are only a few sources, they are notable and this person did have a formal, long, and notable soccer career. More sources would bolster inclusion but I think overall, this is notable enough to keep. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be on wikipedia notable sources found.Sync! (talk)
Delete Articles from two local newspapers do not come close to demonstrating notability. The two Kitsap Sun articles are about this local Kitsap player getting try outs. That is news reporting of the tryout, which is primary news reporting. Note that we don't even know from this if he succeeded. Presumably not, because if he had, where is the coverage on that? Any use of those in the article would require SYNTHesis from primary sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. What about the Ventura County Star? Well this is not about his football career at all. Indeed, it seems the career has been abandoned because he has gone into business and he is donating soccer balls to youth teams. That report is clearly not independent. Abravanel's company is drumming up interest by donating soccer balls to local kids, and the local paper runs the story. Good marketing, but it is not notable. There is nothing here from which an article can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This source from 2011 mentions the tryout. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. But still a local news report and primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because some (non-trivial, but rather primary) sourcing exists does not mean we have to have an article, and the fact that coverage of this subject has essentially nothing to do with why he's supposed to be notable (actually playing professional football) is evidence this coverage is non-encyclopedic. NOPAGE applies here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This guy, strictly speaking, meets the GNG. The sources aren't perfect, but I'm not a huge fan of writing off so much otherwise decent coverage as "local". Toadspike [Talk] 10:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... and primary and/or not independent. That is, the coverage does not meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not significant coverage. This article fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Lowell (soccer)

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Hampshire, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Allen

AfDs for this article:

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

Not convinced this person is notable. Yes she wrote a "New York Times bestseller", but even for that the primary reason it was a bestseller was because she coauthored it with Hilary Duff, and it seems likely many people bought it because they were fans of Duff – essentially ghostwriting in the open. She created some children's TV shows – even if those shows are notable, I don't think that necessarily makes her notable by extension. Note this article was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen in Feb 2020 but then recreated roughly 10 months later – and I'm not sure if anything had really changed between its deletion and its recreation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the Emmy nomination could be notable, but all we have for sourcing is a list with a name. I can't find sourcing about this person, so not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aldair Sanchez

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Chapman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A city councilman (unless of a city significantly larger than Alexandria, Virginia) isn't notable. Could be redirected to Alexandria, Virginia#Government, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County John Doe (1994)

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This possible murder victim was finally identified 30 years after his body was found, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fanger

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. He played in obscure article-less bands and founded a "local removals company". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does appear to have been something of a "local legend", but, a tad reluctantly, I have to agree with the nomination. Having undertaken several searches, including via TWL, I'm unable to find evidence the subject meets any notability guidelines. ResonantDis_tortion 10:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Merrithew

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. His film and TV credits are not particularly significant and his company is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Theatre, Health and fitness, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

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

A page for a a research study from 1970, with notability supported by only one independent source. Pubmed shows 243 citations (over the course of 55 years), which suggests that it is influential, but insufficient for stand-alone notability. Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual papers are seldom notable, and if so, there should be extensive secondary coverage (not just citations by other studies). Plus, the article is almost devoid of content, just a summary of the abstract. Until secondary sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Bob

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

I think this should be redirected to Leo XIV as the primary topic. The current pope is regularly referred to as "Pope Bob" by media outlets, and thus readers searching that name are most likely to be looking for Leo XIV at present. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Disambiguations, Italy, Peru, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems to be a fairly clean case of WP:PTOPIC. Most mentions of "Pope Bob" are referring to Leo XIV. Nahida 🌷 00:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was also a (slightly ironic) nickname for Robert G. Ingersoll. [73] I'm too tired to add add it to the article/dab, but with three potential subjects, we're looking more at moving than redirecting, right? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to article and page. Thanks for the cite. I agree. Move first to Pope Bob (disambiguation) and then redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disamb., "Pope Bob" has redirected to Robert Anton Wilson since November 2019. Not many views, but a long-time nickname for Wilson both among the subgenius and, mainly, the Discordians. If redirected to Leo XIV a hatnote to Wilson seems an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as disambiguation. This is just WP:RECENTISM; there are reliably attested sources indicating this nickname applies to other individuals. If in several months' time, "Pope Bob" is indelibly associated with Leo XIV, then we can reconsider, but not now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation (and not a redirect), per reasons listed by User:Randy Kryn above. It's a term that can refer to any of the three, and has been used to refer to any of the three, and keeping it as a disambiguation page feels like the safest bet for now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation, no primary topic – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recentism concern here is obviously valid. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't strive to support the latest and greatest slang usage because it's impossible to say whether it has long-term significance. I doubt any readers looking up this term will be really astonished to see that more than one topic may be referred to this way. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dab page. Have added dates to make it more useful for a reader looking for a "Pope Bob". PamD 08:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity (journal)

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any coverage of this journal in independent secondary sources, only primary ones. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. ApexParagon (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ApexParagon (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it fails NJOURNALS. It's indexed in Scopus and EBSCO. Nobody (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Nichols

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

Sources for person covered by the article appear to be minor awards and not especially significant, and may not rise to the level required by WP:ANYBIO Noleander (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

[3] Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[4] "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.

[5] "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.

[6] González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[7] Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

[2] See for example:
Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[8] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[9] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

[10] Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

[11] Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[1]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Conheça Walt Disney World