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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mirna Abdulaal does not meet notability requirements specified in WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST.

• The environmental award mentioned on her page is given by the Cairo Climate Talks, a non-notable organization.
• Google Books search shows three books citing her articles, which is not close to being widely cited by peers.
• Most importantly, Google News search shows articles written by her but no secondary sources about her, so we have no reliable information about Abdulaal that can be added to her page.

Thanks, Iiii I I I (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, COVID-19, Environment, and Egypt. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found an eBook with the name, but with no biographical information, who knows. Wikipedia is not a resume which is what this is. Cannot pass the barest of notability or GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African American Barbers in Fargo-Moorhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

New article that, in addition to seeming AI-generated, is almost entirely WP:OR. I was not able to verify that the broad category of this article is notable even if some of the individuals discussed are, and the sources used only relate to individuals, not "African American Barbers" as a whole. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I did find a possibly useful source from 2022 that spent several paragraphs talking about this topic, so there might be an article lead here.^[1] Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This *is* helpful - I need to brush up on my Newspapers.com skills! If deletion happens, we could potentially incorporate some of this into the "History" sections of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the topic is too specific and narrow. Wikipedia is not a local history yearbook. I recommend expanding the pages mentioned by Thadeus. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much WP:OR; there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of this particular subject (although I do recognize that perhaps African Americans in Fargo-Moorhead, rather than barbers in particular, might be a notable topic based on the Forum article linked above). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted‎ by BusterD per WP:G5 as the creation of a blocked user's sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing_extremist_attacks_in_Berlin-Neukölln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is poorly written and contains original research, making it clearly not up to the standards of Wikipedia. But the reason I do not think it is worth keeping and improving is that the topic is not notable. It describes a group of attacks with no known perpetrator, background or connection to each other. So the information content of this article is basically that neo-Nazis or other right-wing extremists live in Berlin and sometimes commit crimes there. This is not news to anyone who has much experience with this city. For those who do not, I think it would be better to include this information in related articles like Berlin, Neukölln or Crime in Germany, ideally in the form of summary statistics about the number, type and background of crimes committed in these areas. Cfrhansen (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article appears to have been created by the sockpuppet of a user who has since been banned, making it unlikely that they will ever improve it. Cfrhansen (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure, not having read the sources, but maybe this would be best merged to the article on the marches that were made as a reaction to these attacks? Mrfoogles (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to this article? I couldn't find anything. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–2025 German anti-extremism protests? Paprikaiser (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article for speedy deletion. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ineligible for speedy deletion. See this WP:G5 requirement: "To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." That article was created several years before Friedjof was banned. I removed the speedy deletion tag. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by Outdoor-Bro, his sockpuppet. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Bale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG There is little to no evidence that a Sultanate of Bale existed, as someone who has ancestry in the area. Most of the information of Bale refers to it as a province/territory of either Ethiopia or Adal with very little if any records of the supposed sultanate that predates them, should be redirected to a more well sourced duplicate article Bale (historical region). Socialwave597 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - leaving aside the as someone who has ancestry in the area remark (WP:YANARS), it appears that the subject does in fact pass WP:GNG. This can be demonstrated on the basis of three sources:
- Prunier, Gérard; Ficque, Éloi (2015). Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia: Monarchy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi. Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9781849042611. does discuss the history of Bale, and mentions Sultanate of Bale as an Islamic state: In the course of this history, the Arsi group incorporated into its clan structure several pre-existing peoples who were under the authority of medieval Islamic states (in particular the Sultanate of Hadiya and the lesser known Sultanate of Bale).;
- Amenu, Teshome (2008). The rise and expansion of Islam in Bale of Ethiopia: Socio-cultural and political factors and inter-religious relations (Master of Philosophy in Religious Education thesis). Bergen: Norsk Lærerakadem. has a subchapter dedicated to "The Islamic Sultanate of Bale" (2.1);
- Østebø, Terje (2012). John Hunwick; Rüdiger Seesemann; Knut Vikør (eds.). Localising Salafism: Religious Change Among Oromo Muslims in Bale Ethiopia. Islam in Africa. Vol. 12. BRILL. ISBN 978-9004184787. likewise has a subchapter "The Sultanate of Bale" (3.3.1).
From this, coming back to WP:GNG - these sources are obviously independent of the subject, they are secondary sources, they are reliable, having subchapters dedicated to the subject gives enough significant coverage to write a Wikipedia article, and the existence of this article does not violate what Wikipedia is not. Brat Forelli🦊 22:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Brat Forelli has demonstrated notability. Srnec (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agreed the "as someone who has ancestry" should be left aside. Reviewing the article on its own merit, the sources are varied and reliable and do establish WP:GNG is met. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities named after states they are not located in (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined PROD, which was declined by an IP (possibly a sock of the author). List does not appear to satisfy WP:NLIST, and topic reeks of WP:OR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Outside Missouri City, Texas, all of these cities are appropriately named to their region, next to a water or natural feature the town is named for, or ended up in another state because of geography and politics. Not really needed and reads of failed OR. Nathannah • 📮 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and NLIST. This is a bit of trivia almost nobody really cares about or has noticed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' there are cities named after states in which they are not located . Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absence of sources mean it’s guesswork, i.e OR, as to what the cities are named for. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than that. It's erroneous guesswork. Delaware, Ohio for example was named after the (exonym) Delawares who were removed to there, not after Delaware itself. That was the first one that I checked, too. I'd be surprised if any of this article were accurate at all. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I come on behalf of the citizens of Florida, Orange County, New York, Florida, Montgomery County, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, and Florida, Ohio to say i feel bad when a newish editor gets their work deleted, but its not personal. It just doesn't fit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic and is trivia. I think this one is obvious. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2024#April–June. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani - Epic 1- Dharam vs Karam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has no reliable reviews, [1] is not reliable per the Indian Cinema Taskforce. The film attempts to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Inclusionary_criteria #1 as the "The first Indian superwoman film", but there is absolutely no content to write an article about it.

The film's title is just Indrani and the rest shoulnd't be included per WP:TAGLINE. DareshMohan (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024#April–June -Mushy Yank. 22:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a review at 123Telugu (I know that a recent decision has the site listed as "unreliable", but, again, I think it can be used for verification). (original version: https://www.123telugu.com/telugu/news/indrani-movie-review-in-telugu.html) (same comment for IndiaGlitz: http://www.indiaglitz.com/indrani---epic-1-dharam-vs-karam-review-telugu-movie-review-35012). There are a lot of interviews on YouTube and articles about production so if others think this should be kept because it meets NFIC#1, fine by me. -Mushy Yank. 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024#April–June or Delete. Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources just mention getting new release date. No multiple critical reviews from reliable sources that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES reliability list. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced. Seems better in draft space to be improved before coming back to mainspace. Maybe ‘’’redirect’’’ for time being would be ok. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2025#January–March. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neerukulla 35km (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Needs 2 reliable reviews; it has only one. Has no other reliable sources either. Hesitant to redirect to draft despite being new since article creator has a history of moving drafts back to articlespace.

Technically, the film's title probably refers to a road marker indicating 35 km to Neerukulla, a village in Hanamkonda district. Can redirect to the district's article. DareshMohan (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2025#January–March: (just added there or would have !voted merge); released film with a review; seems a reasonable ATD in this case. Draftity if judged insufficient. And, of course, if other reviews emerge, expand back into a standalone page. -Mushy Yank. 21:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really in favour of redirecting it to the district, though. -Mushy Yank. 21:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2025#January–March or Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Poorly sourced. Seems better in draft space or redirect per editors above. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only a candidate. Fails wp;politician TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete– The subject fails WP:GNG. Subject has some coverage but does not meet specific criteria for politicians. RolandSimon (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dunno what article RolandSimon was looking at LOL. Article has 2 high quality WP:RS above and beyond WP:GNG. That's our hurdle for people not meeting WP:NPOL. This guty would be absolutely crushed at the election though but in case he'd win, then he'd qualify for WP:NPOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All coverage centered on his candidacy and fails WP:NPOL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't already won, and the existence of a small handful of campaign coverage is not sufficient to claim that they had passed WP:GNG and were therefore exempted from WP:NPOL — since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a small handful of campaign coverage, if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless and unenforceable since every candidate would always get that exemption. So candidates get articles only if either (a) they can show preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article regardless of the candidacy, or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater significance than everybody else's candidacy, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring importance. Neither of those have been demonstrated here, however. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not speedy (which it isn't anyway, having been listed for over a week) or "Nomination withdrawn", but because of consensus and the expansion that has invalidated the ONEOTHER argument. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Disambiguation pages aren't needed for only two items, see WP:ONEOTHER. One of the pages is just a redirect anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • You meant "Josh Freeman" not "John Freeman" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. A disambiguation pagec is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added several others. Boleyn (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider my !vote stricken. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WikiOriginal-9 Then would you consider this withdrawn? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination has been withdrawn but we still have an editor arguing for Deletion so this can not be closed as a Speedy Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. Now a valid disambiguation page. BD2412 T 21:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Now a valid DAB page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori School of Duluth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local elementary school with only local coverage. 🄻🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Minnesota. 🄻🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16 external news media and other sources cited on the page. "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a secondary and reliable source." This page passes the threshold for inclusion by a wide margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:My_article_got_nominated_for_deletion! MeepleMe (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of that coverage is local. 🄻🄰 17:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your source for the requirement that it not be local coverage. I'm not finding that. 74.127.163.108 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the guideline here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement. 🄻🄰 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From your cited guidelines ...

"Qualifying

If there is any one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source, or any one source with a general-interest or scholarly audience"

The Duluth News Tribune is a regional newspaper. It is also a general-interest source. There are four separate articles from the Duluth News tribune listed in the citations, so it should qualify I believe. MeepleMe (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Ideally, some references are from regional or national sources but local sources are not completely dismissed, they are just not valued as highly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz. As noted above, there are four citations to a regional, general-interest source in the article. MeepleMe (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - tiny (15-students) school with almost entirely local coverage; only national source is brief statistical information. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid you've applied the "average class size" of 15 incorrectly here. Approximate enrollment is 60, as per the entry. MeepleMe (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The photos in the article are all from the "about" page on the school's web site. In commons those photos are listed as User:MeepleMe's "own work." @MeepleMe: - did you take those photos? At least nominally they are covered by the copyright notice on the web page: "Copyright 2018 Montessori School of Duluth. All rights reserved." I ask this as it may indicate COI. Lamona (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I took the photos as a volunteer for the school. MeepleMe (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources here (which are better than I can find with our usual searches) are either not independent or are trivial. This article is mostly a re-write of the "history" web page on the school's site. The sources here and the school's media page are local interest reports on normal school activities, from personnel changes to yard sales to building projects. I also note some COI, which may or may not have affected the content of the article, but still probably should have been declared. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Marshall School as a very comparable entry in the same city ... In fact, it uses pretty much the same sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_School MeepleMe (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF Lamona (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the reference. So, in that article ...

  Examples:

  Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. – Bleigh Tant Marqueter (talk), 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC) MeepleMe (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mainly locally sourced. Seems better in draft space. Can be improved in principle. May be written by someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya, Elpitiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since 2009; I cannot find any sources; and there is no major reason to think that there would be sources, as it is a random small school in Sri Lanka. The alternate-language versions of this article also lack sourcing. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does say it was founded after a Japanese ocean raid, but I think it just means chronologically? In any case, there is no reliable secondary source. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, it exists [2]. There isn't much else to be found online that isn't a directly listing or facebook. It's been tagged since 2009, I'm thinking there isn't much else to find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is possible that there is/was a variant of this school name that is/was used more widely. However, all signs point to not meeting the notability criteria for schools at this time. (Not convinced that it is currently operational either. Is there an actual Facebook page? I only saw the "unofficial" one that is essentially empty.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional advertisement masquerading as an article, non-notable youth activist, fails WP:ANYBIO or the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: How did this get approved at AfC? I find no sourcing about this person, no hits of any kind, other than social media. Very non-notable due to the near complete lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has been moving this page around the project but it has been returned to main space. I think they would like for it to be returned to Draft space, if editors here consider that a viable option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject doesn't pass notability guidelines. Yolandagonzales (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nico Pampier should be deleted because it lacks reliable independent sources demonstrating notability and is primarily a promotional overview rather than a substantive encyclopedic entry. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Prodded by ToadetteEdit, deprodded by IP editor with comment "Kind Request to keep the page. Its very important." The only plausible pass of WP:NPROF that I see is a potential WP:NPROF C6 case, but I am doubtful that the college comprises a major academic institution. Is it a suborganization of Bengaluru North University? Bringing to AfD for clarity. I am a weak delete. Redirection to the college could potentially be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to be straightforward. When I originally prodded the article, I saw that the subject doesn't meet the notability given that their research contributions are not widely cited and the sources are mostly primary. But then I am in doubt whether Kristu Jayanti College is a major institution or not, given that it was rated A++ by a governmental body and is affiliated with a major university. I am split between keeping and deleting but am not opposed to redirection. I will reconsider if someone provides proof whether the institute is major or not; otherwise, I will default to weak delete. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, Computing, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend towards weak keep. Kristu Jayanti College offers 17 or so master's degrees in a number of different subjects; this is no community college. If it were a Ph.D.-granting institution, it would be a "keep" from me. The article needs improvement - by which I mean it needs to be pared down substantially so that it has no CV-like sections. Qflib (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to note that the page has had one truly extreme attempt to add extremely problematic and promotional content to it since I started cleaning it up; this change was thankfully reverted by another editor. But if the page is kept it may have to be protected at some level to avoid it being turned back into an advertisement. Qflib (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this one. I think he probably does meet N6; the college has 12,000 students, according to the article about it - though this fact is unreferenced - which I think would make it major. But we do need some coverage of the principal to be able to have a BLP about him. The college's website's management page just says "Fr. Dr. Augustine George. Principal Secretary, Bodhi Niketan Trust". The only secondary source I can find is The Hindu, wayback archive, which reads like a press release and only says "The meet was presided over by Rev. Dr. Augustine George, college principal". The article about the college lists Augustine as principal, but the reference for that does not mention him and indicates Fr. Josekutty was then principal. Tacyarg (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With Weak Deletes and a Weak Keep, this may close as No consensus if there is no more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a massively falsely sourced biography, that turns out to be autobiography by Augustine George CMI (talk · contribs). All of the paragraphs that purport to be sourced turn out to just externally link to the WWW sites of the institutions tangentially mentioned, that confirm zero information stated in the article, either in its current or original forms. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After checking over references provided, most do not refer to the subject but rather refer to the places where the subject may have worked/studied. Nominally the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC guidelines for being the head of school, but that could be covered in a mere sentence. I admit I am skeptical of the WP:ACADEMIC guideline that says top-level administrators of colleges/universities are notable for being academic rather than their willingness to play politics. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- from commenters above and a quick look at the article there appear to be no good references either in the article or anywhere else. The current article barely says anything important about him other than that he's a professor, and it seems unlikely that it can be improved. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following my comment above. There just isn't any coverage other than a few words. Tacyarg (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Mock Trial Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a run of the mill competition in the smallest state; of course it lacks significant coverage. I presented at the LRE - it's still on my LinkedIn page - and this is totally run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia vs England in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article which is essentially a head to head results of two different national teams is statistical overkill. These results are already in List of country NRLT Results. Would be fine if there was prose to explain the rivalry, but this also exists on the NT page or competition pages where the rivalry is mainly contested. Violates WP:NOSTATS and is repeated information. Mn1548 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Australia vs France in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Australia vs New Zealand in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Australia vs Papua New Guinea in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Australia vs Fiji in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

England vs New Zealand in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Zealand vs Samoa in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Zealand vs Tonga in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Samoa vs Tonga in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fiji vs Papua New Guinea in rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, England, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, England, Oceania, Fiji, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per WP:NOTSTATS. Purely results listings. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per NOTSTATS, but no prejudice against re-creation in the future. I think a few of these (such as Aus vs NZ) would satisfy WP:NRIVALRY, but more prose and citations are needed to support this. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klimaschutz- und Energie-Beratungsagentur Heidelberg-Nachbargemeinden gGmbH (KliBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOT is not met. Landpin (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears it could be promotional but otherwise is not written in a strong tone and does not appear to be notable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed, no coverage so fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Got a bit more than a passing mention in a Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik book from 1999: p. 40/41, and coverage from the City of Heidelberg, but i don't know if it's considered independent coverage, even if the organisation acts as an indepentent agency. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the coverage found too is too sparse to meet wp:gng. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TV5 Network. asilvering (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYMD-DTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to TV5 Network seems to make sense if article cannot be further expanded given the limited amount of RS supporting its significance on its own, not opposed to draftify if this will stil be worked on.Villkomoses (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Not many sources. Seems better to merge with TV5 Network. This will salvage or preserve useful info collected.. Ramos1990 (talk)
• Merge the sources demonstrate that a merge with TV5 Network is likely the best call. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Museu de Memes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no reliable sources, fails gng ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm seeing a decent amount of Portuguese-language content on Google and Google Books. Anerdw (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I did not find any WP:SIGCOV, except for the source of Revista Piauí present in the article, and practically identical articles from Globo and Estadão. Also failed in WP:CONTINUED, since after the creation of the project in 2017, nothing else happened related to the subject. Svartner (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is relevant but needs to be improved. --Xrimonciam (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please cite the specific reliable sources you find here if you want to keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this one, for starters:
  • Oliveira, Kaio Eduardo de Jesus; Couto, Edvaldo Souza; Porto, Cristiane (2021-11-19). ""Não sou obrigado a ser Cult" o museu de memes enquanto espaço de Educação, Inovação e divulgação científica". Revista da FAEEBA - Educação e Contemporaneidade (in Portuguese). 30 (64): 210–225. doi:10.21879/faeeba2358-0194.2021.v30.n64.p210-225.
• Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per anerdw Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, what a cute article. I had not heard of this before, but after looking more into the sources and running some translations from portuguese I believe this subject is sufficiently notable to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn after improvements. Sandstein 22:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a drummer, and not found reliable secondary sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. He has released an album of his own, but it was self-published and I don't think it charted. No obvious redirect target. Note that I reverted from a longer version of the article, here, but there are no additional sources in that version and nothing that suggests notability to me. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, musicians like this tend to fall short of WP's requirements for independent notability. I've seen it happen many times... Hass is one of those journeyman musicians who has made an honest living by stepping in whenever someone needs help for a tour or recording session, but he simply hasn't received his own significant coverage despite earning respect in the biz. He is only visible in the credits for other people's works and in self-created directory sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am finding and adding sources. The article needs a lot of trimming, but there are definitely reviews of his drum-playing within reviews of the albums and live performances he has played in. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several sources with SIGCOV, and many reviews of albums or live performances which describe his drumming. I believe this meets WP:MUSICBIO#1, and that he also meets WP:MUSICBIO#6, as a member of The Manhattan Transfer (on 4 albums from 2003-2009, and also touring), and Ravi Coltrane's first band from 1996 to 2002, as well as touring with John Scofield and Mavis Staples from 2005-2007. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen and the cleanup—as striking an example of WP:HEY that one could imagine. I would add the apparent compliance with WP:MUSICBIO #7 in that we have two reliable sources asserting the subject's playing style being a faithful representation of that of Elvin Jones; WP:NARTIST #1, where a trade magazine ranked the subject amongst the all-time top 500 in his field; WP:NARTIST #3, by playing a consequential part in a very large body of work; and WP:NARTIST #4C, through sources in the article containing critical reviews of the subject's work. StonyBrook _babble 07:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since this was put up for deletion, there has been an overhaul of the sourcing. Looks good and notable — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY; good rescue by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw as nominator - thanks for all your work on this, RebeccaGreen. Tacyarg (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayant Thapar (officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Perhaps previously the article didnt had enough references which are updated, such as his website, book published by a Colonel and other references which were published after 2016 (after the AFD took place) and they are being used as reference. The previous AFD took place 9 years ago, which is a long time. Again, neither does this article fail WP:BIO nor I have used any fabricated references. This article fulfills all the criteria of WP:BIO. All the references used are cross checked and up to date. There are other articles as well on officers who got Vir Chakra with much less references. Pl check the list of officers with Vir Chakra.[3]. I think deleting the article based on an AFD which took place 9 years ago is not justified , as maybe that time the article didnt had much reliable references and the person had not gotten enough media coverage. I am unsure why an user is saying the article contains 'salted materials', perhaps you should check the references I have used. -- CaptShayan — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "salt" refers to WP:SALT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it that the article was recreated after getting deleted. But this time the article contains better and accurate references. It does not fail WP:BIO nor WP:NOTE.

I don't think it's okay to delete an article based on an AFD which took place years ago AS the article is an updated version of the previous deleted article with more accurate references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More then half of the references I have used were published a few years after the AFD took place, so it is not 'repost' of previously deleted articles. You can check the date of the references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin WP:SALTs an article, then they are declaring that they do not want an article on that subject to be created. Recreating an article at an incorrect title to circumvent that block is inherently disruptive behavior as I see it. Other members of the community are apparently more tolerant of this than me, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't created at an incorrect title, as he was an serving officer of Indian Army. However, I don't understand why don't you want a better version of a previously deleted article which had poor citations. CaptShayan (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was created at an incorrect title. We only disambiguate articles when there's something else to disambiguate them from - I refuse to believe you didn't try to create this at Vijayant Thapar, see you weren't able to, and resort to this hack to get it done anyway. And I will do everything in my power to stamp that sort of trickery out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trickery but a willing to contribute. CaptShayan (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to believe, believe it man. But I hope you will at least let others contribute to this AFD instead of taking a decision on the basis of a 9 years old AFD CaptShayan (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting others contribute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:CaptShayan seems to be cavassing editors to participate in this process, namely (Explicit, Redrose, and Significa liberdade). BusterD (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Page title seems to demonstrate gaming a clear G4 outcome to me... BusterD (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BusterD: If you and Pppery feel a G4 deletion makes more sense, feel free to go ahead. I initially declined the G4 nomination due to the age of the AFD, as well as a more complicated history in draftspace following the 2016 deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the decline is a preferable choice; I was merely stating the obvious (that they were gaming a clear speedy by using the disambiguator). BusterD (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad the old AfD is getting some reading in this process by newer editors. Note the way we used to rely on the Military History Project's WP:SOLDIER as a standard, back before this purely project guide was deprecated. BusterD (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for two principle reasons. First, I agree with Pppery that the article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Vijayant Thapar - better to have drafted the article and submitted it via WP:AFC, where the discussion on the article's merits could properly have taken place. Second, it is a clear copyright infringement, probably {{db-copyvio}}-worthy, of this honourpoint.in source (and also [4], though this in itself may be taken from the honourpoint.in source) - pretty much the entire Kargil War section is copied or closely paraphrased in chunks from that. My third, somewhat secondary, reason is that this seems to be a clear instance of WP:BIO1E, in that Thapar was only notable for his action at Battle of Tololing. Taking all that into account, I suggest deleting this article, with no objection to a couple of encylopedic sentences about Thapar included in the Battle of Tololing article in an appropriate place, referenced to the Ebury Press book, which looks like the best source. I would then have no objection to Vijayant Thapar being created as a redirect to Battle of Tololing. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The gallantry award is the third-highest in India and would be equivalent to something like the Military Cross in the UK. Now, we have 2,170 articles on MC holders (out of 52,204 awarded) but if you look at as random selection (Category:Recipients of the Military Cross) then the vast majority either (a) have also received a higher award such as the Victoria Cross or (b) are notable in themselves - either very high-ranking officers or notable for something outside of their military service. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. The subject won a "third in precedence" award. Literally hundreds of deceased warrriors received this award, whose name is cognate with manly in Latin, another Indo-European language. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article doesn't have a lot of information and a ton of issues. I don't think getting a single medal is notable enough on its own. The subject could be mentioned elsewhere as suggested by SunloungerFrog. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A single third-level gallantry decoration is rarely sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:SOLDIER. RangersRus (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network. asilvering (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DZET-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network per nomination. Same goes with DWTE, DWNA, DYTE and DXER. SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "redirect" votes above doesn't have in significant coverage in various reliable and independent sources. It might be redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network per Wikipedia:BLAR. SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network would agree to this move as the article as it is lacks RS to support its independence.Villkomoses (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Per Villkomoses. Ramos1990 (talk)
• Redirect, looking at the page and then for sources, you find that it is a small sub-piece off of TV5. A redirect to TV5 Network works, and since it is still a potential search, though small, a redirect makes more sense than a full delete. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. The original nomination was replaced with a hodgepodge of irrelevant WP:JUSTAPOLICY. The possible COPYVIO seems minor enough to be fixed editorially. No prejudice against a proper renomination. Or better yet, a merge discussion on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 10:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi 10-taka note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My reason:

• According to Wikipedia's rules, to create a separate article on a subject, its notability must be proven with reliable secondary sources. But this article lacks any independent, secondary sources to establish the notability of the Bangladeshi 10-taka note. Currently, only two primary sources (Numista and the Bangladesh Bank website) have been used. However, these only provide information about the note’s design and history. There is no independent research or newspaper analysis on this topic. As a result, it is not particularly notable. A brief mention of this information in the Bangladeshi taka article is sufficient.

• Though the Copyvio tool shows 17.4% violation, I myself checked the article's text with its sources (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note204788.html and https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/currency/tentaka) and observed that the article's sentences are almost word-for-word taken from these pages. This is "close paraphrasing" according to Wikipedia policies and is copyright violation.

• The article is purely based on the content of the two websites. There is no original analysis or secondary source. It is nothing but a compilation of primary source information, which is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article is nothing but a compilation of facts and lacks any analysis or relevance.

• Above all, a separate article on a specific currency note should be prepared only if the note is indeed unique and requires in-depth information. But the information on the 10-taka note is so limited that it can be included as a short section in the article of Bangladeshi taka. For example, there are no separate articles on the currency notes of the majority of countries because they are not of particular significance.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen some sources about the subject not included on the article. And if we search in historical newspapers then maybe it will be possible to add more content to the article. I will say keep Delete per nom. Mehedi Abedin 17:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reason. Please reconsider.

SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)

20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to Copyvio tool, it only violated 17.4% and all of them are from using repeated parts "Portrait of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation" (5 times) and "Bangladesh Bank's logo and '10 taka' in Bengali text" (1 time). It could be copyedited, not a serious copyright issues. Mehedi Abedin 00:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Operatic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unnotable. Searching it up yields 71 results on google, with none being anything that would indicate any form of notability. Absolutely zero significant coverage by outside sources. Article is also quite promotional, and at times reads like an advert. Article is also extraordinarily outdated, listing events in 2018 as upcoming. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is about a film production company that fails to meet notability. The article is sourced only to the company's web site. My search for coverage only turns up passing mentions about them when covering some films where the company was involved. This falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mentions and churnalism is what I find in a search. Nothing that would fall under WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unsourced promotional article for non-notable company. They may become notable someday, but when that happens, someone can write a new article. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Looks like promotional article with sources that have no coverage on the subject. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)#2019 by-election. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Milton by-election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOT is not met. Every week council by elections happen, many because of deaths of councillors. See https://opencouncildata.co.uk/byelections.php or https://www.localcouncils.co.uk/2025/01/robert-the-buchanan-wins-battle-of-bannockburn/

They are weekly occurrences that are plainly not notable for their own page. Unlike 1993 Millwall by-election, there literally is not anything specifically unusual about it. Landpin (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Usually by-elections are included in the election before or after, not in a separate article. Peter James (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just redirect it to Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)#2019 by-election, you do not need to bring things like this to AFD. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Solvent Extractions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like opening new plants, entering into new business segments like icecream, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My own English-language searching turned up nothing that can be used for establishing notability. I am willing to change my vote if sufficient Hindi or other language sources can be found. Moritoriko (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. - Imcdc Contact 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Bad-faith nomination by now-blocked user. No prejudice against a renomination with actual substance/merit. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYMB-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. This article is permanently delete as per WP:PROD due to lack of standalone notability. SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Bad-faith nomination by now-blocked user. No prejudice against a renomination with actual substance/merit. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYET-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Lack of sourcing, so delete this article.

SolidKapuso2020 (talk 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

• Delete per recent WP:PROD due to lack of standalone notability and sourcing.

Solid PU30 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

• Procedural delete for good as per SolidKapuso2020's rationale due to lack of sourcing. This will be the same goes with DXET since TV5 stations became the satellite station of DWET (excluding DXGB) because they will not bother finding reliable sources & add them to the article.

Wikieditorial25 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC) You already made your vote when nominating the article. – The Grid (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three users without talk pages show up at the same time, making identically formatted posts with the wording "procedural delete" which doesn't exist... Not suspicious behaviour at all... Geschichte (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported them. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditorial25 WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SolidKapuso2020's rationale. Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.

Wikieditorial25 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

• Comment Keep votes provide no sources to eval.

SolidKapuso2020 (talk 10:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

• Procedural close For the sake of not allowing this sock-filled nomination to go any further. – The Grid (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 10:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Industries Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An alternative to deletion could be merging with CK Birla Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Nom. One Business source and two primary sources do not make notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Agree with Nom, as ATD to merge with C.K.Birla group. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am not a fan of the policy that primary sources do not by themselves make notability. I think if the material is sufficiently reliable, then even a reliable source could have primary sources which help greatly if not completely aid in reaching notability thresholds. Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works, so I am compelled to !vote for the Delete camp here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Company does not look encyclopedic. And the sources are not that good. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 10:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sesha Sindhu Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

possibly an advertisement...almost all sources are unreliable..they did cite sources from The Times of India and The Hindu but that doesn't necessarily indicate significance. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Added as many sources from youtube interviews on local Telugu news channels such as idream Media and NTV as possible. As the subject is an up and coming director, the citations are mostly from local news channels. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Sesha-Sindhu-Rao/amzn1.dv.gti.dcd0065f-a6a0-4659-8012-46280ec9766a/

Sindhu is also listed as a director on Prime Video and is a person of significance. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: director of a notable film, Choosi Choodangaane; hence meeting WP:DIRECTOR. Needs trimming. -Mushy Yank. 11:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comment Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, United Arab Emirates, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Appears to be a case of COI or UPE. But the subject looks notable. Zuck28 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on COI or UPE? Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu has been a person of significance in the industry since before she became a director as well. Featured here in this article from 2017 https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/tollywood/220817/women-in-the-mens-world.html Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chakrabartyprateek14, Do you know her personally? Zuck28 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chakrabartyprateek14 there's a lot of information about her personal life and career, which is not easily verifiable with the given citations.

also you uploaded a copyrighted image of her, which was uploaded on IMDb already without any photographers name or copyright information. But you mentioned the name of the photographer as well. How do you know all of this? Zuck28 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This information and anecdotes were shared with me by the subject herself. Most of which I tried to include citations for.

While uploading the picture.. I asked the subject for the photographer's name and credentials. And the photographer waived off any rights that may raise any copyright issues. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo you uploaded is missing the permissions from the copyright holder and the information you asked from the subject directly is not supposed to be on Wikipedia without any reference. Most likely it appears to be a case of COI or UPE.

But I will leave this matter into the hands of some other experienced editor or admin.

Zuck28 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do COI or UPE mean? If it helps, whatever is un-cited/un-referenced, can be toned down or taken off.

Please do suggest. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:COI & wp:UPE Zuck28 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these.

I'll add appropriate tags for COI.

If you can help with editing or trimming down content where you see necessary, it would be helpful. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to !vote Delete as I don't see WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSPS. Can these be highlighted? Nnev66 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too, was inclined to !vote delete on SIGCOV and RSPS grounds after doing more googling and research on my own. I would suggest a Delete vote Nnev66 then if you find that still to be true. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article does look quite developed, but I don't see how the person stands out as notable or encyclopedic. Sources are whatever and article creator knows the subject too. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was PROD’d for lack of general notability and WP:NFILM; an IP editor removed the PROD tag with the edit summary “Gary Daniels and Robin Curtis…” so now we go to AfD. The only mention I could find beyond the usual churn of IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes was a blog called Unknown Movies which does not cut the mustard in my opinion. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Usually movies are easy. There are huge "movie guide" books with casts, productions, and potted summaries, and "DVD guides" and so forth. But this one appears to have escaped inclusion in any books that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: added things. A redirect to the director was warranted anyway and a PROD certainly not appropriate. Meets WP:NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Three of the references you added were to WordPress blogs and have been removed. I disagree that the sources provided show the sufficient coverage to establish notability per this language from the guidelines: “Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.” (emphasis added) Kazamzam (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (the 2 sources hosted by WP have been removed but were used only to verify the film was called a B-movie). For the rest, PRECISELY, the OTHER sources I added in the Reception section are reliable and include "critical commentary"!!!!! And that's pretty obvious. -Mushy Yank. 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank - the other reference used was to a publication by Books on Demand which is generally not considered reliable or suitable to establish notability. Also removed. The references you included from TV Spielfilm and Filmdienst fall under the category of a capsule review ("a relatively short critique of a specified creative work") and Schnittberichte seems to be another blog. So I disagree that these are reliable or that they establish notability per the WP:NFILM criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even without the material you judged appropriate to remove during an AfD you yourself initiated (and that was, again, not used to establish notability but for verification, in an attempt to improve the page), I still think that we have enough with the 3 sources. Of course, Filmdienst is reliable, for example. If others think a Redirect is better, I also mentioned that possibility. Opposed to deletion. I have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With sourcing, my rule of thumb is to only add sourcing that would be considered reliable by most or all Wikipedians. I tend to avoid SPS unless I can find where the sourcing or the writer has been cited as a RS multiple times in academic/scholarly sources (or other appropriate sourcing). The only exception would be for interviews, however I try to only add those after notability has been more firmly established. My rationale for this is that adding SPS or dubious sourcing can actually end up making an article seem less notable rather than more, even if it's being used to back up basic, non-controversial information. As far as capsule reviews go, I consider a capsule review to be a 1-3 sentence review where all but a handful of words are a plot summary.

Looking at the reviews in the article, Filmjahrbuch 2000 and TV Spielfilm are pretty short and would be considered a capsule review by most. Filmdienst is a bit of a wild card, as I get the impression that the snippet we see is a summary or a smaller part of a longer review given the clickable box that says "to the film review". Clicking that brings up a paywall and part of a first sentence ("Because his youngest son was looking for a...") that is slightly different than the first sentence in the snippet. So this one is probably usable - it also helps that out of the four sentences in the snippet, two are wholly review and not summary. That's one usable review, so then it becomes a question of what else is usable.

Schnittberichte is unusable. It's all user submitted content and while there are moderators, they are only looking for violations of the ToS. The site itself says that they are not liable for anything written by their editors, so that means that there's no editorial oversight of the content. In other words, view it as you would IMDb.

MovieWeb is Valnet. Much of their stuff is considered to be questionable as they tend to rely heavily on churnalism and AI content. WikiProject Video Games has a whole section about it as far as sourcing goes. The gist of that section is that Valnet sources are weak at best and are not great for establishing notability. I would say that MovieWeb would likely be considered situational per WP:VG's sourcing guide. With that in mind, this appears to be written by a staff member and there's a decent amount of discussion within the article to consider it a review of sorts. I would say that it's usable but not the strongest source.

Tiempo de hoy is unknown - I can't get a good glimpse in the snippet view to know if it is usable or not. The Video Source Book would be a capsule review, so a trivial source at best. Flickering Myth is a decent source, but it's a trivial mention so also can't establish notability.

That leaves us with two sources: Filmdienst and MovieWeb. Both could be considered reviews. Technically that's all we need to pass NFILM, two reviews, but it would be an extremely weak pass. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - thank you for your thorough analysis of the sources, ReaderofthePack. I had come to the same conclusion about the Filmdienst one being but a snippet of the full review that is behind a paywall, so that's one source to go towards WP:GNG or WP:NFO criterion 1 The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would say that it's a stretch to say that the MovieWeb review constitutes a "full-length review" (particularly as it's part of a top ten-style report). That leaves Tiempo de Hoy. We say that it's a weekly news magazine that, from 1987, tended to cover news about culture, entertainment, economy and sports. So it seems likely that it would have nationally-known film reviews in it. However, I too cannot see inside the book (which I guess is a compilation of published magazines) to establish whether it is a full review. I did also find this, in Chinese, also rather short. Taking all that into account, and given the age of the film the fact that any full reviews would more likely be in print media that is less likely to be online, I would give the benefit of the doubt and hence a weak keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we're at a Weak Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this company which manufactured solar-powered bins with advertising, and cannot find coverage to add. The existing references are primary sources or local newspapers. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Redirect to the company's founder, William Sachiti, might also work. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is a small amount of press related to the show it was on but not enough to establish NCORP. Would agree a redirect would be appropriate but not to the promotional page for the founder. Instead, redirect to List of Dragons' Den (British TV programme) offers Series 1-10 where it is covered. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG (if it was actually a notable company, one might wonder why it seems to have gone out of business without anyone commenting). As suggested above, possibly a redirect to the relevant TV series article would seem to be justified, certainly nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and those above. A clear WP:NCORP fail on coverage. BD2412 T 22:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

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

Seems to fail NPOL and GNG; not a notable public office holder Cinder painter (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the positions this person has held satisfy NPOL. All information about them appears purely desciptive of a policeman occupying various positions as they ascend the party heirarchy, but no information available beyond what one would see on a resume. Does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are numerous Chinese sources with SIGCOV on the subject, many of which document his life as both a politician and a poet, including Caixin[5], The Paper[6], and The Beijing News[7]. (He has published several award-winning poetry collections, see Shanghai Observer[8]) His political career has also received media coverage, such as Oriental Daily News[9] and The Paper[10]. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 11:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Goldsztajn's assessment that his posts do not qualify him for NPOL – all the important ones are prefaced with "deputy" or "vice". Most of the sources cited in the article are essentially CVs. But there are some sources with more coverage out there. The very last paragraph of this source [11] mentions him winning several poetry awards, and, along with this source's mention of a report in The Paper, prompted me to look further. The Paper has indeed published two articles covering his poetry in some depth. [12][13] Add to that links 1 and 2 from Prince of Erebor, and I don't know if this is enough to show that he's a notable poet, but I think it's just enough sigcov to meet the GNG. (I originally wrote this comment yesterday but forgot to post it. I have revised it to take into account Prince of Erebor's sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 15:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As others have mentioned, Heng has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and does meet WP:NPOL. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Political activities of the subject have been reported by reputable Chinese news outlets and also subject has held prominent positions within the Chinese government Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. All sources are affiliated or routine business news. Google search didn't find anything other than these kinds of sources. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, lots of routine announcements and press release but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Simply fails to meet the requirements for WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Given the discussion, if anyone would like the article moved to user space or draft space for improvement, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel (2020 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. Unfortunately just not seeing strong secondary sourcing to justify an article. A search yields only ambiguous or poor sources per WP:VG/S, in addition to the cited Rice Digital (Inconclusive) I can find a non-review Niche Gamer article [14] (Unreliable) and an unavailable publication called E1M1 Magazine (Unknown) that Mobygames purports to be a review. Even generously taking all these, I don't think this quite hits notability - there just isn't enough reliable critical commentary about the game to suggest it's notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Three total sources in the article and two of them are Steam links which do not specifically show notability. Only other information I can find on this game are YouTube videos, IMDB pages and other UGC type websites which are unreliable. Definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. Rambley (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed to find sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of information on this game - I took from the sources that I could. I put a lot of time into trying to find sufficient sources. So this indie game doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because it doesn't have "enough coverage"? Its existence is obvious. It has a decent following. Can you please explain in more detail what is "unreliable" about this? Does a game's existence need to be talked about enough in order to "earn" its rite to have a wikipedia page?

If I add links to https://steamdb.info/app/1378290/info/ or https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/the-citadel perhaps, or to its sequel Beyond Citadel with various more links such as https://aftermath.site/beyond-citadel-indie-retro-shooter, is there any way I can save this page?

Can you please provide some constructive feedback as to how I can save this page? From your commentary on "notability", this sounds a lot like "it isn't popular enough, so it doesn't get to have a wikipedia page". Is this basically what this means? Ershnuff (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining policy, notability is generally a standard that sets a threshold for what subject matter is worth encyclopedic coverage. The general guideline for notability is a loose principle that suggests that notable topics should, at a minimum, have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For video games, there are no formal policies, but informal standard that we often take involves giving weight to reliable coverage on video games particularly through commentary and review often provided by reviews as opposed to direct announcements or links to the game. In short, everyone has different takes on notability, but it's generally there to make sure that the information in an article are substantiated by reasonably wide and independent coverage about a subject.

Applying that policy to your comments - the article currently has some links from the Steam page and a single review from a obscure reviewer. It's not a particularly strong basis to suggest the game is notable. Sourcing is unfortunately the bedrock of including articles. It's generally recognised that just because something has a following, or it is a topic that exists, doesn't make it a topic that can justify an article without sourcing to back it up. It's not that it needs to be talked about or prove its worth - it just needs enough reliable, independent information, and that information is currently lacking. A good rule of thumb is that if a game hasn't recieved coverage from reliable sources - often being mainstream sources - or lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources, it's likely not notable.

Seeing if that coverage is out there is a good approach - the search engine, Metacritic MobyGames, and Internet Archive are tools I use when scoping out an idea for an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggested sources, SteamDB is a primary source and generally not reliable for coverage about a game. Fanatical seems like a user review database - player reviews are also generally not reliable. And information about a sequel is good and helpful to include on a page, but doesn't really show that the original game itself is notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does IGN Japan's interview of the creator count as reliable and help its notability? Does it being in Japanese detract from it? https://jp.ign.com/the-citadel-game/49370/interview/fpsthe-citadel90fps . If IGN Japan covered it, shouldn't this inclusion bolster notability?

Also, I want to contest why the creator's interview with Niche Gamer at https://nichegamer.com/doekuramori-interview-the-citadel-harassment-and-how-to-make-your-voice-heard-in-japan/ doesn't count as reliable. Why does this interview with the developer himself not count as reliable or notable? Someone has removed everything I wrote from his interview, which was a treasure trove of information about this game and his insights, saying "citation needed". The Niche Gamer piece isn’t a score slapped on a gameplay rundown, it’s Doekuramori laying out his solo dev journey, influences (Doom, Marathon, anime), and vision. That’s meaty, primary insight and is way more than “promotional fluff.” I don't understand Emiya Mulzomdao's "non-review" comment about the Niche Gamer interview, calling it unreliable. Ershnuff (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added mentions from aforementioned IGN Japan article and PC Gamer article which is about the game's sequel "Beyond Citadel" but makes commentary on both: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/beyond-citadel-is-a-great-retro-fps-that-i-want-to-recommend-to-everybody-and-nobody/. Please advise. Ershnuff (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find on IGN Japan and Niche Gamer. Interviews are typically primary sources, but tend to form the foundation of development sections for articles on games. Again, the material on Beyond Citadel is helpful to mention but not for notability, because those sources don't really have anything to say about the original game - typically we wouldn't put the reviews for a sequel in the reception section, and the author is not talking about both games as framed in the article. Coming back to the bigger picture, I understand this process can be very discouraging - but for topics that are self-evidently notable, having three good sources on hand is sort a necessary bedrock to any article anyway.

When we say "unreliable" here, I respect it can mean one of two things that isn't clear - either (1) the source is not a reliable source to independently support information about the subject; and (2) the source doesn't show in itself the subject matter is really notable. When we talk about the Niche Gamer interview, we mean both: the article is (1) a primary interview source - that is, it's the subject matter talking about themselves; and the site is not a site with an editorial team nor experience in journalism; and (2) as a non-editorial site, it's not really of the chops to suggest this is something receiving wider coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As an alternative to deletion, I believe that this page could be refocused cover the game and its sequel, or be refocused on Beyond Citadel. While, as VRXCES illustrates above, there is a dearth of reliable source coverage on The Citadel, the sequel is likely, if narrowly, notable: PC Gamer, RPS, PCGamesN ~ A412 ^talk! 02:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great idea, given there's at least easily three good sources provided, this might work for a Beyond Citadel type article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for a game from 2020, it really should not be so obscure to find reliable SECONDARY and readily verifiable sources, but in this case that is exactly what I found. That is not a good sign, and is the main reason for my choosing to go with a !vote of Delete. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much coverage for the game so far. However, the article was made very recently in March 29, 2025. I think this can be improved but needs to go to draftspace (WP:DRAFT) before it comes to mainspace. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilfillan Biotic Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The full text of this article was cut and pasted from its sole source because there is no other coverage that isn't copied from this article. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is confused about the lake, too. The Gilfillan lake that is named after Joseph Gilfillan is (per Brower 1893, p. 288 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrower1893 (help)) in Itasca State Park. This article is talking about an area in the Chippewa National Forest. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brower, J. V. (1893). The Mississippi River and its source. Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society. Vol. 7. Minnesota Historical Society. p. 288. (The Mississippi River and its source at the Internet Archive)
• Delete. Other than the one cited document, it's very hard to find information about this biotic area. A search of state.mn.us and mn.gov returns nothing relevant. Usually a protected area would be noted as such by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unless it's there by another name. Fails WP:N. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax letter writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is effectively a list. Unfeferenced, safe for one example, fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:V and has issues with WP:OR. The concept of a hoax letter (or prank letter, a term suggested as better in the 2008 no consensus AfD) is not defined in an article, nor is it even a category. As a final straw, many of the purported examples do not even make it clear what is the "hoax letter", consider for example this: "Edna Welthorpe was a prudish middle-aged housewife who was strongly opposed to her creator Joe Orton's plays." Uh, what? Other examples seem to be about fictional works (books) with the word letter in the title, about fictional collection of letters, or emails, or... This is one of the worst lists I've seen in my years here, a total mess. PS. It is possible the concept of a hoax or prank letter is notable, but it would need to be written from scratch (WP:TNT...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a random list; fails WP:LIST. If someone can rescue this into a real article, that would prevent a WP:TNT situation. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no supporting Hoax letter article or section of Literary forgery or Practical joke to justify a list of such writers. The names in the current article, if they have their own article, are better suited for a bottom declaration of Category:Literary forgeries or Category:Lists of practical jokes. 5Q5|^✉ 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT, and WP:NLIST as something that hasn't been discussed as a group. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ObserveOwl (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Massacre (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there is a lot of content and sourcing, all the sourcing present is limited to a specific time frame, failing to demonstrate sustained notability. Research into discussion on the subject down the road has turned up largely empty. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While most sources are from September 2008, when the game as initially released, later sources are easily found 1 2 3 including books and a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The article already has a later source, a book named Halos and Avatars, as well. Cortador (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article's current sourcing is more than enough to prove notability. Sustained coverage is not required per WP:NVG (similar to guidelines such as WP:NBOOK), and WP:SUSTAINED does not say that sustained coverage is required for notability - only that it is an indicator of notability. This is a case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (Or not, as the sources found by Cortador show.) Astaire (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. SUSTAINED is for events (and basically people because of BLP1E) not media. Otherwise 95% of the media we have articles on wouldn't be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources provided and in the article are sufficient to keep. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above - little to add beyond the well-written outline of Astaire on how WP:SUSTAINED works. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a similar case to (my) AFD against Dudebro II, which was also kept. IgelRM (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 101 Dalmatians (franchise)#Video games. ✗plicit 11:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

101 Dalmatians: Escape from DeVil Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unfortunately non-notable. The sourcing for this article is quite spotty, and a search for reviews on MobyGames and the Internet Archive only really yields the one AllGame source. They say every dog has its day, but sadly maybe not this one. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 101 Dalmatians (franchise)#Video games. I do not get why this article was resurrected from its former redirect state (different target from one I suggested). MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agreed with comment above. Ramos1990 (talk)

Redirect will also agree with the logical action for redirection to 101 Dalmatians (franchise)#Video games as my searches so far mostly comes up more on playthroughs and not enough coverage for it to be standalone.Villkomoses (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, this article contains promotional content Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Radio, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]