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 Condoleezza Rice#Speculation on political future. asilvering (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Condi movement (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)

Im getting WP:NOPAGE, could be easily summarized at the article of the subject. Searches find no sustained coverage, with most sources cited either being unrelated to the event, very few actually cover the movement. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Condoleezza Rice#Speculation on political future. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Any update of 9 years' delay makes this WP:TNT-able. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of notability; cites all fundamentally about Napster. I'd redirect there, but he does not seem to be mentioned in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although a smerge is actually appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. There is consensus that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The article creator has acknowledged the notability concerns and does not object to deletion. Fuzheado | Talk 15:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hunsicker (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 subject of the article isn't really notable. The first source only mentions his name once as part of a list of people that have been guests. The second source is apparently geoblocked in Germany. The third source only lists him as an actor once you click "see all". The fourth source doesn't even have any identifying information on him, only a list of works that he participated in.

(also see WP:ROTTENTOMATOES for the list of works) Laura240406 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I also reviewed during New Page Review and see no evidence that he passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NACTOR - except for one role in one film, all his roles are red shirts or cameos, or those films are not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  which film are you referring to as the one role? I am neutral, I created article but ok with the outcome either way. Thanks. MidwestWeirdfest (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from one notable role in a single film, most of his appearances are minor cameos oor in films that aren't well-known.Sync! (talk)
• Comment I created this article because I felt he might be notable enough and honestly I'm neutral. If the consensus is to delete, I'm fine with it. MidwestWeirdfest (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small time actor who fails GNG. Needs more to pass WP:NACTOR. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Procedural keep, given the last AfD was less than 6 months ago. Fuzheado | Talk 14:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanand Dhume (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. Absolutiva (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, India, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. This was closed as keep 2 months ago. WP:6MONTHS suggests: If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. Astaire (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and consider the same for his travel narrative My Friend the Fanatic. What does his atheism have to do with anything? Who cares? I didn't learn anything from his article except that he has made a public statement that agrees with Donald Trump in relocating all the Palestinians. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep survived deletion discussion in feb. @Astaire says it better. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Astaire. Rusalkii (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, same rationale as my !vote in the last AfD. Passes WP:NAUTHOR as the author of a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple reviews. MCE89 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR as well as * Procedural keep.* Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep, we cannot just revisit every AfD every other month over and over again. It should have some minimum amount of time before being revisited. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. WP:SNOW asilvering (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radwan 1828 (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 one source that doesn't look RS (a site named yazidis.info that doesn't even exist anymore) and also very POV language ("because if they would not have won the whole Yazidi Population would have been destroyd" [sic]) and unsourced claims that could be controversial ("Before the Battle eyewitnesses said that the Kurds attacked the Yazidis many times there taking them as Sex Slaves and killing them") Laura240406 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing anything to back this up in the search links. I tried taking "1828" off and seeing what it found but it's nothing relevant. If this topic is real, "Battle of Radwan" is not its correct name. Draft was rejected 4 times at AfC but unilaterally promoted to an article anyway. Given that the article says little, can prove even less, is strongly POV and is borderline incoherent with copious grammatical errors, I think this can be disposed of without any fear of losing anything of value. Even if there is a topic here, it would be far better to start from scratch working from some actual sources not a defunct blog that doesn't really say much or even point to anywhere else to find out more. I'd oppose returning it to draft as there is no sign of even the germ of a valid article here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reviewed this at AfC like a week ago, it was almost entirely LLM generated with only that Yazidi source. Given that nothing else to support this has come up since I'm not convinced that this even really happened. Even then, if this did in fact happen, it certainly does not fulfill WP:GNG if the only thing supporting its existence is that sort-of blog. I'm also strongly opposing draftifying as it is just wasting everyone's time for the original creator to move it back despite repeated declines. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not WP:NPOV and only source appears WP:QUESTIONABLE. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. cyberdog958^Talk 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CU results from the SPI, notes that the accounts are technically unrelated, but just a week or so ago, Doritoboritoa121 (talk · contribs) drafted this same article on their userpage citing the same sources. I'm unsure if this is a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but this is extremely suspicious. Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one source, not coming up online... various type edits needed... Tolozen (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination this article does not meet WP:RS, the sources are unreliable and biased (also only one of the sources are available) DataNomad (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is only one source, this article was sloppily written. There is no real reason to keep it unless more RSes can be obtained. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination. Ʀasteem (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article lacks reliable sources and contains biased language, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite all my attempts at trying to find sources for this, I cannot find anything besides that 1 Yazidi website, and even that's questionable at best. Obviously does not pass WP:GNG. Also, the article creator is very likely a sock of Ezidishingali per other's comments ApexParagon (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 23:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College family (university) (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 sourcing is awfully thin on this original research-heavy article. We have two tongue-in-cheek student publication blog posts. Two other student articles talk about the concept of college marriage ([1], [2]), again both of them somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and neither mentions "college families". The other two sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, but neither discuss this topic. One doesn't mention it at all, and the other discusses it in the context of college students' parents. A WP:BEFORE search turns up only the latter references, generic mentions of the birth families of students going off to college. If this concept is anything at all, it appears to be a meme or private joke at Oxbridge schools, and its existence is not attested beyond student media, leaving it a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a load of tongue-in-cheek rubbish that someone has taken seriously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildebeest Pistol (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 firearm; article is WP:ADMASQ. The only sourcing in the article is the manufacturer's YouTube channel and a WP:USERGENERATED blog. A WP:BEFORE search turns up Reddit/Facebook posts and more YouTube videos but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Doesn't appear to be notable right now. Some chatter on various message boards, but I don't see much RS discussion. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a prototype not even in production yet. Fails WP:GNG by a long shot - I can't find any coverage in RSes, only the manufacturer's very amateur website and some discussion on gun enthusiast blogs/forums/social media. It's an interesting design, and may earn coverage in the future, but right now, there is absolutely nothing to establish notability here, and this article functions purely as an advertisement. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs)

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. WP:SNOW, etc. No userification, for the reasons described in the discussion. asilvering (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914 (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 WP:POVFORK about the Armenian genocide. Only uses a single source and has placed heavy WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in favor of the Ottomans in its essay like structure. Was declined multiple times through the AfC process but was moved to the mainspace by the page creator anyways so coming to AfD instead of draftifying. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, History, Military, and Turkey. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under g5 as pretty explicitly involving Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Creator not extended confirmed. Nothing salvageable in the text. Their deaths were not merely the result of passive victimhood...self-inflicted suffering — a direct consequence of political short-sightedness, opportunistic violence, and tribal ambition} Wow. That's not NPOV. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete not enough sources (an estimated 600,000 Kurds., well, source?), and undue weight. Also agree with GLL for arbitration reasons. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TNT virtually nothing in this article is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Polemic and POV. No way to know how much of it is correct. Seems like the Draft was rejected at AfC twice. Also the weird fragment "(O’Ballance, 1996)" makes me wonder whether this was copied from somewhere else although the Copyvio detector doesn't think so. No point in returning it to draft. If there is a topic here then it would be better to find some Reliable Sources and start from scratch using those. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DanielRigal: There are similar citations with the same name in the book that the article cites as a source, but I couldn’t find any direct copying from the available preview of the text in Google Books. cyberdog958^Talk 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: see also the deletion discussion of Battle of Radwan 1828 (written by the same user as this one) Laura240406 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a similar problem that Battle of Radwan 1828 has. While this article is not written as sloppily, it overly relies on one source so has a notability problem. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy access I Ask for a temporary userfy instead of deletion, if i can move the article name to Kurdish Losses in Eastern Anatolia (1914–1918) or Kurdish Civilian Impact During WWI in the Ottoman East i am positive that with a great chance i can save the article. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose the userification of this article. There is no neutral information in the entire article and nothing of value in the text. If one would want to expand the information already in the main article about the event, starting from scratch would be preferable than starting from such a slanted version of events. cyberdog958^Talk 00:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cyberdog958, it's the same thing, i just require access to move the article to a broader title that represents broader topic so i can rewrite the article to the best version fit to the encyclopedia. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sakura emad: Writing a new article isn't the issue. You can do that regardless of this article being deleted or not. I think starting from scratch would be preferable, because including anything from the text from this article into a new one would introduce nothing but bias. There are no redeeming qualities to this article and anything less than WP:TNTing it would hinder the potential a future article. cyberdog958^Talk 06:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Auburn, Maine. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Auburn, Maine (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 NLIST, and most of its subjects seem to fail NPOL. Auburn isn't so prominent that this article is necessary either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, United States of America, and Maine. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Auburn, Maine, perhaps as a collapsible table. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Auburn, Maine per above, small city under 25,000 that does not need a separate list Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree this would be more useful as a merge. This is a small city and does not warrant its own page, but this information should not be deleted either. Perhaps it can have its own section under "Notable People" on the Auburn, Maine page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question: Why publish a stand-alone Wikipedia article for a local shopping mall but not for a list of city mayors? -- M2545 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that we should keep this one, plus, maybe we might not want to keep that shopping mall article either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, The merge should be done and this title could be redirected as already mentioned to Auburn, Maine.Iljhgtn (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Optimal radix choice. – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner's calculus problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable! A slightly interesting Calculus I problem, with a single MathWorld citation (which has a penchant for neologisms). --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 19:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 19:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to optimal radix choice, the usual context where this optimization problem comes up and is already covered (albeit primarily as an integer optimization problem, but the continuous version is also discussed). I think it probably is covered in enough textbooks that, if we could dig them up, we could justify notability, maybe not under this name, but I think the claim "this function has its maximum at this point" is too small to justify a separate article. The detailed justification for why the answer is what it is does not need to be merged. I will leave a note about this at the talk page of the target. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to optimal radix choice per David Eppstein. He knows what he's doing. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madi Monroe (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 promotional article on an actress and social media "personality" (influencer) fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. While it seems that her TikTok is popular, popularity is not a guarantee of notability. A BEFORE search only finds social media posts, IMDb, user submitted content, and fluffy trivial coverage. There may be a COI present (which in itself is not a reason for deletion) as the editor who created it has a user name that is the same as the subject's mother's name (which is mentioned in the article.) That may be purely coincidental, however they also shot the photo used in the article which seems to indicate a connection. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging actor. Netherzone (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Internet, and California. Netherzone (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per argument above plus the only sources are from user-generated content so almost as bad or worse as citing other Wikipedia pages. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BEFORE search finds no sources on her from generally reliable sources; the few articles on her are hardly enough to establish notability as of now. jolielover♥talk 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too soon if this subject is actually prominent in the future. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I completely agree the subject doesn't meet WP:NACTRESS. The Sophocrat (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There seems to be a few RSes but a lot of sources being used that do not qualify as RSes. Once there are more sources supporting it, it should be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete .. Has prospects but right now, notability requirements are missing.Maltuguom (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NACTOR fails but worse it looks like promo. Delete this. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. HEY per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all but one source is SEO spam, a wiki and a neofascist website in that order. Only reliable source only passingly mentions Svitjod as part of a discussion of the etymology of the name 'Sverige'. Any content not already existing in Sweden and Name of Sweden that has a reliable source should be moved there. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Juwan (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. I don't think WP:BEFORE part D was done here properly, as the concept easily meets WP:GNG. There is a short article in Nationalencyklopedin, at Nordisk familjebok and books such as Att tolka Svitjod and sv:Svitjods undergång och Sveriges födelse, which are directly relevant. No opinion on merging. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does someone have an easy access to Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid (for example via nb.no)? It usually has good, if dense, articles on this kind of subjects. Germanische Altertumskunde Online may also have an article. Comparison with such articles would inform us better on whether a merge is the best option. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Att tolka Svitjod is a bachelors thesis, generally not considered reliable sources. Nordisk familjebok and Nationalencyklopedin are encyclopedias, from my understanding these are considered tertiary sources. Notability requieres reliable and secondary sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG refers to 'secondary sources' as opposed to primary. It does not exclude tertiary sources (see WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability). And since we are assessing whether the topic is suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia, coverage in other encyclopedias provides a highly relevant example. Here are more sources. Long articles:

  • Lars Gahrn, "Svitjod det stora" och Skytien - ett exempel på norrön tolkning av latinska områdesnamn Scandia Vol. 68 No. 1 (2002)
  • Thorsten Andersson, Svethiudh, det svenska rikets kärna [Svethiudh, the core of the Swedish kingdom, with English summary], Namn och bygd, nr. 92 (2004), pp. 5-18

  Short summaries in books:

  • Stefan Brink, The Viking World (2008), p. 60 (See [3] for more Brink)
  • Olof Sundqvist, An Arena for Higher Powers: Ceremonial Buildings and Religious Strategies for Rulership in Late Iron Age Scandinavia (2016), p. 35-36

  The last one includes more references. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the "Merge" option from my !vote. The above sources have enough content that is not about the Name of Sweden. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources in the Swedish article show notability. Sjö (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify : Three out of our sources are of dubious quality (Populär historia is OK). The choice of categories is very strange. Basic notability is not the issue, but article quality is not good enough. Andejons (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be okay with draftification, since the consensus seems to be leaning towards the subject itself being notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep After user:Jähmefyysikko rewrote the article, I think it is basically fine and not in immediate need of attention. Andejons (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:HEY. This is not the same article as was taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Briks (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'm not seeing enough sources to meet notability standards. Maybe a music-related editor might know of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete literally a garage band, read Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. (I'm aware of the humor tag) -- no significant claims to notability. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was leaning towards delete, but then when I read, Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band (funny by the way), that sealed the deal for my vote. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. – robertsky (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olo (color) (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)

Page which suffers from a severe case of WP:TOOSOON, being based upon the contested color "Olo". The first version on April 24 was a redirect to imaginary color by Rlendog which OfficialWatchOS7 decided to overwrite with a stub on May 1 without any talk page discussion. To me, since the color is not as yet verified at most it can be a redirect. Rather than getting into an edit war etc time to go to AfD to discuss enforcing redirect (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is based on reliable sources -- The Guardian, Scientific American, and LiveScience among many others you can find by just googling. Clearly meets WP:GNG and as it represents a possible research method it's notability isn't likely to go away. TOOSOON is an essay that says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But many sources clearly exist, even if the study hasn't yet been replicated. All the article should do is acknowledge that. It's contested whether it's a new color, but that's mostly semantics -- it's a stimulation of the optical cells that doesn't occur naturally, which is interesting. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article needs expansion but there are plenty of reliable sources about this topic, including new ones since the originally story broke, e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @Mrfoogles and @Riendog AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having voted keep above, I think that once more research is done on this topic we might end up moving the article to an article on laser-stimulated colors (or whatever they end up being called) rather than having a page for each one. But that's far in the future right now as far as I can tell. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page, Olo may be imaginary, but that doesnt mean we cant see it we have the color pallete for it dispite being super satured. Douglas15amor (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be a lot of very notable RSes supporting this article, including the Atlantic, Smithsonian Magazine, and more. While the color is technically imaginary, that does not hurt its notability if it has the sources, which is why imaginary colors has its own section on the impossible color page. Definite keep. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is enough evidence, media, and even a peer reviewed journal (Science Advances, whose impact factor is >10). I would agree with WP:TOOSOON if it was only available through preprints, but it's not the case: this research has been peer reviewed, it has certainly gone through several months, if not years, of revisions in the academic world. So I would keep it, it's informative and up-to-date. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've expanded the article with reliable sources, including Nature, The Atlantic, and the BBC, directly addressing WP:TOOSOON concerns. Coverage of "olo" is extensive, both in high-quality WP:RS such as Scientific American, The Guardian, and a peer-reviewed study in Science Advances, as well as additional sources noted by other editors here per WP:NEXIST. Notability is clearly met per WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after the addition of sources by HerBauhaus. Really interesting article by the way. I love colors. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Acquista (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 playing career and from what I've gathered a not particularly notable coaching career, but I might be wrong. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New York. Raskuly (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject played 11 games for the developmental team of New York Red Bulls, therefore WP:GNG. Acosta is no longer a collegiate athlete from what I gathered has not signed with another club, but I may be incorrect. Raskuly (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. Raskuly (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject only played eight games at a professional level in the third tier. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He did play at the professional level, but not for long, I see no problem with keeping the article, but it does need to be expanded as it is a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The sources, primarily from Stanford Athletics and Transfermarkt, provide only routine statistics without significant independent coverage. Abolfathi's limited professional record (one match each for Orange County Blue Star and Orange County Blues) and college honors (e.g., 2012 All-Pac-12 Honorable Mention) do not satisfy the requirement for notable achievements or widespread recognition in reliable sources. Editz2341231 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No WP:SIGCOV for an athlete with a few matches in an amateur/semi-pro league. Svartner (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this person was a professional player, it seems as though his career was extraordinarily short. Also, there seems to be a lack of notability in the sources to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom WP:SIGCOV not found for releted field.Sync! (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Best I can find is this. And, that is more of him giving his opinion as opposed to a journalist writing about him. There is also a claim on the page that Tara (2013 film) is "considered one of the leading shows in Indian television history" except it has no Wikipedia page and I cannot find a source to support.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can not see any reliable source to meet subject's notability. Film's roles are also not big. Almandavi (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is not sufficiently notable. The RSes seem to be sparse and it fails WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a basic verification problem here. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nomination Falls WP:SIGCOV. Sync! (talk)
• Comment I realise that IMDB is not a reliable source, but it does show that there are at least 5 people with the name Raman Kumar involved in TV and cinema. The Raman Kumar (IV on IMDB) who produced 997 episodes of Tara (TV series) (1993-1997) (note this is not the Tara (2013 film)) probably is notable. He is not the same as the Raman Kumar (V on IMDB) who worked on Raid (2018 film) as first assistant director. According to IMDB, the Raman Kumar who directed Raja Bhaiya (film) is different again (Raman Kumar number I on IMDB). We'd need reliable sources to determine which, if any of them are notable, and to sort out what each has done. If this is not deleted (it seems likely that it will be given the previous !votes), I will try to check out what else Raman Kumar who produced Tara (TV series) has done, find more sources, and delete what he did not work on from this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. – robertsky (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venugopal Reddy. I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable pediatrician who claims to be a researcher and author, with an h-factor of 2 so claims are unverified. No indication of any significant coverage in reputable sources, no major peer awards and those in the article look highly dubious. After draftification an editor removed comments and moved it back to main, hence time for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nomination. Fails wp:GNG and wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Recreation of previously deleted Venugopal Reddy Iragamreddy. Which was created by a blocked user in violation of a block. Zuck28 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No pass of of NPROF, I didn't find reviews for NAUTHOR (albeit in a somewhat cursory search), no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly a non-notable profile, also previously deleted.--Almandavi (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --hroest 15:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very low profile and citations. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination Fails WP:GNG𝒮𝓎𝓃𝒸-!⃝

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. Wizardman 22:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Vols Opening Day starting pitchers (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 do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. Without such, it seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Vols seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of who pitched for a defunct minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the seasons page, the opening day starter isn't unimportant but it does not qualify for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 American expansionism under Donald Trump#Danish counter-proposal to purchase California. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Danish acquisition of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or Redirect to American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump#Danish_and_Greenlandic_reactions. This is a classic case of turning confusing existence with notability and goes against what Wikipedia is not (in this case not a newspaper). All the citations were published the same day. As such, this does not have lasting coverage. I also believe that this event fails WP:EVENT inclusion criteria #4 specifically as this is a viral phenomena. It is WP:TRUMPCRUFT-adjacent as much like not everything Trump says deserves an article, not every response to what he says deserves an article either. Mpen320 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are 19 references in the article, are they genuinely not enough?🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. My nomination does not ding it for quantity of references. It is that the event does not meet WP:EVENT.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Then I say that it should be converted to a redirect. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A facetious reponse, not anything serious. Obviously does not need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reactionary article that does not demonstrate WP:LASTING notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Between WP:NOTNEWS and the inability of anyone here, apparently, to write a sentence where three paragraphs would do, this is a hugely WP:UNDUE prose dump about an extremely brief snark-back at Trump's assertion about Greenland. Heck the Gulf-of-Anything-But-Mexico snarkage had a longer span; they lasted maybe two weeks. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nowhere close to a lasting impact, this didn't even get through a single news cycle. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep"' this has enough references and gained lots of attention when it happened. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump#Danish counter-proposal to purchase California as a valid redirect and search term.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Rugby League World Cup records. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances at Rugby League World Cups (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 article which is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Mn1548 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly Merge): The "Team appearances by tournament" section, could be added to the main RLWC article (possibly combined into a single table (with sources added and a footnote to indicate format change)) and would be more informative than the "top four finishes" table currently in that article. The rest of the stats here show nothing that a reader could not work out for themselves from the "...by tournament" tables. There are no sources given, and although a search indicates that the information could be gathered from database sites, I have not found any sources with significant coverage discussing info like the performances by hosts or previous finalists or that this is any way notable. EdwardUK (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added for the "...by tournament section". EdwardUK (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby League World Cup records. Unnecessary content fork - any tables supported by reliable sources can be re-added to the main records article. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby League World Cup records. This is not an ideal redirect target, but it is slightly better than Rugby League World Cup in my opinion. I oppose a merge because there are still no sources, but if someone can source this content in future then they are free to merge it then. Toadspike [Talk] 12:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Taquan Air#Accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taquan Air Flight 20 (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)

Per failure of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE fairly unknown incident with little to no continued coverage. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Alaska. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained non-routine continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident, and during the release of the preliminary report. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a WP:CASESTUDY or any type of historical event that's being revisited by secondary sources. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect to either Taquan Air § Accidents and incidents or de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver § Accidents and incidents, where the accident is mention in these sections. Looking at the existing sources, I can see some chunks of WP:N-passing, such as decent WP:SIGCOV. However, the fact that much of the article qualifies for the fifth criteria for WP:PRIMARY and lacking a lasting impact makes the retention of this article seemed dubious. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's tragic that two people died, but the news about this disappeared. It has no legacy or impact. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taquan Air#Accidents and incidents, where this accident is appropriately covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taquan Air#Accidents and incidents. While there's not enough lasting coverage for independent notability, this incident is worth mentioning within Taquan Air's article, and I see no reason to delete instead of redirecting. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Wizardman 22:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers (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:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Sounds seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge This looks like WP:OR as this doesn't really pass GNG as a list. It's a featured list, but no one commented on the fact there's no secondary sources covering this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article lacks independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Also, today it was deleted by Explicit for SPA, fails WP BIO Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• :Delete: This Article does not have reliable citations, therefore it does not meets notability standards for Wikipedia mainspace article.Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that the article after PROD was shortly recreated by the original creator. That user seems to be an WP:SPA given how most edits were related Armen Berjikly and one of his companies, Kanjoya which has been deleted. Both pages had very promotional content. What a coincidence this user who had no activity since 2019 suddenly decided to be active 6 years later after one of the articles got deleted.- Imcdc Contact 07:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Insufficient in-depth sources about subject itself to establish notability. - Imcdc Contact 03:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article's sources are not independent: byline summary, the subject's own company (BetterUp), a press release from Business Wire, a TED talk. Much of the article is missing citations. I couldn't find any significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. – robertsky (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIIOP (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:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obscure behind the scenes software program to connect javascript to another obscure software program, in this case Lotus Domino. Fails notability, as per nom. Also, this article is two sentences, and this software fails WP:SIGCOV. -- AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I do not see any WP:BEFORE in the nominating statement. The other voter references JavaScript, which does not seem to be mentioned in the article at all (as far as I can tell it's exclusively talking about Java, a completely different and unrelated language), so I am not sure what they are referring to. jp×g🗯️ 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Many refs found using the Google books link above. See WP:BEFORE. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  DIIOP seems to have been ubiquitous in its day. I've added several book refs. None go in-depth but collectively there's enough to build an article. Google Scholar (use the link above) indicates a number of journal articles mentioning DIIOP but I did not have access to them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 North Township, Marshall County, Indiana. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here the cited source actually says there was nothing at "Harris station" except a grain elevator and a post office. And there's nothing there now, so not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:NGEO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to North Township, Marshall County, Indiana. The sources in the article, including one recently added by User:Milowent are (just) enough to support a redirect, IMHO. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Cheruiyot Kirui (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'd suggest deletion in its current state - article isn't written properly according to wikipedia policy, I just removed a ton of advertiser-like language from it, it isn't properly sourced at all. It needs a ton of work, if it meets notability guidelines at all. Romeowth (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Romeowth (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete feels like a WP:BIO1E. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability; one event cannot help here. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The legacy section is both unsourced and written in the passive voice, red flags that indicate his death sadly has not had any legacy. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 14:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact publishing (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)

Article matter does not meet WP:GNG, term isn't used in any significance. Article itself is almost fully WP:OR due to the lack of notability for its subject matter; contested PROD. Coeusin (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The tone is heavily promotional and has a whiff of AI generation. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. A gentle reminder of WP:GF Two points:

  • I think that the article may be promotional. Access to reading never a neutral topic, especially when 2/3 of children in the US |cannot read fluently or in South Africa 81% children in grade 4] have reading difficulties.
  • I started the article and contributed substantially and I did not use Ai generation. 12:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Derek J Moore (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Education. Coeusin (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TNT. I checked a number of the sources and they're all "near-miss" citation; they sort-of-look like they might be relevant to the sentence to which they're attached, but when you look in detail, they don't actually contain the information that's in the sentence. They don't support it, but they sort-of conceptually feel like they probably might have. The problem is quite subtle. For example, we have the statement "It is common to hear about a "reading crisis". In most case, the pat response is often to instill a "reading culture"." which is supported by ref 13 [13]. The reference discusses the culture of reading in South Africa, and it does indeed talk about a reading culture, but at no point does it say that instilling a reading culture is a pat response to a reading crisis. You could treat this reference as an example of someone talking about a reading crisis and responding that it's important to instill a reading culture, but that would turn the WP article into an essay of original research. Basically, the reference is sort-of in the right area for reading culture, but it's not actually doing the job it's supposed to do. That's just one of the references I checked. We really can't have this genre of sounds-convincing-but-actually-synthesised-from-AI-or-personal-opinion article in WP. Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Elemimele. That was helpful feedback. You assumption about AI use is incorrect (but I have dealt with that issue above). Am wondering if you would see the matter differently if you lived here in my country. Where in Mojapelo's own words "the majority of households cannot afford to buy materials for leisure reading to develop and instill a reading culture in children." ^[1] Derek J Moore (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am always pleased to have editors feedback. I have made my response to @Coeusin on Friday. Please check the page history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_impact_publishing&action=history

As a teacher, I would like to offer some feedback to @Coeusin as I see that editor status is quite new

• Make sure that you give the correct feedback the first time.
• When the person responds, acknowledge the response and assist with improvements
• Don't change the second set of feedback and double down on the respondent. It feels like bullying

Would be sad if this topic disappears from Wikipedia. But if it is indeed an example of WP:OG, then you have helped me identify a paper for publication. Thanks. Derek J Moore (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete seems like a made up term to describe multiple approaches to improve literacy, but not supported by secondary sources. There is no clear definition of the term / there are contradicting definitions here [14] "Social impact publishing ... in which a portion of the revenue generated is given to nonprofit organizations." which is not what is described in the article. In the academic literature there is not a single hit for this term and Google Books find zero hits as well. Even if the term were well established, the article currently reads more like an original research essay and would need to start from scratch. --hroest 20:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH. Clear red flags for synthesis are: AI type wording, citations are mostly primary sources and TED Talks, and unverified examples and factoids. This is a classic example of why synthesis is another form of original research. There are many websites that publish this, from DailyKos to LinkedIn, but not Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. ✗plicit 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid (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)

More reliable sources needed, i searched myself and found one but it was just a passing mention, needs more sources to establish WP:GNG. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: It is mentioned in a book that is already cited in this article. How is this not notable?? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: texts not fully supported by the ref(s) Somajyoti ✉ 19:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a valid deletion reason. MarioGom (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: The mosque was established in 1896. This is an old and traditional mosque. I cited a book in the reference.

ইমন (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: It's an old & traditional mosque.

রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be enough RSes to justify inclusion. This is certainly more notable than an average mosque and the page seems developed enough and supported enough to justify inclusion in my opinion. More sources would be optimal but overall notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is consensus, I believe, that historical houses of worship older than 100 years are likely to be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Mile (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 WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and any WP:LASTINGEFFECT. Feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BIO1E Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Events, and Africa. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: very weak one. the person meets WP:BLP1EVENT but maybe you can spin the page to be about the event if you can find coverage for the aftermath/imvistgation/etc, which I could not find. Actually, zero coverage about the person beyond his death. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. – robertsky (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald M. Taganashi (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 subject completely fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The page reads like a vanity page with non-significant and non-independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also the article to have been weirdly moved from Draftspace to Mainspace by User:AriaTess (blocked indefinitely), a sockpuppet of (User:JRM2018 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRM2018. It seems like User:AriaTess moved it without being properly accepted by an admin. See edit here: [15]. Lekkha Moun (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Nswix (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources that meet general notability guidelines. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see that he meets any WP notability criteria. Creating your own minor martial art system doesn't make you notable and most of the sources are connected to his organization. Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

2020 Darul Uloom Hathazari student protest (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)

Similar events happen every day but that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article, there is only one source that seems to show relevancy but its neutrality is disputed, either delete it or improve the page and then keeping is a option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deutsche Welle and BBC News are generally reliable. No case has been made why the sourcing situation is insufficient save for a blanket "sources aren’t good". A quick search for English-language sources also shows that there is coverage as well 1 2. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Approximately two weeks ago, I nominated four articles created by the nominator for AfD due to notability concerns. Subsequently, another editor nominated some of that nominator's articles for AfD. Recently, I initiated a sockpuppet investigation about the nominator. In response, the nominator began an AfD war related to Somajyoti and me. As an experienced editor myself, I am not worried about this nomination or anything else. However, it is a clear example of Wp:vandalism. Secondly, the current topic is well-notable. As mentioned by Cortador, the incident received widespread national and international media coverage, including from BBC. It was a national issue at the time and played a role in subsequent developments, such as changes in the leadership of Hefazat-e-Islam, shifts in the government's stance toward Islamists, and nationwide unrest, including the anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh. Notably, it was a translation of a Bengali article, which is a GA.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be fine. Somajyoti ✉ 14:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Owais Al Qarni, please explain its impact then I'll be convinced, It is not a AfD war, i recently got the knowledge that Twinkle is a good way to nominate articles for AfD, so i checked some articles and found some with little impact or relevance and I nominated them as AfD, it could be that i misunderstood WP:BB, sure, please explain how relevant it is and I'll choose keeping it, I view it as a logical discussion, not as a AfD war if so, then I would've spammed AfD on even impactful articles. Nevermind, Keep I'm convinced. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Cortador & Somajyoti: Are there any sources that demonstrate long-term significance and retrospective analysis, as opposed to news coverage? If its only claim to notability is that it made the news, I don't see how that demonstrates WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: The article clearly meets WP:GNG. I would like to highlight some reports that go beyond merely covering the event as breaking news. These include:

1. A Jugantor report on the aftermath of the protest.
2. An analysis by Janakantha on the reasons behind the protest and the forces involved.
3. A Daily Inqilab report analyzing the outcomes of the protest.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep. Thank you for the links! I had a feeling there might be, so I held off on my vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: clearly meets WP:GNG as pointed out by multiple editors 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [22] [23] [24] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Angola. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom which covered all the points. if sources in the native language (seems nothing in Portuguese also) surfaced please notify me. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360: Isn’t there already a consensus to delete this article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aviationwikiflight, Don’t be in a hurry as a nominator, more users will drop there comments, it’s just 1 user that participated. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not in a hurry, it’s just that I don’t see why this was relisted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. – robertsky (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mortensen (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:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete UPDATE: i have changed my vote to keep as sources have now been presented Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [25] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.

  I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:

  • The article is poorly written.
  • The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.
  • The article is of start/stub class length.

  Offhand only one of those is a valid reason for deletion. Being a short article isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. An article can be an eternal stub and still be considered worthy of an article - it only has to pass notability requirements. Now a very short article can sometimes be merged into another, if there is an appropriate parent article, but this isn't the case here. As far as the sourcing issue goes, sourcing does not have to be present in the article to establish notability. It should absolutely be added, yes, but the sourcing only has to exist and be of suitable quality and type to establish notability.

  Now the quality argument can be used as an argument for deletion, but this is only meant to be used in very extreme cases, where the article has so many issues that it would be easier to just delete it all and start fresh. These issues are typically things like promotional content and copyright violation, as well as a history of sockpuppetry. This article does need editing, but I wouldn't say that it's so problematic that it needs to be wiped clean from Wikipedia. It just needs some pruning. I also don't see an issue with copyvio and the article doesn't seem to have any issues with sockpuppetry either.

  I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry i haven't changed my vote yet. I was engaging in other afd discussions Scooby453w (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly agree with that. Articles for those are often kind of undersourced (even if they pass NBOOK) and are particularly prone to puffery. Honestly, a lot of times authors in this realm of things tend to kind of write about the same topics, but from different angles, so sometimes all that is needed is a general overview of what the author writes about. I also think that having an author page often discourages people from writing the individual book pages (and same for series pages and individual entries). People are sometimes just looking to see if it's on here and when it's not, that's when we sometimes get people coming on to create articles - sometimes with good intent, sometimes to promote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The author passes notability guidelines as his works have been covered in multiple, independent, and secondary reliable sources. He'll never be anyone super mainstream, but he's received enough attention to pass NAUTHOR. Also, as stated above I think that having a page for him would be best here, as opposed to ones for his books. We can have a general overview and cover it all well enough there, as opposed to 2-3 individual and lackluster (but still passing NBOOK) entries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per ROTP and MCE, meets NAUTHOR Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. I'm not a fan of these self-help types of books, but if the subject's books are reviewed in reliable sources, then he's probably notable. The article has been improved two ways: deletion of BLP violations and trivia, and by added sources. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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