Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

6 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 05	May 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kadanthodu

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

Non-notable. No significant coverages. References/sources could not be found to establish notability Coldupnorth (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WoodenStreet

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

The article reads overly promotional and borders on G11. It needs a complete rewrite for neutral tone, but only if notability is established. When discounting routine business coverage such as press releases, funding announcements, and store opening updates, there is virtually no significant, in-depth coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Some cited success stories and profiles appear to be from dubious sources. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Rajasthan. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VGN Projects Estates

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

The existing coverage consists primarily of press releases and routine land acquisition announcements, which do not constitute significant independent coverage. As such, the subject does not merit a standalone article under WP:NCORP. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of brightest stars by distance

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

No evidence that this specific type of ranking has received any attention, fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Islam Bulbul

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. No significant coverage found in reliable, independent sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND, was unable to find any form of significant for inclusion. They also seem to have been nominated and deleted previously, and judging from the nomination that time, there doesnt seem to much of an improvement this time around. No charting album, not on a notable label, no inclusion in any big publication. In fact most of their 'press' seems to just come from underground metal online tabloids like Metal Injection and MetalSucks, like many others of this bands size. Searching their name just brings up the usual for underground metal acts such as LastFM or Sputnikmusic mostly. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability. The majority of the coverage on them has been published since the first deletion as well. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so you edited the page since the delete nomination with this edit with the summary "Maybe actually look past page 1 of Google search results". What am I missing here? Obscure webzines/blogs in Italian and Danish? That's the big comeback with verifiable sources? User-created blogs and webzines are generally not reliable sources. You claim "There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability", which is fine when it comes to small metal bands due to their appearances on verifiable publications like Revolver or Kerrang etc. yet I still dont see any noteworthy sources like those. All that's mostly used on the article are metal webzines, which anyone can create and maintain - and are generally disallowed per wp:USERG — Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Hentges

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

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament (which was not the world tournament, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the Luxembourg team which placed third. However Hentges does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Hentges received "gold" in an individual event at the 1903 tournament. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 gymnastics tournament. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual passing mentions, though the existence of a prominent 21st century Luxembourgish doctor by the same name complicates this. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage found, e.g. [1] and [2]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both single-sentence mentions. Not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the one has about a paragraph on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one about the award that the source itself sponsors? I think you can see the independence issue there. FOARP (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per sourcing found by BeanieFan11. The articles are quite lengthy with one detailing how Hentges' father was instrumental in the growth and development of a gymnastics club, for which he served as the first president, including building the club's first gym. François then followed in his father's footsteps as president of the club, his later resignation, and nomination to honorary life president. The gym/club later named a competition of some sort after François. I believe the second article details the competition or one iteration of it? I'm not sure where the assertion of non-independence comes from, both of these are found via the Luxemburger Wort, one of the major national Luxembourgian newspapers. GauchoDude (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The independence issue is pretty straightforward: Luxemburger Wort sponsored the competition. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, an advertorial about a competition by the sponsor of the competition is not an independent source on details of the competition (including background). There is a clear financial incentive to promote the event. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Luxemburger Wort coverage is exactly what you'd expect considering it's from the beginning of the 20th century. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, is enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. He is also one of the few champion athletes from Luxembourg, I believe that over time more material can be recovered. Svartner (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the Luxemburger Wort articles are from 1974, and are about an event that they sponsored. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Luxemburger Wort articles are primary news reporting. What we don't have are any independent secondary sources at all from which we can write our article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the second source is about an event and may be considered non-independent, but the first is a story on the history of the club that gives arguably significant coverage to him. For a world champion who meets WP:NGYMNAST, this should be sufficient; there's also other mentions and things one could use as well to probably write a decent NBASIC-compliant article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? The first is Luxemburger Wort's announcement of the event it sponsored, that's a very clear financial relationship (important enough to be stated in the article title!) regardless of the background coverage it provides on the association being celebrated. We don't even know whether it was written by LW or by the gymnastics org; language like the unforgettable and dynamic president François Hentges suggests the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like its about an event? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think an article titled "90th anniversary of the Bonnevoie Gymnastics Club - Under the patronage of the Luxemburger Wort -" is about the event? JoelleJay (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics as an ATD, where his name was mentioned. I've checked corresponding articles on French, German, and Luxemburgish Wikipedia – all unsourced stubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The rationele of the nominator with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass is not true as person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist, so Keep. If someone can demonstrate doing a extended search in offline sources from Luxembourg without finding content, let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although he doesn't, in fact, pass NGYMNAST, that is moot, as WP:SPORTCRIT insists that the article must contain at least one piece of IRS SIGCOV, even when the additional sports criteria are kept. Also, insisting on searching offline archival material is wrongheaded. Offline archival material may contain news reports of the competition, programmes, record books, photographs, etc., all of which will be primary sources. These will not count towards IRS SIGCOV (the S is for "secondary"). Nothing to write the article from, so the article should go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just can't claim offline sources doesn't exist, without looking at it. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to prove the negative. The fact is that we need secondary sources to write a Wikipedia page. If we don't have the sources, there should not be a page. That is the policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global consensus requires all sportsperson articles must cite a source of IRS SIGCOV to be in mainspace. So yes, we can claim offline sources don't exist for the purposes of meeting this guideline if no one has been able to identify any. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
"Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
"COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
"BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
"Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Needs coverage in more independent sources than AVN and DNA. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The are all either not RS or not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article is quite vague (e.g. "his parents were from two different continents") and certainly does not read as an encyclopaedic article. Overall, I'd say it could be saved if it wasn't for the questionable reliability of the sources, and the fact those are the best that seem to be available. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love

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

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
draftify for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Airways

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

Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and secondary sources. WP:TOOSOON also. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Argentina. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep It might be seen as WP:TOOSOON but has some coverage in the media WP:BTMBS. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. There are many more websites and I am not sure which ones are actually reliable but some are reliable Argentinian news websites. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Lee Flores

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much can be written about the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available information is his role for taking over the Kamuning Bakery. No information on the works that made him awarded the Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

See article's state (diff) prior to significant addition by a conflict of interest user Pandesalforum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anzhelika Bielova

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

it does not demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources, offering only trivial or self-published coverage. It also reads like a promotional biography and lacks the depth, neutrality, and verifiability required by Wikipedia standards. Oia-pop (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Nguyễn Anh

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, its promotional tone and reliance on primary sources Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[8]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenpr: An Internet Archive search yield more than a dozen mentions in computer magazines. Many of those should be good for a post-redirect mention. BD2412 T 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, I suppose I would go with: Paul Ward, "Rebuttal #1 to Why the "CoCo 4" Will Fail", The OSK'er, Issue 5 (1991), p. 11.

You can't set up a multiuser system on a PC without spending about $2000 far a product that hacks up the operating system and brings out several serial ports. What about a compiled BASIC and an assembler? Print spooling software? That will coat extra on a PC (although OWBasic does come with PCs).

BD2412 T 16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy Flashboards

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to Remedy Corp. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure we need a reference for a redirect, do we? I looked and found passing refs but nothing sufficient to establish notability which is why I’m recommending a redirect. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia redirects should have a mention in the redirected page, but there is currently no mention as there are no references. Otherwise fake redirects could be created without such control. Clenpr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a logical redirect target, but without a mention at the target it's likely to confuse people in a future RfD. Do we have anything worth saying about it at this target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Clenpr, the lack of any info beyond corporate documentation and raw sales data should make this extension of the similarly non-notable Action Request System ineligible for even a redirect to its parent company, Remedy Corp. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Voice actors can certainly be notable per WP:NACTOR if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has voiced lead roles for many notable films, in a variety of languages. The main issue seems to me to be finding reliable sources to verify that she has voiced those roles. The sources currently in the article are not reliable or independent. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen, any luck? -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been working on other articles at AfD. I did find some sources - I'll get back to adding them and looking for more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources are found here then we can keep the article, but otherwise delete. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for sourcing to be identified (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as BLP's have strict sources...and the sources inside of the article are not strong enough. My googling found Imdb sources/film credits, possibly failing WP:NEXIST as well. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Barabash

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

Deleted on uk wiki 3 months ago for the second time. not notable as politician nor as GNG. Oia-pop (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AquaB

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

it fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Jepsen

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

Contested draftification, so here we are. (Why not just let it stay in draft space?) It was draftified as only relying on database sources, and was readded with no valid sources. The only sources are a database and two instances of her name appearing in lists. These are nowhere near significant coverage, cf. WP:SPORTCRIT: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". I could find no other Danish sources in a WP:BEFORE (a language I can read and speak). I'm by no means opposed to it being draftified again, but it then has to go through the AFC process, I think. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Kingdoms

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

Fails WP:GNG. This game has got to hold the record for fewest words of review written per dollar earned, as there's been nearly nothing written about Rise of Kingdoms's gameplay. The article's reception section cites three unreliable sources and an Arkansas newspaper.

There's been slightly more written about its marketing and sales, but I don't think it's enough to hold an article about the game together. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources mostly don't constitute as notability after assessment (above). Not much content in the article aside from its advertising, basic gameplay and some reviews. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to interpret this as a request for a source assessment table.

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lilithgame.roc.gp&hl=en&pli=1	Google Play store entry is written by the developer			✘ No
https://gameir.ie/review/rise-of-kingdoms-doesnt-rise-but-falls-flat/		This is a self-published blog. WP:BLOGS.		✘ No
https://www.clashofgaming.com/en/rise-of-kingdoms-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-game		I don't know what this is, but it's not a reliable source. No bylines, no editorial policy, no about page.		✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/riseofkingdomsgame/videos/338745250181557/?__xts__[0]=68.ARBqF5dVNJo3rxUQmQryLq2N3UpXHLd_uHueSsu8liNin5tfu60wCvglXSaZ3Unq_qRgwYpDio2APDD5Cmp_BSyjcRXouAcULRwqjQXK9Gd2TKfqypXFNcRu5kvi291scAZvlQYdHMgPEWqAr0BotfMXZIBgUE8VTMY2nf7RcBOG7xHwacqO8jpL0nI4tr-qnpiC65OrWcHQT6gG7ZFSEbJ_3jY9g-AErip5yeuVmdgGvGlKTp2Max0S2zZUh5hG5D0FOiCeroYU-C983H9-BbHdEoqSznNm6tTN_hn46ZwbY-QdnSt5Ly2V9IvfBl0V0g-RGP6Sw-6x6sAV7tJjYItwFFRQQZ6m	Facebook page is owned by the developer.			✘ No
https://gamerant.com/strangest-mobile-game-ads/		Game Rant is an extremely low quality source that outputs a lot of churnalism (WP:VALNET) and consensus has been that it does not contribute to notability.	This is a two paragraph listicle entry. It's very debatable if this is significant coverage.	? Unknown
https://rok.lilith.com/en#:~:text=When%20progressing%20from%20the%20Stone,work%20to%20visit%20Chengdu%20Museum.	The game's website is published by the developer			✘ No
https://www.pocketgamer.com/rise-of-kingdoms/3-5bn-milestone/			This source narrowly focuses on this sales announcement. It's reliable for that fact, but the source does not discuss the game in general.	? Unknown
https://www.touchtapplay.com/rise-of-civilizations-is-an-epic-strategy-mmo-for-mobile/		This is not obviously reliable or listed as such anywhere. Previous WP:VG/RS discussion is unconvincing: [9]		? Unknown
https://technuovo.com/rise-of-kingdoms-review/		This is a group blog, per their about page.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240721111549/https://mmohuts.com/news/rise-kingdoms-review/		Listed unreliable on WP:VG/RS		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

(continued)

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/09/game-on-20190909/		Is the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette a reliable source for video games?		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Of the sources that come close to meeting reliability standards, there's one acceptable source reporting one specific announcement (Pocket Gamer), one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), and one source that's deficient in multiple ways (Game Rant). I don't think this adds up to WP:GNG in a way that the article can be primarily based on reliable sources.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for assuming that sources like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette don't contribute to notability? Cortador (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I described Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as "one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual". My contention is that it's the only source here that contributes to notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl of Minerva (journal)

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

The article has been subject of multiple PRODs and notability flags. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Philosophy. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has been indexed by IBZ, IPB, MLA and ERIH PLUS etc.[10] [11] And I think it meets C1, C2 and C3, as it is cited by other reliable sources, example: [12] Xpander (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Xpander above. It is notable - more content can be added. Asteramellus (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a significant philosophy journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes on indexing alone. Definitely need expanding. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ah... I'd thought indexing was a part of WP:NJournals, but it is not. On a second look, I find it fails NJ (which is only an essay, not a firm policy), and that it fails WP:GNG (which is policy). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not up to us to decide whether this is an important journal or not. Such a conclusion should be based on RS. Here we have some listings in databases that don't have the selectivity required by NJournals. Neither do some routine citations to articles published in this journal indicate notability. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do I read correctly that the nominator here is also the first "keep" !voter? Should this be treated as a withdrawn nom? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, I noticed this, too. In addition, the nom is rather deficient, previous PROD and notability tags is not aa good reason to take something to AfD. However, there is now also my policy-based "delete" !vote, so even if the nom can be treated as withdrawn, this should run its course. I'd be interested to hear what the "keep" !votes here think of my arguments. And some of those "keep" !votes are not very convincing either ("it's notable/significant"...). --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not clear why the aforementioned indexes (IBZ, IPB, MLA etc.) all fail the selectivity required by WP:NJournals.
Xpander (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because these databases strive for inclusiveness and are relatively easy to get into. Journals in the databases listed in the article (including those that have been added since this AfD started) did not undergo the in-depth evaluation that e.g. Scopus does before including a journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this independently notable from the Hegel Society of America? The same information seems to appear on both pages. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one's suggested a redirect to Hegel Society of America, but Goldsztajn's comment suggests that would be a possible WP:ATD - does that satisfy any of the keep folks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Schmitt

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

LUGSTUB-a-like for a non-notable athlete who competed at the Olympic games, once. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE, though the fact that the name of the subject is literally the Dutch version of "John Smith" hardly helps. A search on RKD yields a single-paragraph description - not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if there is no significant coverage. By the way, is RKD a reliable source? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RKD is certainly a reliable source for artists, not for gymnasts. An artist with an RKD entry is presumably notable. I assume that the article can be saved based on Schmitt`s notability as an artist. I´ll look into it in the next few days. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schmitt was part of the Dutch team that won a silver medal at the second World Gymnastics Championships in 1905. He came in 9th at the individual all around event that year. He was dutch national champion when the dutch team participated in the 1908 Summer Olympics. For these reasons, he explicitly meets WP:NGYMNAST. I have updated the article with this info. He also had formal training as an artist (drawing, sculpture) and was an accomplished musician (piano). A query at Delpher with the search term "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" renders over 200 hits in newspapers, magazines and books. I have not found a full biography but there are many references that show his activity as a gymnast, teacher, chairman of gymnastics associations, musician and drawer.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar, @Svartner - No individual medals were awarded at any gymnastics championships prior to 1922: they were purely team events (see page 76 here). At some point after 1922 (possibly as late as 2006 since the 1981 history doesn't mention it but the 2006 one does) scores were awarded retrospectively. A retrospectively-awarded score awarded years later is not the same as one received at the time for our purposes, since the coverage that surrounds winning a medal won't have happened.

Team medals were awarded, but per WP:NTEAM, individuals don't inherit the notability of their team.

Since Schmitt is such a common name, we cannot simply rely on numbers of hits as a source of coverage.

I'm happy to withdraw if a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source (as is required for all sports biographies per WP:NSPORTS2022) can be produced for Schmitt, but not for single-sentence mentions that don't reach the SIGCOV standard. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per Ruud Buitelaar analysis. The subject is notable considering beyond the sporting context. Svartner (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The preoccupation over whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not is misplaced, as per the overarching NSPORT guideline a source of IRS SIGCOV is required to be cited in the article for any presumptions of further GNG coverage existing to be applied. @Svartner @Ruud Buitelaar I've also looked through the Delpher archive and every single one of the 141 hits for "J. H. A. G. Schmitt" gymnastiek is either from in-house publications of orgs Schmitt belonged to (e.g. the "official organ" of the Dutch Olympic Committee, Zaan Gymnastics Association, etc.), or a passing mention:
Non-independent:

(62 hits) Passing mentions in "Het turnblad; orgaan van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek Verbond": [13]
(1 hit) Passing mentions in "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek-Verbond": [14]
(2 hits) KNGV announcement in "Olympic Day" (published by Dutch Olympics Committee) that says he will provide "piano accompaniment" at some KNGV event: [15]
(3 hits) Passing mentions in "De Revue der Sporten: Officieel Orgaan van het Nederlandsch Olympisch Comité": [16][17]
(2 hits) Passing mentions in "Algemeen Sportblad Voor N.-Holland: Officieel orgaan van den [...] Zaanschen Turnbond": [18][19]
(1 hit) An announcement in "Weekly of the General Dutch Diamond Workers' Union" by the Arbeiders Gymnastiek Vereeniging listing him as its director: [20]
(3 hits) Passing mentions in primary government "Report on the state of higher, secondary, and primary schools", e.g. By council resolution of 22 September, the municipal council appointed J. H. A. G. Schmitt as his successor for the current school year, who took up his position on 16 October. [21] and A periodic increase in annual salary was granted to J. H. A. G. Schmitt and Miss Dr. M. J. Baale.[22]
(5 hits) Announcements in "De lichamelijke opvoeding; orgaan van de Vereeniging van Gymnastiek-Onderwijzers (L. en M.O.) in Nederland" (official organ of the Association of Gymnastics Teachers): [23]
(2 hits) Passing mentions in "Nederlandsche sport: officiëel orgaan der [...] Nederl. Gymnastiek Verbond": [24][25]
(4 hits) His name in a list of Olympics entrants published repeatedly by the "De Sport" the "official organ of the Rotterdam Football Association": [26][27]
(1 hit) Apparently the alderman of the Amsterdam Gymnastics Association mentioned him as the former Association director and a current "musical accompanist at the ladies' practices" in a speech at an AGA celebration: [28]

Potentially independent, but trivial and/or primary:

(1 hit) Name in a list in "Sport en sportwereld": [29]
(52 hits) Name in a directory of grammar school teachers(??) in many "State Almanac" editions, e.g.: [30][31][32][33][34] (names in these lists are not deemed important enough to be in the index[35])

JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Nice job, @JoelleJay! I was just going through the same hits and, by and large, agree with your assessment that the vast majority, very close to 100%, are passing mentions. Whether or not the magazine of the Gymnastics Association is an independent source may be a matter of debate. In the article, I added a citation in Revue der Sporten that is rather critical of Mr Schmitt`s design of the poster for the 50th anniversary of the Association. I also cite a volume of Het Leven Geillustreerd, clearly an independent publication, dedicated to the same celebration, mentioning Schmitt as head organizer. Anyway, I made my point. I´ll make an entry for Schmitt in the Dutch Wikipedia so this information will not get lost if it is decided that the english version should be transformed in a redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar, according to NSPORT governing sports bodies are not considered independent so that magazine and all the others that are "official organs" of sporting orgs are definitely not independent. While HLG does seem independent, all it has is a photo caption stating "The head instructor, JHAG Schmitt", which is not enough for SPORTSCRIT. Revue der Sporten was published by the Dutch Olympic Committee and so is also not independent. Good idea to add it to nl.wp though! JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully the nl wiki generates more info. I found a newspaper article (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden), definitely independent, that reports in some detail that Schmitt organized workshops to introduce rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands in the 1920s. On these occasions he also played the piano. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. Per point 1 winning a medal at world championships and if he was also national champion in 1908(?) also per point 2. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep leaning to Keep: possibly meets point 2 of WP:NGYMNAST winning an individual national champion title in 1908(?). But also as introducer of rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands that is claimed in the article (didn't check the source) and as director of main gymnastics clubs. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NGYMNAST point 1 says (emphasis mine): Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition, so no, doesn't meet that with a team medal. Point 2 is for individual events. Also note JoelleJay's point that even if a subject meets NGYMNAST, at least one source is still required. I'm a bit reluctant to !vote on this one, considering Ruud Buitelaar's arguments above, but on the sourcing and the evidence, this looks like a reluctant redirect from me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes my fault. I missed it was a team event. I will adjust my vote. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@95.98.65.177, the more salient point here is that the article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, which it does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more citations. The poor showing at the 1908 Summer Olympics did cause a stir and Schmitt got some heat. De Telegraaf, a leading Dutch newspaper, and several other newspapers reported about Schmitt´s leading role in organizing entertainment for the team, which was seen as a lack of attitude toward the games. We had missed those news articles because he is not mentioned as "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" but as "Joh. Schmitt". Indeed, as WP:NGYMNAST states, SIGCOV is likely to exist for people like Schmitt. I continue my search. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay: All Wikipedia articles require multiple IR SIGCOV to pass GNG. Even only one provided is too weak and still not enough. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. However subject notability guidelines often provide a refutable presumption that sources will exist based on some additional criteria, and articles are often kept based on such additional criteria. Here, the additional criteria would be WP:GYMNAST. But what WP:SPORTCRIT says is that, when relying on such additional criteria, there must still be at least one IRS SIGCOV source actually on the page. This, it specifically says, does not show that the subject is notable, but it is a minimum requirement for anyone relying on the additional criteria in the subject notability guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical figure with unusually diverse accomplishments in gymnastics. Absolutely no BLP concern. Meets BASIC and HEY. Also, this article was created by User:Doma-w, not by User:Lugnuts! gidonb (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the required SIGCOV source? How does he even meet BASIC when all the coverage is primary and/or non-independent? This and this and this are primary accounts by attendees or eyewitnesses, this is a passing mention... JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb - "this article was created by User:Doma-w", which is why the nomination says "Lugstub-a-like". And as disucssed, multiple instances of IRS SIGCOV are required here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of keep !votes here, but unless I've missed it, no one's managed to find sigcov even still?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laho (Shallipopi Song

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

The song is not notable; reliable sources are missing. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Editing it Destinyokhiria (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the song debuted on UK Afrobeats charts, US Afrobeats charts, no9 for global Shazam charts

https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/shallipopi-laho/https://www.shazam.com/song/1798724540/laho https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-u-s-afrobeats-songs/

The Song is Charting on 20 plus Apple music charts Currently

@Old-AgedKid Destinyokhiria (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I have found multiple reliable sources for this song. If some of these are included in the article, then the article should be worth a weak keep. UnregisteredBiohazard (what did i do now?) 21:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, non-charting song but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to go for that reason alone. However, doesn't seem to be very notable nevertheless. If the song appears on an album, I suggest it gets redirected to said album Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it gets added to an album I will do that Destinyokhiria (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: Song is slightly notable but in real sense the song has a remix and it’s topped national chart in Nigeria and other countries already having an impressive stream count. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Destinyokhiria (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Song is notable, the charts and everything. It's better you improve than to delete. 2RDD 18:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder to avoid moving articles while they're at AfD, even if they're obviously in the wrong place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Johnson (conspiracy theorist)

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

Coverage is simple fact-check sources and routine coverage. No lasting notability that I can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to his common name, but a targeted search in conjunction with some of his theories reveals that he is only present in his own online manifestos and occasionally mentioned by similarly-inclined kooks. I suggest that he formulate a new theory on how he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article because the lamestream media conspired to never report on his theories because they can't handle the truth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election#Campaign issues – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a viable ATD if he is mentioned at the target article, and he isn't. Just one of thousands who contributed to that tomfoolery, and even less notable than most. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see some room for improvement, maybe a few more better sources, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Barr Theo (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in the Seattle Times, Oklahoman, Idaho State Journal, and Daily State News. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle article only briefly mentions him, the Olkahoman isn't much better. Idaho State is the only decent source. Last source talks with people after a state fair, saying how good he was. I'm not sure most of these help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any new sources from the last month when this came up at AfD, that would change my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Awad Ali

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

He gets a lot of mentions, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. The current sourcing barely mentions him at all. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haji Abdi Awad is one of the most well-known entrepreneurs in Somaliland. All sources I've cited adequately mention him and cover the article's content. If any reference is problematic please point it out so we can take a look.

One thing to note when it comes to Somali-related articles is nicknames and transliteration, which makes it a bit difficult to find significant coverage if you're not familiar. 𐒈𐒚𐒐𐒆𐒛𐒒 Gebagebo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see this non RS source but maybe it is useful to others to find better sources? I may also help if an arabic speaker can check al-manhal WP:TWL. Another passing mention in an RS here Czarking0 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

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

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes an award won by the app. It seems strange to me that this is nominated for deletion, even in light of the arguments made above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any suitable sources (meeting WP:NCORP) for either the app or the parent company unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kubr

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

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether he's notable, but @Onel5969: may I suggest that if you come across an active non-notable footballer, you take it to AFD or PROD rather than BLAR as you previously did here? Footballers often move between lots of teams, so redirecting it to the one the subject is at presently could quickly become outdated and incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sources presented are primary sources, and he only played one match of professional level in Norway. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus twenty in the Czech second tier... FromCzech (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources below which (AGF) seemingly show notability. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie: bruh I found [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], among many more Czech and Norwegiajn sources in a few mins. Young player with ongoing career and many sources and 20+ fully pro games. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Bruh?" You know Q+A interviews are not acceptable for passing GNG yet you insist on providing them as sources at AFD. In your "few mins" search you've managed to link the same an.no article twice. (BTW what's behind the paywall? Can you tell us what is contains?) Dougal18 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get past the paywall either, but the headline reads: "Tough months for Lucas (20). I don't blame anyone." The second heading reads "Lucas Kubr had to have ankle surgery last fall. Now he's getting better and better every day." So it looks like a mix of news reporting of the slow return to form of a player with an injury, and interview with him ("I don't blame anyone" clearly being his words). The source is primary on one count or the other. I don't see how that can be counted towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [42] or [43]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.
- Your first example [44] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
- Your second [45] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
- I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.
- First source: [46] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IV a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. N
- Second source: [47] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. N
- Third Source: [48] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G N
- Fourth Source: [49] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. N
- "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [50] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a ? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I have said before this is black and white thinking since this logic means that a ton of mixed interview and secondary reporting profile pieces for magazines websites and newspapers cannot contribute to Wikipedia biographies' notability which is absurd. Also secondary reporting alongside an interview somehow dosnt count but if another source uses said interview as a source it does count? Make that make sense... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is source analysis. If information comes from the horse's mouth, it is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 15 look in my view, while 13 is partially paywalled. Yeah, I understand that IR SIGCOV might be sometimes difficult to find... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube)

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

This YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you fixing the broken link. That said, the source is just a directory/listicle that briefly mentions Easy German among other channels. It is only a few lines with no real depth and would not count as significant coverage by Wikipedia standards for establishing the subject's notability.

And yes, the uni-muenster article does not seem to be independent. It is full of quotes from the subject and there's even a disclaimer at the top stating This text is taken from the alumni|sponsor magazine of the university newspaper 'wissen|leben,' summer semester 2022 issue. That magazine features stories submitted by their own alumni. Anyone who attended the university can send in their story to be featured.

Wikipedia expects significant coverage to be both substantial and independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. Junbeesh (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: A thesis [51] and some discussion in a journal [52], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan-language paper here [53]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These alone do not establish notability, though they may contribute toward it. The primary requirement is that the subject must have received sufficient, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the journal article and Catalan paper are two significant independent reliable sources, as is The Local [54]. With the other borderline sources I think there's just about enough to push this into notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swierot

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :
- WP:FOOTYN :
- Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
- Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
- Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.
https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

Third party sources

https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barr Theo: You're free to ~~strikethrough~~ your own comment if you'd like, but please don't delete someone else's. I've restored Sirfurboy's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 19, and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point." Barr Theo (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even got this person's gender right... Giant Snowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: It's funny you say that, because I copied and pasted this comment from you (hence why I placed it under "quotations")... I found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caden Tolentino from August 2021... I was trying to talk the way you guys do... Barr Theo (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be blindly copying & pasting other editor's comments from unrelated AFDs, especially not ones that came before NFOOTBALL was abolished. Giant Snowman 00:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or is it a double standard ProudWatermelon (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I waited this long because I was hoping some sources would come to light. Women are under-represented in Wikipedia articles. But articles needs sources and this one does not have the requisite multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Bar Theo, or anyone else, can we find a suitable redirect target as an ATD? If not, I will be reluctantly !voting delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allsebrook

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

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, in an era when the internet did not exist. WP:COMMONSENSE apples. Giant Snowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped in 2022 and all Keeps using it as a reason to keep should be ignored by the closer. I did an actual search in the BNA archives and found no sigcov for Richard/Dick Allsebrook. Dougal18 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—"Two notable sources" is enough, especially given the WP:COMMONSENSE of the context. Anwegmann (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is just stats so it isn't enough even if the Athletic Times article is sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources on internet. No question of notability. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Both sources don't give significant coverage of the player. The book is simply a compilation of player statistics while the Athletic News source is simply a listing of all the birth places, names, roles, and heights of the players. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As stated above, none of the sources cited in the article contain significant coverage of the player. Searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn’t turn up any significant coverage of the player in question. There are some results about a "Richard Allsebrook" being in two road accidents in 1930 and 1932 but I'm not certain whether or not this is the same "Richard Allsebrook". This article states that "Richard Allsebrook" was 32 years old at the time of the accident (1930) and this article states he was 37 years old at the time of the accident (1934). If those sources are to be believed, "Richard Allsebrook" was either born in 1897/1898 and not in 1892 like the article states. So either these sources are talking about a different "Richard Allsebrook" or they’re all referring to the same person and we simply have contradictory information about his birth date. Lastly, WP:NFOOTY, a WikiProject advice page, clearly states that The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Per the above, WP:NSPORTS is not met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? per WP:NEXIST offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: English newspapers are extensively digitized at TNA and the British Newspaper Archive. Keep !voters can be expected to show sources for this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-bleep-funk

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

None of the sources (found via google) mention "Electro-bleep-funk" specifically, though some do mention Electro-funk. Seems AI-generated to me, especially the now-deleted conclusion section. However, this apparently is a thing (mentioned here), but afaict, still fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax (G3). This is an LLM-generated fabrication that cites some open-access articles unrelated to any of the claims being made here. hinnk (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Del Thiessen

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Jalali

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timex Black Max

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

It doesn't look like there are enough sources for GNG, maybe delete or redirect to Timex? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Lourenco

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

Obviously self-published self-biographical promotional. This seriously detracts from the quality of Wikipedia. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Germany, and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I. H. Sangam Dev

AfDs for this article:

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

Undersourced, promotional, personal biography, all references are first party. This article detracts from the overall quality of Wikipedia. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fifteen years of this sticking around; definitely not much of an article, but props to whoever got this BLP to stick around that long unchanged (and its simplicity could be a lesson to a lot of these editors who throw obvious paid WP:RESUME articles that are regulars here). Nathannah • 📮 00:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator, immediately after starting this nomination, also attempted to intitate a PROD with the rationale This article has had a deletion consensus for over 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I._H._Sangam_Dev. I procedurally declined the PROD; not only is it not allowed to have both processes going simultaneously, but any article previously discussed at AfD — and this is not the first article at this title — is also ineligible for PROD. (I have no opinion on the article itself at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket boots

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

fails WP:GNG. The refs are copies of the same sensationalist article. I didnt find and native Russian sources, and English sources for the term are something else. --Altenmann >talk 00:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find russian sources: [55] [56] but I am still not sure about notability. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the references is a bylined article from The New York Times. The South African article is credited to Sapa/DPA, which I think means that Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable news agency, wrote the article and it was distributed in South Africa by South African Press Association, also reliable. I hoped to find the original DPA article by searching for Raketenstiefel, but only found uses of the term in the context of goblin rocket boots in World of Warcraft. Still, we have multiple in-depth references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]