Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 03	April 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mademoiselle Boop

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

Does not meet GNG or ANYBIO. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femininomenon

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

Fails WP:NSONG (Neon piece appears to come from a "music discovery platform" with no stated editorial standards or policy and a "submit your music below" link in their Instagram bio); should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NSONG. The nominator focuses only on the Neon piece, but a few minutes of googling the song will show pretty clearly a whole slew of subsequent substantive coverage ranging from Kamala Harris using it as a campaign song to other reliable sources using it generally as a stand-in slang term: i.e. "Femininomenon" as a sort of stand-in term for "women killing the game and doing it in a feminine kind of way", with reference to the song as the origin of the term. The article should probably be expanded with a section which explains how the song title was picked up and became used as a stand-alone slang term, but the substantive coverage is there - probably, readers will look up this phrase after seeing reliable sources borrow from Chappell and use it in their article titles and headlines even in discussions about other artists, politics, or fashion news. See for example It’s a femininomenon! How Chappell Roan slow-burned her way to stardom Dazed Digital, Vanity Fair (referencing the song in Trump coverage), Harper's Bazaar (referencing it in fashion news coverage) Deadline, Carolinian Magazine, Hindustan Times . There's also the separate substantive coverage flowing from when Kamala Harris tweeted a meme about the song, overlaying images of herself with the caption "what we really need is a Femininomenon" and the song in the background: see substantive discussion of the song in Vanity Fair, SILive, "Kamala Harris uses this pop stars song to boost campaign in a viral Tiktok", Billboard, and there are many more examples as well. Strong keep IMHO. Flip^and Flopped ツ 03:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these! The DAZED source makes no mention of the song; the first Vanity Fair source makes no mention of the song; the Harper's Bazaar source makes no mention of the song; the Deadline source mentions the song as the soundtrack of a trailer, but it's really one small mention in a small piece that's about something else; the Carolinan Magazine piece makes one tiny mention of the song; Hindustan Times is a poor source; the second Vanity Fair source makes a trivial mention of the song; the SI Live source is very trivial; and the Billboard piece only mentions that a video Kamala Harris made was set to/referenced the lyrics of the song. So, of sources that actually mention this song, there's no actual in-depth coverage of the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, all of the linked sources are using the song name "Femininomenon" in the article title, using it generally as a stand-in slang term: i.e. "Femininomenon" as a sort of stand-in term for "women killing the game and doing it in a feminine kind of way" [...] The article should probably be expanded with a section which explains how the song title was picked up and became used as a stand-alone slang term, but the substantive coverage is there - probably, readers will look up this phrase after seeing reliable sources borrow from Chappell and use it in their article titles and headlines even in discussions about other artists, politics, or fashion news. My argument is that the song is being widely used as a slang term, this is a unique additional source of notability which falls outside of WP:NSONG but still is within the spirit of WP:GNG. There's no need to be snippy and try to "gotcha" me - obviously, I know that an article about Trump which uses the song in its title is not discussing the song in depth, but it is referencing the song.

In addition, in my view, if an article is written about the song being used by a famous politician, that is substantive coverage. There's no requirement in WP:NSONG that the article about the song needs to be soul-searching or doing in depth-lyric analysis as opposed to it being subsequent coverage about the song being used in something like a commercial, advertisement, or campaign. Three articles about Harris using it is enough to pass WP:NSONG even without the Neon piece. Flip^and Flopped ツ 04:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, interpreting the usage of a term in a source that makes no mention to a song from which the term may have originated as coverage of the song is original research. Sources discussing the emergence of the term from the song would be significant. I'm not gotcha-ing you; I am responding to the sources you raised.
I disagree that "Kamala Harris made a TikTok; it's set to this song" is substantive coverage of the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine then, we just have diverging opinions. The "Thanks for these!" is what raised my eyebrow, but I will defer to WP:AGF and apologize if that was just me misreading your tone.

I disagree that it is original research - something which is self-evident and just objectively true at face level does not require original research. To analogize, it's like if an article title used "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" in the song title, and then one responds by saying, "well, we don't know that the title is a reference to the song from Mary Poppins because the article does not specifically discuss Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious later on in the article. It might be a reference to something else". It is a highly unique phrase which only has one possible origin, and many of the articles I linked to connect to Chappell later on in the article. Flip^and Flopped ツ 04:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there are plenty of sources saying "Supercaliwhatever I'm not gonna spell this" came from a song in Mary Poppins—and we wouldn't need to rely on unrelated, unattributed uses of the term to float the notability of the song. This is more like tracing the origin of a slang term to a song, with no secondary source discussing the emergence of said slang term from said song, and arguing that all subsequent uses of that term count as significant coverage of the song to which the term can be attributed. If a source doesn't breathe a word about a topic, that source cannot be used to support that topic's notability, unpublished etymology aside. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance: Lil Flip, I'm pretty sure (I know as well as we know Chappell Roan invented "femininomenon"), originated the term "flossin" in one of his songs. It's not a notable song. I cannot look for sources that employ that term, without even casting a glance back at its origin, to support the notability of Lil' Flip's song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's an unreasonable stretch and an impossibly high bar to require an etymological study in order to say that the term "Femininomenon" is a reference to the song "Femininomenon" by Chappell Roan. But, we can agree to disagree so as not to devolve into WP:BLUDGEON territory. "Flossin'" is a far less unique term which was, you know, an English word without the letter g at the end. It seems patently a stretch to me to compare that to "Femininomenon", a unique phrase.

Also, for the sake of the record, there is also another Grammys source which both references the article in the title and discusses her performing it. Flip^and Flopped ツ 04:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't figure out the truth here; we follow reliable sources. A source saying a slang term came from the song would be great. Evidence as-yet-ignored by reliable sources for the clear emergence of a slang term from the song is not coverage of the song. That Grammys source is also not about the song—it's just a passing mention. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purves

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

After removing all the middle names and demoting the partial matches to See also, there are only two entries left, the surname being the obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article even started out that way: Special:Permalink/191574737. The other article began as a self-contradictory page about some claimed noble family: Special:Permalink/575056908. (It cannot have both originated in Normandy and in Scotland in two different centuries.) The content that was sent over there could be brought back here and this page be given its original purpose back. Uncle G (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (Chappell Roan song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I believe 1, 2, 3 have more than trivial mentions, and along with the other sources used in the article, allow for a reasonably detailed article. Medxvo (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSONG is explicit that album reviews do not establish notability for songs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these sources are track rankings, not album reviews. Per WP:GNG "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". An article has to meet either GNG or NSONG, even though it meets NSONG in my opinion for having a reasonably detailed article and two certifications. Medxvo (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full-album track rankings are definitely album reviews. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They still have more than trivial mentions, which should meet WP:GNG. Medxvo (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question I agree with Medxvo that the article passes WP:GNG insofar as it has "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". However, I also simultaneously agree with Zanahary that this fails WP:NSONG. I think there is an inherent conflict between WP:GNG and WP:NSONG here because multiple instances of in-depth, detailed discussion within album reviews clearly passes the plain language of WP:GNG, but also clearly fail the specific criteria in WP:NSONG. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep vote because WP:GNG says either its language or the subject-specific notability policy can both work, but for them to be basically directly contradictory seems odd. Can anyone provide insight about which one governs - has this issue been discussed by the community in the past? Does this merit an RFC or a modification to these criteria to avoid such a blatant contradiction? Flip^and Flopped ツ 05:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Graphic Ultra Modern Girl

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

Fails WP:NSONG; "Illustrate Magazine" piece (the only source cited of which this song is the subject) reads like AI or a child's writing and doesn't appear to be a significant outlet (empty About page); should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snovi

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

Snovi is a Croatian band. The page relies solely on self-published sources (Facebook page, Bandcamp) and doesn't have any reliable independent sources. Based on WP:Band. Google News don't show anything related to Snovi. Other wikis don't have a page for Snovi. LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found in Gnews. Gsearch only brings up bandcamp, youtube an their website. Sourcing now in the article is non-RS as the nom states. Not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cricket World Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Jayasekera

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

Was prodded by GSS with the rationale, "No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. The currently cited sources provide nothing beyond passing mentions, and most are not reliable." Pretty spot on. Was immediately de-prodded by article creator, without any improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 28 March 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, ✗plicit 23:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you on the redirect, however. An editor from Mars (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three academic sources provided in the article, as well as Business Insider, covered the song in detail, which should meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". It also reached several national charts, received several certifications, and has a reasonably detailed article; it also meets WP:NSONG, in my opinion. Medxvo (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That BI source is about the album, and I think qualifies in spirit for the NSONG clause that specifies album reviews to be insufficient for establishing notability for songs. Only one of those three books is academic, but I will try and access them to see if they establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to access the academic book. It makes a single, brief mention of this song—does not establish notability. The other two books, judging from the chapter titles, at least mention the songs in context of discussion of the album, which is not a good sign, and neither book has been reviewed anywhere—so I'm not compelled. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Business Insider source discusses the song in detail, and the Routledge book provides lyrical analysis. Nickells's book also provies lyrical and musical analysis, and Zaleski provides her own commentary as well as the stories behind the songs. Although in the context of the album, these are detailed and non-trivial mentions. Meets WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Medxvo (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Routledge mention is extremely trivial. Can you quote from Nickells and Zaleski? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nickells, Zaleski, Routledge. Medxvo (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are the Nickells and Zaleski passages from sections or chapters relating to the album? Are any songs from the album excluded? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany (Taylor Swift song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a 2021 AfD discussion for this song, which was previously closed as a unanimous keep. Madeleine (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Business Insider source is about the album as a whole; seems to fit the definition of an "album review" in terms of the NSONG clause that says album reviews don't establish song notability. The Billboard source linked makes no mention of this song. The Vogue piece just mentions the song in coverage of a documentary related to the album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nostitz

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

No reliable secondary sourcing at present. Neither a books nor a scholar search yielded significant coverage for me. Appears to fail WP:ANYBIO. People reference his work, but I can’t find evidence he is recognised as a significant contributor to his field. OsFish (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Thailand. OsFish (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any evidence WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NCREATIVE are met. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: reopening and relisting discussion per request on my Talk page to allow Paul_012 to present additional sources, seeing as this was a poorly attended AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search reveals what othes found... nothing. Not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowfield Stud

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

Fails WP:GNG, is based on 1 primary source and 1 deadlink. Also issues with WP:PROMO and contains wikilinks to irrelevant subjects. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Horse racing, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Party Favor (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its EP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Strange Addiction (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arghoslent

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this for deletion. Unnotable and now seemingly inactive fringe band without even an active website. Keystone18 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animales

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakin' It 4 Daddy

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

Fails WP:NSONG; is not the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Should be redirected to album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transamerica Retirement Solutions

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

I couldn’t find any sources not relating to the subject, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MedArt Hair

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

All sources cited are press releases, contributors (not newspaper editorial staff), or other paid advertising. Otherwise non-notable. jellyfish ✉ 20:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. jellyfish ✉ 20:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the award mentioned - which I'm assuming to be the European Awards in Medicine - lists a "Vera Clinic" as its 2021 winner. Zero clue about whether or not this award is notable itself, as it appears to just be from a company rather than an entity like the EU. jellyfish ✉ 20:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They even paid Reuters for a press release—I didn't know that was possible. Delete; no real coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nothing to indicate substantial coverage. /over.throws/^✎ 04:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Chinatown Land Trust

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

Article about a local-interest organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on a significant volume and depth of third-party coverage about the organization -- but this features no actual footnoting at all, and instead just contextlessly lists two "references": the organization's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability at all, and a single news article about it in the local media, which is fine but not enough to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have a lot more media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the instructor of the student who created this article as part of a Wikipedia assignment. I would like to revert the article to draft for the student for all the reasons you note. Millreed (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Pork

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

WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS that isn't standard coverage given to memes that crop up and trend for a bit. WP:BEFORE check pulls up shitposts on Google, non-reliable/non-significant articles on Google News. Chief concern is lasting significant notability, which this topic won't seem to broach. /over.throws/^✎ 20:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. /over.throws/^✎ 20:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable meme. I agree that there are no WP:RS. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable meme. An editor from Mars (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John Pork is a notable virtual influencer and meme figure with significant cultural impact, especially on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram. He has been widely covered in independent, reliable sources that meet WP:RS, including: Virtual Humans – A comprehensive profile discussing his origin, development, and online persona, Know Your Meme – An in-depth entry documenting the viral spread and meme status of “John Pork is calling”, Coverage across multiple TikTok trend compilations and analysis videos, indicating substantial public interest. John Pork is part of a growing phenomenon of virtual influencers - digital characters with human-like personas and followings - which has been covered in broader media contexts as well. This places him within an emerging field of digital media representation and internet culture, much like Lil Miquela or Shudu Gram, both of whom have existing articles. Additionally, the article can be improved with more detailed sourcing and context, and I am happy to help expand and strengthen it. However, deletion seems premature given the subject's notability and growing coverage. WikiExplorerNZ1 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a significant meme. Tiktok compilation vids do not count as reliable. Virtual humans is not really independent of the "virtual influencer" concept either. KnowYourMeme is literally listed as unreliable in WP:RSP. No reliable sources and no significant coverage.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I went digging on this one almost as if for mushrooms. Get it? Anyway, the sources for this are themselves often unreliable, such as the KnowYourMeme source which has been deemed unreliable on the perennial source list. WP:KNOWYOURMEME. This needs higher quality sources, and until those exist, the subject is not ready for a main space article and should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. The article's tone is also not encyclopedic. It definitely needs more work.--DesiMoore (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Know Your Meme should not be used to count toward notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has actually been discussed in academic journals.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Second two are pretty obviously passing mentions, first two are a bit better, but don't rise to the level of SIGCOV for me. Leaning delete but would not oppose a redirect/merge should somebody think of a good target. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sorosrungruang, Tippayanet; Ameen, Nisreen; Hackley, Chris (December 2024). "How real is real enough? Unveiling the diverse power of generative AI‐enabled virtual influencers and the dynamics of human responses". Psychology & Marketing. 41 (12): 3124–3143. doi:10.1002/mar.22105. ISSN 0742-6046.
^ Allal-Chérif, Oihab; Puertas, Rosa; Carracedo, Patricia (March 2024). "Intelligent influencer marketing: how AI-powered virtual influencers outperform human influencers". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 200: 123113. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123113.
^ Choudhry, Abhinav; Han, Jinda; Xu, Xiaoyu; Huang, Yun (2022-01-14). ""I Felt a Little Crazy Following a 'Doll'": Investigating Real Influence of Virtual Influencers on Their Followers". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 6 (GROUP): 1–28. doi:10.1145/3492862. ISSN 2573-0142.
^ Yan, Ji; Xia, Senmao; Jiang, Amanda; Lin, Zhibin (April 2024). "The effect of different types of virtual influencers on consumers' emotional attachment". Journal of Business Research. 177: 114646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114646.

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Happy I Could Die

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxx Dreams

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see at least 4 references in media not controlled by the Artist that aren't interviews that have the name of the song in the title of the reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 21:28, April 4, 2025 (UTC)

Uh, which one? I see only the sheet music, which is not coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now! These sources spell it differently. I withdraw this nomination. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [1][2] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 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!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album. Even the reviews given in the article are about the album, not about the song. Charting at 71 on the Hot 100 isn't a terribly notable song. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONG, multiple, reliable, independent sources would need to cover just this song, and not the album more generally. It makes sense to therefore not delete the article, but to redirect it to the album instead. Agree with nom. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crybaby (SZA song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no WP:SIGCOV of this song. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale of "no WP:SIGCOV" is baffling; a HotNewHipHop source cited in the article proves otherwise. That aside, there was coverage of this song back when it was still unreleased, starting with the BST Hyde Park teaser (Wonderland magazine, Nylon, Teen Vogue). It was teased again at Lollapalooza 2024, which Rolling Stone covered (although briefly, I will admit). Regardless, all of these sources highlight the lyrics, composition, and/or accompanying visuals (that specified some sort of bug aesthetic), in some form or another. I'd argue these constitute enough SIGCOV for the song. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single HNHH review is not sufficiently significant coverage, in my view. Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby, it’s original and irrelevant as far as establishing the song’s notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album; as I said in the last AfD, charting at 71 (or 70) in this case isn't terribly notable. Sourcing used is focused on the album as a collection of songs, not about any song in particular. The package of songs/album maybe remembered, but each song barely got critical notice by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Boy (DTM)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only WP:SIGCOV of the song (not the album) is the HNHH review. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a more thorough review of the sources should have been done before making this nomination. This Rolling Stone source talks about the song's making in great depth, and other sources cited in the article (Vibe, BET) have covered the information as well. The song appeared at the outro of a music video; this fact was also covered in a lot of sources (American Songwriter, NME, People, etc.). When the song was performed while it was still unreleased, it gained some coverage as well (NME, HipHopDX). When you have half a dozen sources covering a track from the moment it was created up until its release, and there is enough information for an article, I see no reason to redirect said article. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 19:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these post-release sources you link to are coverage of the song in question—they all discuss the song in context of coverage of the album. (Very trivial) pre-release coverage without a reliable source linking it to the published song is irrelevant to demonstrating notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paris (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Purpose (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle of Starting Over

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

Fails WP:NSONG; not enough WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Fakin

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon Fades

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke and Fire (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Heroes

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

Fails WP:NSPORT with very limited WP:SIGCOV Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Rugby league, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Be the Stars

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

Fails WP:NSONG ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Wide Open (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, not enough WP:SIGCOV ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Blame a Girl for Trying (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Time (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All We Have Is Love

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its parent album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete G4‎ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradise (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL and still not notable per WP:NPP. Draft:The Paradise (film) already exists. Agent 007 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happier (Olivia Rodrigo song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Note that the chart clause at that guideline explicitly says that charting is just a positive indicator that a search for WP:SIGCOV will be successful—it does not replace SIGCOV or strengthen notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veslački Klub Partizan

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

Article about a rowing club that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage about it. There is one news source from "Agencija Beta" briefly mentioning its victory in Serbian championship, but its not enough. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Serbia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Gartner

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

WP:BLP with some résumé-like overtones of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers. As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work.
But this is "referenced" almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and her own writing being cited as metaverification of its own existence -- and the only properly reliable third-party source present at all is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which thus does not magically get her over GNG all by itself as the only non-primary source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review of her book in Psychology Today, and a google search found her mentioned in a number of news articles. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO. Likely helping her book [3]. I don't see notability, being a member of the Law Society is required to practice law on Ontario (it's the provincial bar association), so adds nothing to notability. The rest reads like a brief CV. I don't see critical reviews of the publications listed, that might help pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne LeClos

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

WP:BLP of a film editor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film editors. As always, film editors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they've had credits, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage in reliable sources about them and their work -- biographical coverage, external analysis of their work's impact, evidence of notability-conferring awards, etc.
But this just states that he exists and lists a bunch of films without saying anything notability-building at all, and is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries without showing any GNG-worthy sourcing whatsoever.
The fact that his work exists is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohq

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and Ohq is mentioned in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and South Korea. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is no clear consensus that WP:NSPORT covers esports players and there is much routine coverage per nom. However, the ESPN story [4] and (likely) this Red Bull article [5] supports WP:SPORTCRIT which are reliable per WP:VG/RS. Esports Edition [6], unsure about its reliability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the coverage in those articles (at least the two that are not permanently dead) is significant. The most substantial is the ESPN article, but "a South Korean player is having difficulties adjusting to American life after joining an American team" is hardly the headliner article to establish standalone notability (i.e. apart from NRG Esports). Yue🌙 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: Understandable, but ESPN also touches on his career. I've also fixed the Red Bull and Esports Edition links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yue here; delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:08, 4 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!} 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is ample routine coverage that makes searching for significant coverage difficult, but I agree that the ESPN and Red bull sources don't establish any particular notability. No significant accomplishments on any of the teams he played for. Just another korean import into the north american league of legends league.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[7] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[8] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Second the opinion of Bob drobbs. There is ample news coverage of the attack, manhunt, trial result, and aftermath with the destruction of the perpetrator's home. The state department issuing a rebuke to Israel is enough to confer notability to this event in my opinion (seriously the US state department is usually pretty chill about the bombing of civilians overseas).

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The newspaper coverage is primary...

I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct. Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

"A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sunder Vyas

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

This article was created almost 10 years ago and till now the referencing of article hasn’t improved. I also removed two bare urls from this article. On WP:BEFORE, i didn't found any sources about the subject except this^[1], which is repository data and dosent establish notability. This subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced article. Nothing is found in Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ramon Horta AG7

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

I've searched for sources, and found none, except one that says who Antonio Ramon Horta was (whose publisher I'm uncertain about, and which does not mention the school itself). I've no objection if someone wants to WP:MERGE this to Forest siege instead, but at present, I can find no sources that mention the name of this short-lived school. As a closed school, I don't think it meets the WP:List selection criteria for List of medical schools in the Caribbean, and adding it to List of colleges and universities in Cuba would be best if we had a solid source to add with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Elliott (barrister)

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

The person doesn't pass WP Anybio. All the sources are not of really depth coverage, and his overall achievements are not making him to be eligible in terms of GNG. Insillaciv (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it comfortably passes wikipedia:ANYBIO. Being president of the Bar Association is equivalent to winning a major award. Having an entry in the Who is who legal is equivalent to being in a national dictionary. Schwede 66 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because it meets general notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - presidency of a large bar association is a high honor. I'd probably exclude the President of the Schenectady County Bar Association and of the Delaware Bar Association, but a national or large state association is almost always a full-time job in itself, and considered a very high honor in the legal profession. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how GNG is met, none of the sources in the article are independent SIGCOV. I also don't see how ANYBIO is met even if you stretch the definition of 'award' to include serving as a president of an organisation. The criteria for ANYBIO is 'The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times' perhaps serving as the president of the New Zealand Bar Association is a significant role, but it certainly is not a well-known one. I for one couldn't tell you who the president was prior to this. I don't see any news articles talking about the selection of any new president for the bar association, which suggests it isn't exactly a well-known nor significant role. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ausar Auset Society

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paganism and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While I did find mentions of the Ausar Auset Society in quite a few scholarly sources, they were exclusively trivial ones that mentioned it as an example of Black / African spiritualism, new religious movements or cults. In-depth coverage is limited to publications by the Ausar Auset Society itself or adjacent organisations. Yue🌙 23:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chapter devoted to this in a Routledge book and the Encyclopedia source are enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [9] [10] [11].

This group appears in basically every significant NRM encyclopedia - quite absurd for us not to have it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [12] [13] [14] [15]

This fulfills WP:GNG. WP:NORG explicitly says it does not apply to religions, but even if it did it would pass that too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above argument and sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, that's this. Definitely significant coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Right now the page has been around since 2005. But it looks so underdeveloped. Some previous revisions had more content about the movement but not much citation. As such it make more sense as a section than a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the development of the article. As far as I know, stubs aren’t against the rules - a section on what? That argument would make sense if you are proposing a merge, but you are not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's clearly enough sourcing to make a detailed article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choa Kok Sui (Master)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this not fall in line with WP:G4? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because the prior AfD is very old, and the recent deletions are speedies for reasons that don't seem to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Toçi

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

Tagged for no sigcov since August. I am not able to find any significant coverage, only passing mentions and articles that are not really about him. [16] [17] [18] [19] Geschichte (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Zylyftari

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

This footballer has only played in the second Albanian tier, which has matches with attendance in the hundreds and is therefore not professional. But does he meet GNG? No, I think not because the only sources I was able to find were a short interview and this short one. The two links in the article are dead, but I can't imagine they were significant either. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Toungara

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

His career in Europe did not pan out at all, having played only 7 minutes in Albania and 4 games in Kosovo. Most sources are WP:ROUTINE such as this, though this is slightly longer. It's just that the level he plays at is so low; the Africafoot article describes him signing at the third tier in Albania which is just so inconsequential. Geschichte (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

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

A suspended company from the stock exchange. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauroz Khan

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

Article is barely comprehensible and topic shows little significance/notability, no reliable source coverage GoldRomean (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has NO newspaper or third-party independent reliable sources as references, what I saw was just personal opinions used as references. Very biased and unbalanced article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft-deleted through AfD last year, and then restored after the soft delete was contested. No improvements were made to the article, and the original nom's rationale, "Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either." still holds true. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is some coverage on Google Scholar, linking some of them here: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Gheus (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above Radiotherapy Institute is essentially a 'Cancer Hospital' in Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan. Has at least 3 working newspaper references from major newspapers of Pakistan in addition to what User:Gheus found shown above here....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate the input of the above two editors, the coverage in Google Scholar mentioned above, rises to neither the level of WP:GNG or... wait, this isn't a question of WP:NACADEMIC, so the fact that they get mentioned occassionally does not pass GNG. And the second "Keep" !vote above does not list the articles in which it is referenced, so it is impossible to ascertain whether or not they are in-depth coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fully understand the confusion of the nominator about the Pakistani newspaper names. Hope, all of us realize that they are editing and writing for worldwide readers on Wikipedia. I tried to make the Pakistani newspaper names clear for all readers and removed some dead links...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superchess

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

No evidence of notability. Both sources are reviews and the second is very advertorial. Tagged for notability for several weeks without response. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Both sources are reviews" sounds like this would be an argument for deletion. @Velella: Why should that be the case?

Two reviews in my view usually fullfil the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. More specifically, they do fullfil WP:NBOOK, which I think is the most closely related specialized guideline to the topic of tabletop games: "A book is presumed notable if ... The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." Daranios (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @Daranios. The problem is that the first source is a capsule review, i.e. presumably just a few sentences, so it has a shady relation to WP:SIGCOV, hence my weak keep. The second one is half a page long, so it's ok. Would be nice if we could find some more sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review in White Wolf has 16 full sentences, or 6 paragraphs. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. No objection to starting a merge discussion to one of the various Chess variant pages, especially if this is going to stay a stub indefinitely, but it hasn't been around long enough for us to assess that, has it? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khodeswar Ran Shelter

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

Completely fails any form of notability requirements for locations. Absolutely no outside coverage. The only source in the article is the official website (which isn't even up anymore, but it did use to exist, I checked on the wayback machine). I would try to search it up in Hindi to see if I can get any results for that, but the Hindi name isn't even listed on the article (nor is there any versions of the article in any language either). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, India, and Rajasthan. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All India Gaming Federation

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

fail NCORP; possibly hoax. every link I open leads to not related article. Insillaciv (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Insillaciv: The sources do not work, but there is some coverage about this body by those same media companies, so definitely not a hoax. Just do a google news search with the title. I didn't check them thoroughly so no vote yet. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate newspaper coverage for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trade org that sued an Indian state, unsure how notable. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of cultural and linguistic diversity in communication

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

This article doesn't just read like an essay, it essentialy is an essay. I don't have much else to say on it, but it legitamately is just an essay on, well, the influence of cultural and linnguistic diversity in communication.

Ps: sorry about the deletion tags, it didn't really fit anywhere

TLDR; WP:NOTESSAY Gaismagorm (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Social science. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely an essay, the article subject is so narrow (and yet vague), no possibility of turning this into an encyclopedic article. Delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This essay is only using a single source and reads like a college paper. Drafting wouldn't help with only one source; it's likely too specialized for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a single reference, it is also a summary of a single academic paper, not establishing WP:GNG of the concepts discussed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Lankaran (1812)

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

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. Just another article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. Basically to get an easy win or "point" for the involved faction. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources and read a little about the Qajar-Russian war, you will understand that the war was real. But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages. Eminİskandarli (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. I guess Wikipedia doesn't treat everyone the same. Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards. There's nothing to say. This is beyond reason. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly attacking me isn’t going to help unless you’re aiming to get reported by me to WP:ANI. I’ll say it here as well: read WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:ASPERSIONS too. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bickering is unacceptable and if it continues, it could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the notability of the article and the reliability and quality of its sources and additional sources you have found and brought to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors insult each other. Got it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rohtas Goel

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

A promotional biographical page of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Just a concise WP:RESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Omaxe company seems more notable, based on the sourcing I find. I can only see routine business dealings [24] and disputes, none of which seem notable. "A property developer that does real estate deals" is about the extent of the article now on Wiki, rather routine stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On google search i found that mostly articles are about his company which are routine pieces. No significant coverage about the subject is found in reputed secondary sources fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ANYBIO Zuck28 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO - Imcdc Contact 02:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omaxe

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. WP:BEFORE is all about new project launches, funding news, winning government contracts., etc - all are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medica Hospitals

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Healthcare

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like government approvals, profit/financial reporting, capacity expansion news, acquisition news, partnership news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. WP:ATD - Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poonawalla Fincorp

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities such as name changes, appointments, fundraising, and business acquisitions are merely routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. WP:ATD - Cyrus S. Poonawalla. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Matoš

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

He played 12 matches for Liptovský Mikuláš which was in Slovak First Football League back then before silently ending his football career in 2022. In terms of secondary sources, I found nothing better than two passing mentions on SP21 and Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera, hand lens, and microscope probe

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

Fails GNG. For reference, CHAMP was a proposed instrument that doesn't seem to have been included in the Mars Science Laboratory. Originally proposed at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090007927 - all sources I can find are either primary (authored by one or more of the inventors) or mention the instrument only in passing. Deprodded on account of Google Scholar hits, but I don't think any of those articles are secondary. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Spaceflight. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all conference papers, as far as I can find. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its all conference papers honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Marriott Hotel

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

A non-notable chain hotel. If we're applying WP:NCORP to it, it fails since all the coverage of it is WP:ORGTRIV, press release-driven news about its opening. If we apply WP:NBUILDING, what's required is significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We don't have that for this. Searching for additional sources beyond the two in the article, which read like regurgitated press releases, I find only WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources that do not appear independent from the hotel ([25], [26], plus material that is over-the-top WP:PROMO like [27] and [28]) or hospitality industry WP:TRADES publications ([29]). What I don't see is anything that's explains why this Marriott is anything other than a WP:ROTM corporate hotel. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts or other suitable page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned on that page but if it is added I have no objection to a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Marriott Hotels & Resorts, which is probably one of the most notable hotel chains in the world, with 608 locations around the globe. The Lagos Marriott Hotel opened in 2021. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[30]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[31]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[32]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bainu (website)

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

There is a lack of more references,I can't find any more reports about this website.Maybe this content is not notable，and I found that the software can still be downloaded and used normally, which is inconsistent with the description in the entry. It is possible that the reference is fake news. Babaibiaobin (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep per CSK#3: There is plenty of media coverage, with the best being an article from The Paper that documents and analyzes the website's development and growth,[33] as well as an academic article "Linguistic purism as resistance to colonization" by Gegentuul Baioud in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Sociolinguistics.[34] The blockade of the website was also widely reported by media outlets, such as The Times,[35] Voice of America,[36] The Economist,[37] Deutsche Welle,[38] The Sydney Morning Herald,[39] etc, all of which are reliable sources. Even pro-Beijing newspapers like Oriental Daily News and HK01 reported on the incident,[40][41] as did Human Rights Watch.[42][43] The nom provided no proof or sources that suggested otherwise aside from asserting they are able to assess the site, which is original research. Even if there are indeed discrepancies among the sources, this has nothing to do with notability and does not constitute a valid reason to file for an article's deletion. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 09:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent research done and arguments provided by Prince of Erebor. And It is possible that the reference is fake news: ...VOA is listed as reliable on WP:RSP, so that argument shouldn't be considered at all. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 14:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Prince of Erebor. Madeleine (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rameshwar Dadich

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

He has not been elected to any state/national wide office. He was a mayor of Jodhpur district for which there should be significant coverage about the subject in secondary sources to establish notability. On WP:BEFORE, i found that almost all sources about him are about joining BJP and due to being close aide of former cm Ashok Gehlot. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor could be notable, but there is no sourcing to be found. Once source in the article, and this was all I could pull up [44], which still doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile government takeover

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

Article of dubious notability, having been rejected multiple times. It appears that the rationale is "not meet wp:NSONG. This article needs some input as to whether it should deleted or not, because there are sources that contribute to notability but it might not be just enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source contains daily dot deadline billboard and indy100. all of these are credible sources. although some of them are not considered to be credible sources in the credible sources list by themselves. However all 4 of those sources contribute to notability. The msn source is actually Distractify which I did not realize is a very short article. the yahoo entertainment source is actually from a source called mandatory. Mandatory is a fairly unknown source but it does talk extensively on Hostile government takeover. There is also the official Last Week Tonight episode that was mentioned in the deadline article. This may be unnecessary because the deadline article talks about it extensively. The Resetera source may not be necessary which is why it's marked in bold. it has an embed of the original video around the time the TikTok was first made and is useful since TikTok doesn't give upload dates. I think hawk tuah only has 9 sources if you don't include the source that cites it's youtube video. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is an additional source that can be used which is moby's remix of Hostile Government takeover. however sources on it aren't credible so the original TikTok would have to be sourced. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a mess (name not being properly capitalised, MSN/Yahoo cited instead of the original source, talk page content put on top of the article), but there's sufficient sourcing in "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". Cortador (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. the original sources for the msn(Distractify) and yahoo entertainment(Mandatory). hopefully that doesn't change your mind. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Cactusisme: move the page to draft. Waiting for the page to be deleted and move it backed. Anyway Please don't draftify the page when it's on AFD. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, alright. Shouldn't this be miscellaneous for deletion? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you cause the problem then your solution to the problem you caused is a solution you proposed. obviously the outcome of the page depends on the articles for deletion discussion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the draft get published in mainspace? This doesn't seem appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should note the existence of Draft:Hostile Government Takeover, which would be the correct proper-name song title if notable. Also, the deletion history of Hostile Government Takeover, Hostile government Takeover and the deletion log of this title might also be of interest. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its a pretty sloppily written article, but a dedicated Billboard (magazine) article and getting coverage for being discussed on a major late night television show are pretty strong arguments towards notability. I'd lean closer to cleaning up or draftifying than I would deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song entirely; without the LWT notice, it's just another viral thing that would struggle to get 30 seconds otherwise because most mainstream news shows and articles would not highlight this as a viral trend, and the sources for it (discounting how the creator doesn't understand content syndication by using web portals as sources) are fully unreliable of the 'explain it to me as if I was five and give me some terrible Taboola ads too' type. This isn't even considering the content of the article, which gives me a flashback to 2006 article standards in the worst way. Nathannah • 📮 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so youre essentially saying that Hostile government takeover remixed by Moby covered by John Oliver sold as a song on spotify with around 400,000 streams doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. the hostile government takeover song from Billboard currently has 796,000 views.(admittedly it's growth is slowing) But I appreciate your feedback on the article. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discounting the social media and unreliable sources, we're not really left with much other than pages that are just summarizing what other people say on social media. Yes a dedicated Billboard article is impressive, but there really isn't much more than that of any other viral tiktok sound. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you mean your not counting indy100 deadline or the dailydot. admittedly you already mentioned billboard. those other sources were prima facie information and were used for self evident information like view counts. I marked the sources as primary sources in bold but admittedly there needs to be a better system. maybe someone might have an idea how to do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indy100 deadline dailydot and billboard are considered sources that can be used for notability. there were other sources distractify and mandatory covered by msn and yahoo entertainment respectively but they don't contribute as much to notability. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs go viral all the time and I could find no evidence of long term notability. The article is in really rough shape, I tried my best to delete obvious nonsense for the sake of anyone coming across it, so WP:TNT probably applies as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 State quarter mintage figures

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

Pre-nomination research (WP:BEFORE): Before submitting this nomination, I carefully followed the steps outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE to search for reliable sources that could demonstrate the notability of this topic. I began with a search on Google News （https://www.google.com/search?q=50+State+quarter+mintage+site ）to check for any substantial media coverage of the 50 State quarter mintage figures. Most of the results turned out to be either official press releases or brief mentions, and I could not find any in-depth or independent reporting focused specifically on the mintage data. I also consulted JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=50+State+quarter+mintage&so=rel) to see if there were any academic publications on this topic. However, the search yielded no relevant results. Finally, I reviewed the official United States Mint website, but this is considered a primary source and does not qualify as independent secondary coverage under Wikipedia’s standards. Reason for deletion: Based on my research, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that would establish the subject’s notability. The article relies almost entirely on primary data from the U.S. Mint, with no substantial secondary analysis or commentary. Additionally, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability policy (WP:V), which requires that information be supported by reliable, independent, published sources. Given the lack of such sources, I believe this article should be considered for deletion. Although the 50 State Quarters program itself is notable, the specific mintage figures alone do not seem to attract independent attention significant enough to justify a standalone article under Wikipedia's guidelines. Cuicuizan (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 50 State quarters - I created this as a WP:SIZESPLIT fork of Washington quarter mintage figures (itself a fork of United States quarter mintage figures), but I think the information can easily be integrated into the main article for the 50 State quarters. Whatever happens, I recommend including America the Beautiful quarter mintage figures in this discussion since I created it for the exact same reason. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific criteria for political organizations (WP:POLITICALPARTY). The Grand National Unity Party appears to be a minor political entity with minimal lasting impact and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the references are primary or fail WP:RS. Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor non-notable South Korean political party. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any reason why this second nomination exists even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party is still open (and is still the nomination the article's AfD notice points to)? If a legitimate comment had not been made here it would have been an easy procedural close. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming Tree (café)

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

I propose the deletion of this article because it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I searched for sources using Google News, JSTOR, Naver News, and reliable Korean news databases. I could not find any in-depth, independent secondary coverage. The article mostly relies on trivial mentions and promotional sources. The cafe's concept may be interesting, but there is no evidence that it has received significant attention from reliable sources that are independent of the café. This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and notability. Therefore, I believe the article should be deleted. LookatmiWiki (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Korea. LookatmiWiki (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable South Korean café. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hee-soo

AfDs for this article:

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

I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search to assess the notability of this article. I searched in Google, Naver News, and English-language Korean news sources including The Korea Herald, Yonhap News, and KBS World using both English ("Cho Hee-soo rhythmic gymnast") and Korean ("조희수 리듬체조") keywords.

The only results available are routine coverage from sports result listings and minor announcements in domestic outlets. There are no significant independent sources that offer in-depth coverage or analysis of the subject.

According to WP:NSPORTS (Wikipedia:Notability for sportspeople), an athlete is presumed notable if they have "received significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Cho Hee-soo has not met this threshold. The article does not demonstrate lasting impact or significant coverage beyond simple event participation.

Therefore, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific guideline for athletes (WP:NSPORTS) and should be deleted. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and Korea. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas Ibero-American Film Festival

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

Promo for non notable festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of announcements, PR and listings but not independent coverage. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Bar (2024 film)

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango Bar (2021 film). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this is a hoax article. As the AFD discussion @Duffbeerforme linked above, it had a deletion back in 2021 but with has been put back up only with 2024 replacing the 2021 in it's title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think IMDB got fooled by this article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was in production in 2021 and finally got released in 2024 which explains the two different dates. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in Spanish, given the coverage and awards/nominations, I consider a redirect (and merge) to List of Venezuelan films#2020s would seem appropriate, at least.-Mushy Yank. 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Villarroel

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

Promo for non notable filmmaker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews for his films. Having his films screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy FILMMAKER. One of multiple promo pieces for Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Law, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Refbombed with what appear to be fictional or non-notable film awards. For someone that's won so much hardware, there are ZERO sources about it in Gnews, in any language. Very non-notable PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biomimicry Institute

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

This is one of the most elaborate cases of WP:REFBOMBing I've seen.

This article on a small nonprofit has an astonishing 46 well-formatted references, which has kept it safe the last 15 years.

I've just finished going through all 46 and discovered:

8 are to the organization's own website(s)
4 are Medium.com blogs
3 are to trade / business media outlets (e.g. Sustainable Brands) that may be RS but (as is customary) we typically treat as WP:ROUTINE and don't contribute to meeting WP:N
4 are fleeting mentions of the organization in local daily newspapers in reference to a contest it sponsored
2 are to company or organizational websites that (e.g. The Sierra Club) that might be RS for limited reference but don't contribute to WP:N
25 are RS, including scholarly journals, that don't mention the organization at all! (they mention the discipline of biomimicry and would be appropriate for that article, but are apparently used here merely to fluff the references section of the article)

My WP:BEFORE fails to redeem this organization and it fails the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Montana. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some discussion here about a system they've set up [45], which I don't understand. They're covered here, but it's paywalled [46]. Discussed here over a few paragraphs [ https://revistia.com/files/articles/ejnm_v4_i2_21/Yetkin.pdf]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (though not 100%) that European Journal of Natural Sciences and Medicine is a predatory journal. It doesn't appear to be indexed by anyone, has not been cited by anyone according to Scimago, and their publication options require fee payment [47]. Chetsford (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Not Notable per the careful analysis by Chetsford. There is no substantial coverage; presumably the neatly-formatted references are the result of paid editing. "A beauteous garden, but by vice maintain'd". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding nothing that indicates notability. Some journals they are mentioned/published in appear to be predatory or at least very low quality. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

NewsBreak

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

NewsBreak is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they do not have enough articles/news information about them to even expand the page further than it is now. There is nothing SIGNIFICANT about this; per Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, to determine if a topic merits its own article, it requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not self-published or promotional. And so far, this article is WP:UNDUE, ONE Rueters article covers an entire paragraph. No notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak Justi yaya 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment there is an additional source on the talk and possible coverage in Chinese sources (like [48]) though they're frequently not loading and I'm not familiar with them to comment on their reliability. Justi yaya 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't you see? That article literally has local in it's opening paragraph! Well, I mean... You can see that. Everyone with vision can see that. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by how big of an area a news organization covers. We have hundreds of articles on daily newspapers that publish local news. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I found several secondary sources that span a good period after a brief search:

Digiday (October 4, 2021), "Inside Newsbreak’s search for stability in its nearly year-old creators program".
Business Insider (January 31, 2022), "Former NBC 'Today' chief Jim Bell will join local news app startup NewsBreak to set strategy, hire journalists".
NBC News (March 20, 2024), "Crime stories drove readers to GoFundMe campaigns, only the victims didn't exist".
The Wrap (December 18, 2024), "Steve Harvey Death Rumor Sparked by Bogus AI Story".

Plus Chinese-language articles from secondary sources:

The Paper (May 28, 2020), "沈向洋下一站确定：投资并出任News break董事长"
21st Century Business Herald (February 8, 2021), "News Break突围，海外“今日头条”们能否迎来第二春？"
Radio France Internationale (June 6, 2024), "美国新闻应用程式以AI写假新闻？演算法办公室在中国"
Voice of America (June 11, 2024), "又一个TikTok? 美议员担心新闻应用程序NewsBreak的中国背景，呼吁进行严格审查"

Plus many reliable sources covering Reuters' June 5, 2024 article, which shows newsworthiness:

Ars Technica, "Top news app caught sharing “entirely false” AI-generated news"
Engadget, "Popular US news app accused of using AI to make up fake stories"
Entrepreneur, "The Most Downloaded News App in the U.S. May Have Published Dozens of Fake, AI-Written Stories"
Futurism, "Popular News App Caught Publishing Completely Untrue AI Articles"

I don't see a problem with that paragraph citing just one source, considering 1) the source is Reuters, which is reliable, and 2) the article in question is an in-depth, long-form investigative piece. Iiii I I I (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElderTreks

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

The company is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a WP:BEFORE and found no sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. The only sources I have found are articles on travel for older people that mention eldertreks as an option. No in-depth, significant coverage of the company

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with you, the nominator. Also, per the reasons @Anonrfjwhuikdzz has said above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Matsui

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

Fails WP:GNG; subject is not notable yet. Additionally, WP:MINORS applies here, given that she is only 14. Subject has the potential to become notable within the next couple years, and therefore I have no prejudice against the recreation if/when she becomes notable. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:A well made point, I'm fine with karters having drafts, but it'll take a while for them to get into single-racing and it is a bit difficult to judge potential in karting imo. Matsui is an academy member as well and her results are good, so getting an F1 Academy and F4 seat in the future is a bit more likely. BurningBlaze05 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but I did not want to make the nom too long so I didn't include it.

The main issue with draftification is that it could still be a year or two until she makes it into single seaters, and she might not even be notable at that point. The draft would end up sitting for a long time. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia should not have articles about random fourteen year olds who have competed in incredibly minor sporting events. I am begging the people who keep making these sorts of articles to gain some basic WP:COMMONSENSE and understand how creepy it looks to make articles compiling a load of information about children they don't know. At most notable for WP:ONEEVENT (connection to a driver academy) and even then is basically just mentioned on a WP:ROUTINE level as a part of the churn of coverage of said driver academies. WP:NOTDATABASE applies here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my WP:JAPANBEFORE, this person has no hits on GNews and the JP Wiki does not have any useful stuff. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 8th place to finishing in the hundreds isn't notable, it's almost a case for non-notability. I don't see sourcing and as the nom says, 14 is barely even in the minor leagues of racing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:TOOSOON and agree with nom that its too early in her life to draftify. Canary757 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Bryant (executive)

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

This completely unsourced article on a CEO and previously serial executive reads like a very condensed version of a resume. An impressive resume, but not an encyclopedic one. BD2412 T 00:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. BD2412 T 00:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any WP:SIGCOV specifically about the subject. There is a decent amount of material mentioning him in the sale of Longs Drugs to CVS, but that seems to be his most notable event in business. Otherwise just a fairly standard executive/board member type.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO - Created 2007 without sourcing. — Maile (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citation to any reliable source, article lacks content and coverage, fails WP:GNG.Chippla360 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Bragg

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nominator. Little information beyond the USL source. Seems to be a player who had some years in the US 2nd tier football league + played in college.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources outside USL. Non-notable American soccer player. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Mahotsav, Amrit (21 January 2025). "Shyam Sunder Vyas". Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Retrieved 4 April 2025.

[1] Sorosrungruang, Tippayanet; Ameen, Nisreen; Hackley, Chris (December 2024). "How real is real enough? Unveiling the diverse power of generative AI‐enabled virtual influencers and the dynamics of human responses". Psychology & Marketing. 41 (12): 3124–3143. doi:10.1002/mar.22105. ISSN 0742-6046.

[2] Allal-Chérif, Oihab; Puertas, Rosa; Carracedo, Patricia (March 2024). "Intelligent influencer marketing: how AI-powered virtual influencers outperform human influencers". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 200: 123113. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123113.

[3] Choudhry, Abhinav; Han, Jinda; Xu, Xiaoyu; Huang, Yun (2022-01-14). ""I Felt a Little Crazy Following a 'Doll'": Investigating Real Influence of Virtual Influencers on Their Followers". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 6 (GROUP): 1–28. doi:10.1145/3492862. ISSN 2573-0142.

[4] Yan, Ji; Xia, Senmao; Jiang, Amanda; Lin, Zhibin (April 2024). "The effect of different types of virtual influencers on consumers' emotional attachment". Journal of Business Research. 177: 114646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114646.

[j498-5] Mahotsav, Amrit (21 January 2025). "Shyam Sunder Vyas". Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Retrieved 4 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]