Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

29 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 28	April 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Attack on Piperi

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

None of the current sources even mention Piperi. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise III

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

Purely speculative article about a hypothetical attack (WP:CRYSTAL) with no substance, based primarily on synthesis of political rhetoric.

See its twin: American-Israeli airstrike on Iran Longhornsg (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shor, Indiana

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

An actual camp, now called Campshore but before that, a resort catering to Orthodox Jews (there are numerous journal references to this effect) and before that, acto this Arcadia book, named "Laughrey Club". Their claim that it was inundated and is gone is not true, but the testimony to the "Camp Shor" phase is clear if not terribly deep. I'm a bit dubious as to its own notability though our article on Young Israel might have a place for it. In any case, it is plainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow High School

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

Couldn't find anything on google search/news/scholar/books, newspapers.com, ProQuest, newspaperarchive.com, or the Wikipedia Library in general that has significant coverage of Arrow High School. Without that, I'm not sure I can see an NORG pass here. Anyone know another place sources might be? Offline archive, maybe? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and California. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charter Oak Unified School District in the list of high schools; there's about enough material here to fill out the entry there. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C3 linearization

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

Most of the article gives the impression of failing WP:NOTHOW. Sources are of mixed quality; a Wordpress article is used. LR.127 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max & Intro

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

Fails WP:NBAND. scope_creep^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Roche

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

No indication of signifance, in-fact no references. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cryptocurrency, Law, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurjar clans

AfDs for this article:

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

Keeping in touch with this unsubstantiated enlistment WP:List while examining it on first look, there is no admissive logicality which can solitaire it while the List of Gurjar clans fails Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline WP:GNG. For unclear reasons, there is no compelling basis to retain the article, as it relies heavily on original research WP:NOR and lacks reliable sources to verify the origins of each clan, perpetuating unquoted paraphrasing without credible reassurance on the other hand it enormously maintain the flow of self intended annotation lesser than a monological articulation WP:Essay. HistroRefree (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, suchlike each set of citation doesn't even abstracted about the corresponding relation with Gurjars thats make it more suspicious than its exaggerated nature WP:FICTREF [1] HistroRefree

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, and India. HistroRefree (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Am I the only reader to whom this rationale is complete word salad? Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of words used incorrectly, but the substantive argument seems to be: 1) It does not meet GNG 2) it relies on OR and lacks reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a case to be made that this should just redirect to Gurjars, while also noting that its information is also largely duplicated by Category:Gurjar clans. There's passing mentions in online scholarly sources to the existence of Gurjar (or more frequently, Gujjar, for whatever reason) clans (e.g. [2]), and an online journalistic source that goes into some depth about Van Gujjar clans in particular ([3]). But these sources seem to be far more interested in describing the society and history of the Gujjars more broadly, rather than narrowly focusing on describing their clan structure or enumerating them. And the page can always be recreated if more detailed sources are identified. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Pepe

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

Non-notable crypto project, references available are solely not RS crypto news sites and press releases. Hmr (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Hmr (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google search does not turn up mainstream reliable sources, which is the standard set by WP:NCRYPTO. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 19:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian brainrot

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

Putting aside the Oxford Word of the Year reference, which only explains the concept of brain rot, all of the references are to minor tabloid-like sources. The FOX 40 source is a sponsored piece by Human Centric Group, which seems to be advertising their own incorporation of this meme. Memes like goblin mode can have Wikipedia pages upon significant coverage by reliable sources, but despite listing fourteen references, this article does not seem to meet that standard. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just going off of the currently-cited sources, Vechernyaya Moskva ([4]), The Express Tribune [5], and The Daily Dot [6] seem to get us to WP:GNG. There's been some concern about these sources' reliability and impartiality for controversial topics, but I think it would be a misreading of past RSN discussions to say that they're not reliable for this kind of pop culture coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News.com.au also has coverage [7], as does Excélsior [8] and Radio France [9]. This has clearly received attention from reputable publications on a global scale. There's maybe still a WP:NOPAGE argument that this should all be folded into Brain rot, but it's not accurate to say that RS haven't covered it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now on the third page of Google News results I'm coming across the esteemed Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [10] (and the less esteemed but probably still usable Tageszeitung, [11]), as well as Italian publications like Il Post [12]. I'd expect there's probably even more coverage that could be found in other languages that don't call it "brainrot" verbatim. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sources, I'll add them Thegoofhere (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's part of culture, keep it. 2A00:23C6:AA1A:B101:41FD:4BC6:343F:A284 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not every popular brainrot deserves an article here on wikipedia, though many like this can because it's notable 2600:4040:5F68:3000:3D91:D686:1FD7:DD1E (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's been some coverage in some reliable sources shown above, enough to meet WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This one if not is Considered "Somewhat" Notable Enough to have it's Own Page There, With the fact that how with the increasing popularity of this Brainrot Meme, that this may However is that it may perhaps get's more reliable sources here in the Near Future For This, So.... Keep 2600:4040:5F68:3000:3D91:D686:1FD7:DD1E (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable topic with more than 3 reliable sources. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is certainly notable in the history and culture of the internet due to its size, it has notable and reliable resources which would be used for an article worth keeping on this site. Guy141 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gibson (writer)

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

Struggled to find any significant coverage of this guy in reliable sources. The 2004 Variety article is an announcement, and the 2003 one is a mere mention. No relevant hits in ProQuest, either. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Connecticut. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Ćorlomanović

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

Previously deleted by WP:PROD and recreated. I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF here -- there are two moderately highly cited items in the Google Scholar profile, but they appear to be combining separate articles or items. I am noting that the prod message ("This person is a crackpot pseudoscientist who is abusing Wikipedia in multiple languages to simulate credibility. I have detailed my objections to the Serbian wiki page of this man here sr:Википедија:Трг/Архива/") expressed concerns about possible deceptive patterns, and the Google Scholar profile seems to be evincing this. I am skeptical of GNG notability, although it is plausible. I am concerned about unsourced and unlikely puffery in the article such as "It seems that he was the first who introduced terms such as quantum information and quantum-information technology to physics," although if he is notable then of course this can be cleaned up. Bringing to the community's attention for a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:PROF. Clicking on the asterisk on the cited items in the Google Scholar profile shows that they are actually unrelated publications by other people. Actually searching Google Scholar finds nothing under either the Roman or Cyrillic versions of his name. The claim to have invented quantum information is blatantly false (it was in use in the 1960s by Ingarden and Stratonovich, long before the subject was born). This work appears cranky enough that, per WP:FRINGE and WP:N, we need mainstream sources evaluating it and we have none. Spot-checking the ref-bombed article found no sources that would even pass WP:GNG let alone passing this stricter neutrality requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, China, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Jongseob

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no significant coverage for individual notability other than passing mentions from P1Harmony-related reporting. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SuperTuxKart

AfDs for this article:

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

This articles fails WP:GNG. Half of the sources referenced are either first-party sources from Twitter and github, and the sources thats actually unrelated to the subject (Sources 27, 26, 24) does not constitute notablity as basically no coverage of Super Tux Kart was seen in those articles. TzarN64 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Linux Journal and OMG! Ubuntu! seem to have pretty regular coverage of the subject, albeit if not the most in-depth. But I'd note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And if I'm reading the first AfD correctly, I think notability was established on the back of the list references as identified by the nominator, though that was in 2010, and NVIDEOGAME and NSOFTWARE have become more fleshed-out since. With that said, even within the article describes the sources pretty well (though the URLs are no longer live, they can easily be found on the Wayback Machine):
- Min, Andrew (October 2007). "Top Five Racing Games" (PDF). Full Circle Magazine (6). Retrieved 4 July 2013.
- Oxford, Adam (February 12, 2009). "12 of the best games for your Linux netbook". TechRadar. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
- Sbarski, Peter (January 21, 2008). "Top 5 best (free) open source games". APC. Archived from the original on January 14, 2012. Retrieved July 5, 2012.

Yeah, while these sources may leave some wanting, my BEFORE turns up a lot of the similar. I think given the breadth of the coverage, that would make up for the albeit limited coverage in the sources presently listed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was no reading done of the first AfD for this article, which ended as "keep"? That AfD mentioned it got covered in multiple magazines, e ven besides what was demonstrated by User:Bobby Cohn. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, which is why it fails GNG. A topic covered in a magazine does not demostrate notablity. TzarN64 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They *are* significant coverage though? SIGCOV 1, SIGCOV 2, SIGCOV 3. This also seems like SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found none of these sources listed at WP:RSP. TzarN64 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSPMISSING. Sources can be reliable without being listed at WP:RSP. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And usually published print magazines are considered reliable by default unless there is proof to the contrary. Magazine implies an editorial staff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of these magazines in my life, and I’ve seen none of these magazines used in articles. Are you really sure some random magazines demonstrate notability? TzarN64 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Highnesses

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [13] [14] [15] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saravana Kumar

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of the article content, Evan Chumpino (talk · contribs), responded to this nomination by requesting G7 speedy deletion. However, the article actually overwrote a prior redirect to P Saravana Kumar, leading Pppery (talk · contribs) to restore the redirect. Does G7 even apply in cases such as this (an article overwriting a redirect), or will the article need to be reinstated to allow the full seven days to play out (as any BLAR removes the AfD tag, which can only happen in conjunction with a nomination closure, which has not happened)? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TVMSL

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

Article has remained unsourced for 15+ years, and I can't find any source that mentions or covers this project. Even the article on Alcatel does not mention this at all. If it exists and isn't a hoax, it's still clearly not notable (or verifiable) enough for an article.

Update: Sources found in DVB-SH#Project_organization. However, most of these sources are primary sources from Alcatel's website, and this still doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. ApexParagon (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

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

Doesn't seem notable, very weak sourcing with only one source. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELinOS

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I could only find this detailed bullet-point description from a Taylor & Francis imprint and a paragraph on its exclusive, bundled bootloader from O'Reilly Media. I think that fails notability by a wee bit as it isn't enough content to write about and the latter is arguably a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden

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

This was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [16]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band has this good coverage and this article mentions a Rock 'n' Roll City: Adelaide Babylon, which promises to elaborate on The Bedridden, but I don't have access to the book to confirm. It feels like a weak delete, but it still needs another good sources to keep the article. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial candidacy of Narendra Modi

Nomination: How a party decided their prime ministerial candidate is not notable and interesting topic at all. India has Parliamentary system in contrast to Presidential system. According to this logic, Prime Minister should be decided only after the election. This article doesn't demand a separate article. This article doesn't seem notable at all and may be formed due to ideological biasness. This article should either be deleted or be merged to Narendra Modi. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the info is simply repeated in Narendra Modi section titled Premiership campaigns. His campaigns on there own were not unique and only hold significance because he is the prime minister of India.

The event doesn't hold noteriaty outside of him so it should be found in Narendra Modi article (which a version already exists).

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narendra Modi I support having separate article for political campaigns, especially for someone like Modi. Modi's article already has too much content and part of it should be split off into their own articles. This article would be a great split. It currently has about 20 sources, so there is substantial content here. I am only voting to merge because it needs more work for finish the split, and if the split is not finished, then we should have all the content in one place. I would change to "keep" if editors would check the main Modi article, move content from there to here, briefly summarize the concept, and link the main article to here while avoiding duplicate/WP:FORK content appearing in both places. I want to support keeping this but right now it is a WP:FORK. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Largely duplicative, no need for separate article. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush

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

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory look suggests that this subject is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

AfDs for this article:

(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 quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 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) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Rastić

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

Even with searching the person's name in Cyrillic (Дамир Растић), I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG. In terms of secondary sources, I found Novosti (a short interview) and Sportski Zurnal (announcement of retirement), but little else is known about him. Redirect to Serbia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing as ATD, which preserves the article's history. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minthis Hills

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

Largely unsourced and primarily promotional article about a resort/golf course in Cyprus. Created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:NGEO. Existing references do not adequately demonstrate the historical significance of the site's monastery, which is mentioned only in passing, and largely without references, in what appears to be an attempt to justify the travelogue article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and Cyprus. – The Grid (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cooley

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

Non-notable businessman with an apparently promotional biography; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources do not support notability. They are limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([17], [18], [19], [20])
Non-independent sources affiliated with him ([21])
Press releases from his companies ([22], [23], [24]) and verbatim to thinly rewritten versions of them ([25], [26])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE event descriptions and speaker bios ([27], [28], [29])

A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources, just similar content to the above. As for other criteria, I don't see an WP:NACADEMIC pass. Regarding NACADEMIC #3 and WP:ANYBIO #1, his status as Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining is not a particularly significant award (the fellowship has an open application process, unlike say the Royal Society that requires nomination from existing members). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 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 content moved to userspace‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Standing Rock Sioux and the Politics of Sacred Space.

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

This is an essay for two topics already on the project including Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and Dakota Access Pipeline protests. This is mostly non-encyclopedic material including a "Conclusion" section, failing WP:NOT. Anything that is encyclopedic can be moved to those two articles but this should be deleted. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bobby Cohn, if it's ok with you, I'd prefer to move this back to the student's sandbox, where they can possibly salvage some content that can go into one of those two articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, I have a soft spot for WikiEd and a good use of IAR is for the improvement of the project. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'll move it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:17, 29 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.

Toon Blast

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

Doesn't seem like a notable video game. Despite apparently being a big success, it has only gotten trivial mentions in reliable sources, besides the Pocket Gamer article that feels like a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Pocket Gamer is a RS per Project Video Games here, so we have this [30] and [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a RS, with a review [32], any of the sources listed here would be ok [33]. Common Sense media has also reviewed the game [34]. Another RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a bit better. I still won't withdraw the nomination, as it only has 2 reviews. Usually the threshold is a few of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Oaktree I believe the sources makes this article barely survive deletion Scooby453w (talk)
There are sources posted on the talk page, WP:CSM and Gamezebo which is WP:VGRS.

That being said... the second line is copied from the Pocket Gamer source with minimal changes, and the Gameplay section is copied without attribution from Fandom. The article needs a complete rewrite. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Blast does not seem like a WP:RS. So yeah, that's 2 reviews from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peak Games, its developer. One of those match-3 games that has heavy prime time/daytime television advertisements obscuring what the object of the game actually is to draw people in (it isn't blasting toons or having fun with them, it's grinding match-3 levels with some bare continuity involving toon characters). Nathannah • 📮 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Grech

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

LUGSTUB article with no credible assertion of a WP:NSPORTS pass.

Grech competed as the Olympics, but merely competing in the Olympics does not automatically indicate notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
Grech competed in a team that won silver at the 1913 Paris gymnastics tournament (which was not officially the world tournament - this did not start until 1931). However, Grech does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM.
The article refers to Grech receiving an "individual gold medal" at the 1913 tournament. However, as the source provided in the article explains, no individual medals were awarded in 1913. Individual scores (not medals) were retrospectively recognised after 1922. A retrospectively-recognised score years after the event cannot be an indicator of notability because it would not have attracted the kind of coverage that an actual award would have - instead it is just a statistical artefact. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question as I'm reading the sports guidelines I find
1. Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance and Gretch was 6th does that make him notable enough? I am not 100% understanding of this yet
Scooby453w (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grech was 6th in gymnastics all-round, not an athletics event. There were no world rankings as such at the time Grech was competing. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Palazzi

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

WP:NSPORTS-failing LUGSTUB-a-like. No corresponding IT Wiki article.

The article makes repeated statements about Palazzi winning individual "medals" at the gymnastics tournaments in Turin and Paris. In reality no individual medals were awarded until 1922, with individual scores (not medals) only being recognised retrospectively after 1922. Scores conferred retrospectively years after the event, as a statistical artefact, cannot indicate notability, since they are not subject to the same assumption that they will have generated significant coverage that usually attends such awards. Palazzi's team won the team bronze in Paris and Turin, but Palazzi does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. There was a prominent Italian priest by the same name born in 1917. The only reference in the article is to a bare list that can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svatopluk Svoboda

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

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1911 Turin gymnastic tournament (which was not a world tournament, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the Czech Sokol team (who were not "Czechoslovakia" per se). However, Svoboda does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Svoboda received individual "medals" at the 1911 tournament. However, there were no individual awards at the 1911 gymnastics tournament - these weren't awarded until much later. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual mirrors. There's a prominent author and astrologer with the same name, as well as a Czech plastic surgeon. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bob's Wonderland

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

Non-notable restaurant (formerly a ShowBizz pizza location, now independent) that does not appear to have any SIGCOV outside of local media profiles. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Local media profiles" appears to be an inaccurate description. Several of the cited sources are news stories, not profiles, and at least two of the news sources are non-local: USA Today is a national news source, and while WOAY-TV is from West Virginia, Oak Hill, West Virginia isn't local—I live just a few miles from the restaurant, though I've never been there, and we've never gotten WOAY in this area; our local ABC affiliate is WCHS-TV. Oak Hill isn't part of the local area; it's more than 90 miles away. The coverage looks like what you would expect for a local attraction, and is more than you'd see for some that meet the minimum standards for notability. The fact that it was once part of a chain—many years ago, apparently—does not make it non-notable as an independently-operated restaurant with a distinctive identity. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article doesn't mention Billy Bob's Wonderland at all. I think the WOAY and WCHS coverage still would fall under local interest stories. The DCist article is the only one that really would satisfy non-local coverage, and I am not sure that passes the reliable sources test. nf utvol (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about USA Today. Perhaps this could be solved by merging into Showbiz Pizza. The fate of restaurants that "divorced" from the chain but still maintained the basic concepts and show seem relevant, and since the parent article has major sources, there shouldn't be any issue with using local sources to describe the fate of one such restaurant in one or two short paragraphs. If others are documentable, they can be added too, and a section containing them could be trimmed accordingly, but for now I think some of this content could go there. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Maurer, Pablo Iglesias (2015-04-22). "And The Animatronic Band Played On: The Troubled Afterlife Of The Rock-afire Explosion". DCist. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  That the Washington, D.C.-based website DCist covered a Barboursville, West Virginia–based restaurant strongly contributes to notability.
  The article notes: "In Barboursville, West Virginia, at Billy Bob’s Pizza Wonderland, they’re on a perpetual reunion tour. ... One of Barboursville’s social hubs—an anchor of a strip mall on the edge of the village—is Billy Bob’s Pizza Wonderland, a modern-day rendition of Showbiz Pizza Place. Billy Bob’s was buzzing, with shrieking kids working a smorgasbord of arcade machines and stuffing their faces—like animatrons—with cheap pizza. Overworked parents sat at tables, dazed by the roar of video games. The Rock-afire were hiding in plain sight, the curtains drawn on three tell-tale stages in front of a hundred empty seats. ... Aaron Fechter sold this particular Rock-afire set to Rex Donahue — the proprietor of Billy Bob’s — in 1989, when he realized his band didn’t have a future at Chuck E. Cheese."
2. Skeldon, Katherine (2022-07-29). "One Tank Trip: Billy Bob's Wonderland". WOAY-TV. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "Dating back over 30 years, Billy Bob’s Wonderland in Barboursville, WV is an indoor entertainment center for the whole family. It comes complete with a variety of old-school arcade games, mini golf, laser tag, and an authentic animatronic band known as the Rock-afire Explosion. This week’s One Tank Trip takes us on the 1 hour and 35-minute drive to Billy Bob’s to get a look at all of the fun to be had behind its doors. ... Formally known as Showbiz Pizza, Billy Bob’s was rebranded to become what it is today. But, one corner of the place still remains the same, and that’s where the Rock-afire Explosion performs. After a long process and luck on their side, it’s the last animatronic band from the 80s and 90s era left standing in the whole country that can legally claim to be an original Rock-afire band."
3. Sebert, Paul (2011-06-30). "Billy Bob's offers something for everyone". The Herald-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "The timing of this "brand unification" couldn't have been much worse for Rex Donohue, who had just opened a Showbiz Pizza franchise in 1989. Donohue decided to keep the original characters and rename the restaurant Billy Bob's Wonderland. Today it's one of the few places in the country left with the original animatronics. He eventually moved the restaurant in 2003 to its current location at 5 Cracker Barrel Drive and also now features laser tag, go-carts and miniature golf."
4. Pace, Fred (2023-08-03). "Business Beat: Fun City Arcade acquires Billy Bob's Wonderland". The Herald-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "Mark Hoffman, owner of Fun City Arcade, recently acquired Billy Bob’s Wonderland and combined the businesses after moving from the Huntington Mall to Billy Bob’s in Barboursville."
5. Sebert, Paul (2015-05-19). "Rock-Afire Explosion gets makeover at Billy Bob's". The Herald-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-11-12. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "Originally established as a Showbiz Pizza Place, Billy Bob's went independent after the chain merged with Chuck E. Cheese. While most of the original Showbiz restaurants were eventually converted to Chuck E. Cheeses, Billy Bob's Wonderland retained the original animatronics. Today Billy Bob's is one of the only places in America where fans can still see Billy Bob, Fatz, Mitzi, Looney Bird, and the rest of the gang. ... Billy Bob's still features an assortment of pizzas ranging from an 8-inch small cheese pizza for $9.95 to a 16-inch large pizza for $14.95. Specialty pies include a meat lovers pizza, a veggie pizza, and a combo pizza featuring pepperoni, peppers, onions and sausage. ... Billy Bobs has a laser-tag arena and an arcade. In April the mini-golf course will re-open. The go-kart course is currently closed and may not re-open for this year's season."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Billy Bob's Wonderland to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources were addressed above. Except for the DCist article, they're local human-interest stories that are of questionable usefulness in establishing notability. The real question here is whether or not a single DCist article + local interest stories is enough to satisfy WP:NORG. nf utvol (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an evaluation with the sources provided by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Mansfield

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

Article about a non-notable surgeon. Lacks WP:RS and WP:IS. Sources are mostly self-published. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is the same person [35]. Otherwise, the name hits on a variety of things in Google [36], but nothing about this particular individual. The sources now in the article are primary, and of no help in showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the requirements of both WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with substantial evidence of notability already present and meeting key elements of WP:PROF and WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. While the article is still developing, its current state should not be interpreted as a lack of merit but rather as a work in progress, consistent with Wikipedia’s collaborative model. Comparable biographies of physicians with similar credentials and sourcing have been retained, including those built around regional prominence and leadership roles. Per WP:BEFORE deletion is premature given the demonstrable notability and the potential for article improvement. Rather than remove the article, the appropriate course is editing and strengthening the references, not erasing the subject entirely. Additional third-party sourcing can and should be added, but the threshold of notability is already met. Wq4m820 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie

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

Notability issues abound here. The article is very heavily comprised of detail from one primary sources - the film's website, with some non-notable coverage. The one thing the article has for it is a brief review by C. Robert Cargill (Massawyrm) for Ain't It Cool News, but there needs to be something else. Very limited reliable sources from a search, with search engine only yielding one Empire preview ([37]) that mostly just explains what Warhammer is. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes except one from Sci Fi Movie Page which is now dead ([38]). A Google News search finds an article from Game Rant which does have some coverage in retrospectively assessing it ([39]) although the source is not exactly high-quality nor reliable (see WP:VG/S). Despite having some notable VAs, this is bafflingly obscure, had a limited release, and doesn't seem to have garnered much in the way of reviews or coverage. I'm not too familiar with the Film WikiProject but this feels pretty under the line for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer 40,000#Film, Aint It Cool News review is the only piece of significant coverage by a reliable source. Sci-Fi Movie Page doesn't seem like a reliable source (see archived review). "First look" by Empire doesn't count as significant coverage since it doesn't contain any critical analysis. AllMovie includes a rating [40], maybe a review was included before all reviews were removed from the site. Unless someone digs up that archived version, this article doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mika1h, assuming we can find a review that's archived that still isn't going to be enough to meet WP:GNG Mkdasher64 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like it received a review from Martin Liebman of Blu-ray.com. I know the site's database info isn't usable, but I seem to remember seeing that the site reviews were (ie, not random user reviews). Is this still the case? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PikeOS

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any independent in-depth sources on PikeOS. There are some academic sources, but most are from the company/employees of the company. A significant portion of the article reads like promotion for SYSGO as well/a good portion of the article was written by User:Sysgo. With a lack of sources + promotional material I think it should go. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kottikulam

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

This Indian town doesn't really have any notability, other than having a train station in it. Article only really has a name and a non-absolute location (only relative to other areas). Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but at worst, redirect to Kotikulam railway station Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources. Both this and the station article are essentially sourced entirely to GMaps, which is not a reliable source. The locations are also not consistent with each other. The station article is more likely correct but as it stands in a certain isolation its relationship with a supposed village is unclear. I can't read Hindi so I'm not of much use in writing here, but my recollection is decent articles on these villages can generally be at least partly sourced from the census. At any rate, given that the location information is all we have, and it is rather suspect, starting over is the route to take. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steadman (band)

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

Unsourced article, non-notable subject. BEFORE shows no RS available; all the info's coming from unreliable sources eg [41] StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N Remove Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mostly lean towards weak deletion if can find just a little bit more sources, maybe this is a keep. I found: [42] and [43]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO per multiple WP:RSMUSIC secondary coverage including Billboard:[44][45], CMJ:[46], Chicago Tribune:[47], and staff reviews+bio on Allmusic:[48][49][50]. Also a feature in the Boston Globe:[51]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Wogram

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

Effectively unsourced BLP (no inline citations) but neither source is INDY in any case. BEFORE found no sources meeting WP:42. No assertion of meeting NMUSICBIO. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Television

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

Non-notable subject; article just describes what the channel does. WP:BEFORE check showed no signs of RS/notability. Sources added since my PROD are both primary. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As our friend @Wcquidditch: will likely state, this is an example of our looser standards in the late 2000s where any channel airing on a satellite or cable provider, be it national or public access had some pass at WP:N; sadly this lost that once Dish's public service commitment to carry diverse and educational content was wound down (especially in the 9400 tier, which was purposefully never promoted by them, outside the AMC Networks dispute where they put their channels there as a 'punishment', only to make their customers and the courts mad). It's still active for sure as a service online, but so many other universities do the same already, so this is a WP:MILL telecourse and channel promoting the university. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Adam

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

LUGSTUB-a-like, no SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in long lists of names found in my WP:BEFORE, though this is hardly helped by the super-common name Nicholas Adam/Nic Adam creating many false positives. Fails WP:NSPORT. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Malaysian Islamic Party

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

No other Malaysian political party's leadership positions have dedicated article and the position of President of the Malaysian Islamic Party on its own is simply not notable enough to warrant one. Content of the article seems more suitable for the main Malaysian Islamic Party page if not already present.

Edit: Looking through the edit history and it appears the article was moved from the author's draft to the mainspacce by a since-banned sockpuppet. Article was previously submitted for creation and declined by User:DoubleGrazing for failing to meet notability guidelines. Sisuvia (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. There was an article about Malaysian political party's leadership positions which is President of the United Malays National Organisation and remained there since its creation since 15 June 2021. The main Malaysian Islamic Party page are too bloated and big (currently: 166,061 bytes) and the president need its own page. Hope that's help. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Islam, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concrete basis on the deletion nomination rather than one in a very hurry action. You can see an article about Malaysian political party's leadership positions here like the President of the United Malays National Organisation article. Thanks and have a nice day. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that you're right about there being a dedicated article for another Malaysian political party's leadership position, that's my mistake. I will also be nominating that for deletion. As for the argument that the main article about the Malaysian Islamic Party is too bloated, the information you've included in the article nominated for deletion is mostly redundant and what I would support being migrated to Malaysian Islamic Party would take up no more than a few sentences, so I don't think that holds much water. Sisuvia (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (responding to ping) Whether or not other articles exist on similar positions in other parties is immaterial; that is the classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. This discussion should focus on whether this subject is notable enough to justify its own article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otello Capitani

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

Classic LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORT. FOARP (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. FOARP (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any sources other than database listings, either now in the article or elsewhere. Nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's this [52] but Google doesn't show the full view, so I can't see how extensive it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first snippet reads:
"E i combattimenti in terra d'Oltremare porrano le pemesse anche alla creazione dell'eroe e dell eroismo sportivo, un'epos che ha il suo precusore in Otello Capitani"

In machine translation:
"And the fighting in the overseas lands will also put the omens to the creation of the hero and of 'sporting heroism', an epic that has its precursor in Otello Capitani"

The second is apparently a quote that reads:
"Questo contributo reco Otello Capitani alla Patria sui campi di Libia..la sua memoria viva perenne in noi"

Or in machine translation:
"This contribution Otello Capitani brings to the Fatherland on the fields of Libya... his memory lives forever in us"

This appears to be sourced in the index to an obituary entitled published in 1912 by The Panaro Gymnastics and Fencing Society (La societa Ginastic e Scherma del Panaro), which is in Capitani's home province of Modena and of which he was likely a member. The obituary was entitled "In memoria di Otello Capitani. Nel trigesimo della sua morte" ("In Memory of Otello Capitani. On the thirtieth day after his death"). FOARP (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book confirms that Capitani was a member of the Panaro society and also quotes an obituary in Il Ginnasta, which was (and is) the in-house magazine of the Italian Gymnastics Federation, as well as a history-book called "Un Secolo di Vita" published by The Panaro Gymnastics and Fencing Society. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: See below, I was able to access more of it and it has at minimum 200 words of biographical coverage, but it looks like more, and it also seems to mention that sources like La Gazetta dello Sport covered him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SIGCOV in the book cited above, which is much more than the two lines mentioned. It cuts me off after a point, but I was able to read over 200 words of coverage to him and it looks like their coverage continued of him for a while; at the same time it cited other sources that talked about him such as La Gazetta dello Sport. He's also discussed in many other books and in the journal article Giochi diplomatici. Sport e politica estera nell'Italia del secondo dopoguerra (1943-1953), which says that "It was in this political context that the myth of Otello Capitani was born, the first martyr of Italian sport. The athlete of the Gymnastics and Fencing Society..." – but I can't read further. We already have SIGCOV and some very, very strong indicators of further SIGCOV as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Behm

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

Practically the archetypical LUGSTUB-a-like. A bare reference to Olympedia, and a list on a now-404 WP:SPS website, and that's it. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources though that might be because his career was more then a hundred years ago regardless there is nothing in the article and I doubt anyone is gonna look this name up in this context Scooby453w (talk)
Two paragraph obit here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see thanks for finding that i made an assumption that there wouldnt be any available sources online Scooby453w (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Dejaeghère

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

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament and the 1905 tournament (which were not world tournaments, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the French team. However, Dejaeghère does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Dejaeghère received individual "medals" at the 1903 and 1905 tournaments. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 or 1905 gymnastics tournaments - these weren't awarded until much later. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual mirrors. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

did you before search include the internet archive? Any sources on him would probably be there Scooby453w (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

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

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Recon rabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's stated here that the journal Ceased publication in 2021, which seems to be accurate based on the fact that their website also has no new articles after December 2021. Nobody (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't often use the word "strong" before either keep or delete, but here I strongly feel that this discussion is going in the wrong direction. This journal was included in Scopus from 2001 to 2017. That alone we usually take as sufficient to establish notability. It was also included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 2002 to 2019. There was an expression of concern that the journal had been guilty of citation stacking in 2017, but apparently they cleaned up their act in the next year (current reference 5). Again, listing in the SCIE of almost the complete run of the journal (discontinued in 2021) is generally taken as sufficient evidence of notability. And then there is MEDLINE in which the complete run of the journal was "selectively included", as well as in its even more selective sub-database Index Medicus. Again, this alone we usually take as evidence of notability. Finally, notability is not temporary, so the fact that the journal was discontinued is immaterial. BTW, as an aside: our article states that the journal "was delisted from Web of Science in the 2019 index,[5] after having received an expression of concern a year earlier." In fact, the expression of concern explicitly states "The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology did not show evidence of anomalous patterns of citation in 2018 and will not be suppressed. Similar analysis of year-to-date 2019 indicated no continuation of the citation anomalies, so that the journals will not be removed from indexing in Web of Science at this time." --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't certain about the original nomination because of the implication that it was at some point in the past indexed by Index Medicus, but the lack of information on MIAR and the generally negative slant of the article, short as it is, placed me in the position of nominating this for deletion. That and endorsement by other editors. The evidence here is convincing of the "selectively indexed" criteria. I withdraw my personal reasoning for deletion, particularly with the scopus indexing I missed but as there are others that have recommended deletion this won't be a close. -- Recon rabbit 01:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the strong evidence presented by Randykitty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the reasons cited by Randykitty. Notability is not temporary. Although WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, the topic in this article meets WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria #1 because it was included in selective citation indices (i.e., Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded). - tucoxn\^talk 15:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons already mentioned above, but make it clear it is still a stub as it will need a little bit more work to become a more complete article (for example, by adding the mentions of predatory publishing and other shadyish practices).

Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the reasons given by Randykitty. Since the subject of this article has been included in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded, it meets the notability requirements stated in WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria 1.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per arguments above. BD2412 T 18:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Burn the Fire

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and stores. The Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies review cited in the article only briefly mentions it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to have had some influence [53], and several mentions in Gbooks above. Also pops up in Spin magazine from 2011 in the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a few mentions in books are enough to keep this article. To not fail WP:GNG, this article needs significant coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see anything wrong with that. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [54] or [55] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since !voting, I’ve added a new WP:RS from Carnegie Mellon, copyedited for tone, and cleaned up promotional/unsourced content. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I evaluated every source in the article and in the discussion, and we do not have a WP:GNG pass, much less a WP:NORG pass. See table below:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404806000563			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742684706704839	The author is a consultant for ISF			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220906/https://www.securityforum.org/tools/sogp/	This book is published by the organization	~	~	✘ No
https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/isf-maps-nists-cybersecurity/	A WP:TRADES publication; independence for these sources is questionable			? Unknown
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cead540f0b6629523c97f/bis-13-1294-uk-cyber-security-standards-research-report.pdf			Trivial mentions in tables on information security frameworks	✘ No
https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/documents/451/2013_019_001_299133.pdf				✔ Yes
https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/92688-information-security-forum-explores-the-risks-and-challenges-of-open-source-software	Reprint of a press release from the subject (see here)	~	~	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018222734/https://www.securityforum.org/events/isf-annual-world-congress/, https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220958/https://www.securityforum.org/membership/isflive/	ISF's own website	~	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I started looking into ISF, I hadn’t expected it to hold up quite so well internationally, but it appears to stand alongside some of the most widely recognized frameworks. I understand why the UK government report might have looked like a passing mention at first glance, but on closer review, it is more substantial. The 2013 BIS report compares 9 major cybersecurity standards including ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and Germany’s BSI and gives ISF 2 full pages of favourable and independent analysis (pp. 95–96), with strong marks in the comparison matrix on p. 20. Combined with the Carnegie Mellon SEI source, which is already accepted as a reliable reference, I believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Infosecurity Magazine and Security Magazine provide some lighter additional support. I’ve also trimmed promotional content that was a very valid concern earlier. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as a mention in a single line each in data matrix tables on pages 20, 51, 65 and 83. Those are definitionally trivial. It gets a full-page mention on page 95, but the material on that page is entirely quotes from ISF publications and thus not independent WP:SIGCOV. Finally, GNG is not the applicable guideline. WP:NORG is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Dclemens1971's comprehensive source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the structured source assessment, but I interpret the 2013 BIS report differently. It includes a benchmarking study conducted by PwC for the UK government, comparing the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice to eight other major cybersecurity frameworks. These include ISO/IEC 27001 (international), PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry, US), Germany’s BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the Australian Government Information Security Manual. According to the matrix on page 20, the ISF framework received the highest scores across five security criteria. Pages 95 – 96 explain the rationale for these results in detail, based on a PwC-led gap analysis. This level of coverage is well beyond a trivial mention and qualifies as independent benchmarking.

A 2006 report from Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute also provides an overview of ISF’s structure and security practices, adding further independent coverage. Infosecurity Magazine, a long-standing publication in the cybersecurity sector, discusses ISF’s alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. These sources together offer substantial, independent, and reliable coverage that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Clout

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

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RELIABILITY. Also affiliated with article recreated third time following deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination rests on flawed reasoning and misapplied policies. Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

Coverage includes a contemporaneous album review from HotNewHipHop, a site consistently accepted in similar music AfDs. In addition, DailyLoud and RateYourMusic supporting reception and while not all these sites are perfect individually, collectively they contribute to WP:GNG by showing ongoing attention and critique of the album.

The deletion rationale claims "reliability" and "affiliation with a previously deleted article," but this doesn't hold. FBG Duck's article was not deleted, but kept after discussion, which invalidates arguments based solely on association. Even if it had been deleted, notability is not inherited but it's also not denied based on supposed guilt-by-association. That logic is unsound.

Finally, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the place for challenging article quality or formatting. If reliability or sourcing were truly the issue, the proper action would be tagging or improving, not deletion. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning merge to the artist. Someone is trying to flesh out his presence on Wikipedia with the navigation box, the article with the multiple sub-headers, a spun-out discography page and page about his death, etc. But the coverage is simply not that widespread. Here is another review from rapreviews, as well as further news about releases [56][57] but they are not significant. This could be a weak keep as well, but the page about the artist mostly has very short sections and should be expanded before spinouts. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodel Jayme

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

The person representing in this article gained attention only due to the Bikoy videos. I cannot find other significant events related to this person outside the Bikoy videos which will make him notable to have an article. The sources in this article do not deep dive into who the person is, only his involvement to the controversy. Outside the controversy section of the article, other sections detailing his background are unsourced (I cannot even find reliable sources to support those info). Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE

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

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT per nom as a repeated (racist) hoax. No doubt someone finds this funny, but there is no place for such things on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnal Depression

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

Page only has 6 sources, most of which seem to be unreliable and fail WP:RS, also the article contains almost no content besides just stating a deformity that the frontman has, which I dont see has to do with the band. Googling their name brings up nothing except just the usual stuff for an obscure band, such as their entries on sites like Metal Archives or Sputnikmusic and LastFM. Seems to be a total fail of WP:BAND Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 04:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 29 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 under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki4w

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

Putting this up here as I'm not sure it qualifies for A7. There's nothing out there to suggest that this person is in any way notable; may qualify for return to draft space but sole contributor has had several rejections in the past and is likely to be the subject. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:A7 and WP:G11, since user is promoting themselves and there isn't any indication of notability. Page is also very poorly written, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also qualifies under WP:G1. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a second look at this as well as WP:CCOS and the claims aren't significant enough to pass A7. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't anything that suggests otherwise. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article creator should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE given that he is attempting to self-promote even after his pages have been deleted several times. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I already reported them at WP:AIV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:15, 29 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.

Jack Cade (scout)

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

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I searched newspaper archive heavily for mentions of Jack Cade and John Cade. The play came up many times and should probably have its own page but I could not find any mention of this man. Czarking0 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J-P Conte

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

Entirely promotional and lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on it with you and make sure it's impartial...guy has some...interesting coverage and I think in the public interest. Lmk I want to get into editing and this looks cool. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/genstar-s-conte-to-back-takeover-of-lyon-football-team https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12610833/Genstar-chairman-Jean-Pierre-Conte-sues-interior-designer-ex-girlfriend-Hillary-Thomas-defamation-claimed-attacked-Aspen-home-2022.html Socialio86 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J-P Conte - MediaKyle (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialio86 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. PhilKnight (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And more keep popping up. smh. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was accepted at AfC by a reputable editor in 2020. What has changed with regard to the subject's notability, in that time? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great questions as Theroadislong is a reputable editor so pinging them here. I still have no opinion on notability as I have been slowly throwing out the unreliable sources and WP:REFBOMB trying to narrow down the significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:AFC we are minded to accept drafts if there is more than a 50% chance of them surviving an WP:AFD that is all. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if we take this into consideration he may just make it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 O'Hare International Airport runway incursion

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

Non-notable aviation incident with zero loss of life and no lasting coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Near-misses don't generally merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Illinois. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable here...not even sure there's enough to add to the incidents section for O'Hare.

nf utvol (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chiwala

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

Declined prod. All the sources are database or result listings. The only third party source is this book but searching Chiwala there are 5 small mentions and nothing indepth. not even a few lines about Chiwala. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded this article just before it was nominated for deletion. Not all the sources are databases; for example Zambia Sporting Score: A Period of Hits and Misses lists the subject in the context of a few of his performances. Subject went far beyond the typical Olympian stub because he qualified for several international championships (African Games, Commonwealth Games, Olympics) and set a 2:22:45 marathon PB in the 1970s as Zambia's top marathon runner. SIGCOV of him would exist in Zambian physical media from that era as soon as those archives are available to us. --Habst (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Navify~~ to a page mentioning his Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Not even a single full sentence directly on him in the book, which seems to contain a fairly exhaustive almanac of all Zambian international sporting appearances (the context where Chiwala is mentioned, apart from one shared sentence in prose) as well as secondary coverage of the athletes that were more impactful. If Chiwala's performance had actually garnered significant attention we would expect this to be reflected by deeper coverage in this book, but that is not the case. JoelleJay (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I would prefer redirect now given the ongoing debate over whether navigation pages are suitable for these sorts of topics. It can be navified later if needed. JoelleJay (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Navify~~Delete: I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for WP:SPORTSBASIC to be met here. ~~Navify as a WP:ATD.~~ EDIT: Switching to delete as this type of page is not yet approved. Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been closing AFDs for several years now but I have not encountered "Navify" before and I doubt it's listed on the AFD policy page as a possible closure option. It's not listed at WP:ATD which Let'srun refers to. Can someone explain this outcome and link to its explanation on a policy page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz see Frank Anchor's comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armand Biniakounou. Basically an alternative between redirect and dabify. Not a standard outcome yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please clarify meaning of navify; if it indicates redirect please also include a suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that what was meant was really Redirect, an outcome I would support. FOARP (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Navify is an ATD that has recently been proposed (and used) for various articles which someone could conceivably look for, but the topic may not meet GNG and a redirect to a specific article doesn't make sense. You turn the page into a navigation page, which is like a disambig, listing related topics. A nav page for this topic might look like:

Wikipedia does not have an article on Patrick Chiwala, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:
Athletics at the 1978 Commonwealth Games – Men's 10,000 metres

Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics

I'm not !voting on the suitability of this specific example, but it is a neat solution in many cases, imo. On the other hand I don't really think there's a clear broader consensus in favor of these sorts of articles, but I've seen in proposed in a handful of other AfDs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs where this has come up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyi Khin Pe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armand Biniakounou, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chow Park Wing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the subject meets WP:SPORTSBASIC particiated at the 1978 All-Africa Games, the 1978 Commonwealth Games, and the 1980 Summer Olympics representing Zambia. He is also a subject of discussion in the book "Zambia Sporting Score: A Period of Hits and Misses" by Moses Sayela Walubita (iUniverse, 4 August 2011).Ekpin (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability in participating in those competitions. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics which is the only Olympic Games he ran in. I don't really oppose navify as an alternative to this, but I don't think it is necessary, and that outcome is still bedding in. If closed as redirect, no prejudice to updating the redirect to a nav page when these are better established. This should not be kept as the subject is not notable. I reviewed the book, Zambia Sporting Score: A Period of Hits and Misses. It is a reach to say he is a "subject of discussion". His name is in there 4 times, confirming the events he participated in and that he miscounted the number of laps. But that is all. The mentions are all just listings. There is no discussion of him at all. Passing mentions and so not SIGCOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (artscene group)

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

Article tagged as unsourced since 2014. While technically the external links and releases are source, I have not been able to find any other sources that might contribute to notability, including while searching for the founders name instead of the generic "Fire". Attempted to PROD, was removed on the grounds that a generic name and pre-internet subject deserves more attention, so taking this here. Rusalkii (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981)

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

Just a single sentence. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG Mast303 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1999–2000 Preston North End F.C. season. Very common name, hard to lookup, I gave up after 5 minutes of searching. He could have played for other clubs, if not, maybe a redirect to the season page, as he only played three games for that season under David Moyes. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Gowy. Svartner (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe these provide significant coverage [58] [59] [60] Shrug02 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Ding Wen

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

Wikipedia:1E 日期20220626 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are concentrated in 2009, and the same is true after searching on Google.--日期20220626 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator that the subject is WP:1E. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gnews shows nothing past 2009. I'm not sure this shows continued notability. The person doesn't appear to have continued down the software road to a career, or it hasn't been covered in the media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Doodle Kids Czarking0 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustained notability, really only had significant coverage for one event. jolielover♥talk 16:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. As happy that I am that this young man, who is now 25yo, has supportive parents and that he had the curiosity to start coding early, I'm very surprised that this one has flown under the radar for so long. Same for Doodle Kids to be honest. Turquoise (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]