Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

2 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 01	May 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2020 Darul Uloom Hathazari student protest

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

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

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

L Franchise (film series)

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

No significant coverage on sources as a film series; nor for a third film, which seems to be WP:CRYSTAL speculation at this point. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and WP:NFF. — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

(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. 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [1] [2] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN.^[1] Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce

I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

Keep WP:N, WP:V [3] [4] [5] [6] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Magcalas

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

All of the sources are WP:PASSINGMENTION, Data bases or unreliable. Before search yield nothing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola

(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: [7] [8] [9] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kurt Mortensen

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [10] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.
I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:
The article is poorly written.

The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.

The article is of start/stub class length.

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

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

I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Michael Polansky

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

This article fails WP:GNG with flying colors. First, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If you remove the relationship this person has with Lady Gaga, then you would be hard pressed to find anything written about them. The subject may be accomplished, but there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources speaking on the subject in a way that isn’t mere mention. How can the CEO of a company have their own article before the company they are the CEO of is even notable enough for its own article? Marry Lady Gaga? Doesn’t meet the notability requirement. Brickto (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 07:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his business ventures get vastly overshadowed by a relationship with Gaga and (to a lesser extent) the songs they wrote together. Little to none of the publicity this guy gets is focused on individual merits, and the more I think about this, the harder it becomes to find any credible sources on him that don't largely revolve around her and their relationship. Even pieces where Polansky is a central topic devote more attention to that part of him than anything else. Having a romance or even marriage to a famous person doesn't automatically entitle someone to a page, so I'm inclined to think we have a failure of WP:BIO here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and CREATIVE. Seems obvious to me the subject has been profiled in multiple reliable sources. Sources like this are specifically focused on him and his accomplishments. He has co-written a dozen or so songs that have charted and no one is suggesting he is only notable because of his relationship with Lady Gaga. This biography should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - At least for now, I agree with the nominator. Note that every single one of the 16 sources currently used in the article have Lady Gaga's name in their titles, but only a few have Polansky's name. The same is true of the Billboard article found by the last voter. Beyond that article, I can find nothing else about his business ventures or songwriting that is not dependent on his connection with Lady Gaga. WP:NOTINHERITED is the obvious guideline here, unless he emerges as the topic of additional dedicated news coverage in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article title includes "Lady Gaga" doesn't mean the reporting is not focused on the subject. Of course writers are going to sneak "Lady Gaga" into the title in an attempt to increase readership. There are many Wikipedia biographies for songwriters who have (co)/authored many songs that have charted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and then they talk about her more than him. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer: Lady Gaga is also the primary subject of these titles as well.. “Who is Lady Gaga's fiancé?”, “Inside Lady Gaga's love story” —— these are articles about Lady Gaga. The subject of the nominated article doesn’t become notable by being in a relationship with someone who is notable. It may seem that way due to the fact that Lady Gaga is arguably one of the most notable figures of the 21st century thus far, but it isn’t. Polansky simply is not notable enough for his own article, and it is WP:TOOSOON. Brickto (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , more than enough available sources to further expand the article --Sricsi (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sricsi; Could you list these sources? The subject is not notable independent of his relationship with Lady Gaga. There are plenty of sources about the subject that cover him and his role in his company? I can’t find any. WP:TOOSOON Brickto (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It looks good to me, and I don't fancy wasting time with a sockpuppet's nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keepers. And anyone who proposes using a blade of grass is notable per se. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sunamganj violence

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

partially Notable but the quality of the article is very poor and there are like hundreds of such events of violence against this community and that but this event was not reflected much after the incident, users can create thousands of pages on the same topic but at a different date in just a day but its not done due to issues with relevance, i searched for sources which reflects on this incident which is atleast 3 months after but i couldn't find much. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No. The quality of the article isn’t all that bad; every sentence is backed by a reliable source. Your claim that “users can create thousands of pages on the same topic” isn’t true, because users can never create thousands of pages on the same topic. What do you mean by “its not done due to issues with relevance”? What exactly “happened after 3 months”? What on earth have you written? Somajyoti ✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Click Play

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

As I said in my redirect edit, "One Instagram post from the artist with zero reliable coverage for the album itself (I'm not convinced coverage for the singles is enough here since the album is a footnote in those articles)." Even a few hours into the next day, there still has been no new coverage of this announcement. Even Billboard, which had an article about Max just a month ago which is included here, have not published anything about this album announcement. I do not see notability here at this time, still believe the article is premature, and that a redirect to the artist's page is still the best option until more coverage comes along. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatra League's guest room practice

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

Violation of WP:NPOV, thousands of similar organizations but no similar articles, thus this can be deleted and the text should be attached with Bangladesh Chhatra League. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student abuse at Islamic University, Kushtia

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

Literally most educational institutions have a similar case with abuse of students or teachers or staff, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article unless proven. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There is not valid deletion rationale given. Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are used in the article. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason to delete this article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Tiger Force

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

In-depth and reasonable sources are not here, please add such information or the article will be removed, heck add even one in-depth reference that was published by a trusted newspaper or channel that is recognised either locally or in national levels, no problem, just add it, WP:GNG should be read. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Asia, India, and Assam. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is all right. Somajyoti ✉ 11:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bengali teacher recruitment movement

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

It is not a significant event, unlike other movements, this is not as significant and also similar protests happen every day, check West Bengali and East Bengali (Bangladeshi) newspapers and read them, such events happen everyday but not every movement deserves a article unless the movement is significant and remembered even after one month of the protest/riot/movement/uprising. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and West Bengal. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fighter (Bangladesh)

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

Literally violates NPOV, most countries have some individuals who are deemed as freedom fighters yet you won't find such a page about freedom fighters for any other country, if you search, you will not find it. The article's information is already found in the page of Mukti Bahini, this article is not needed. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWR (album)

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUM, insufficient coverage, critical reception, etc, to justify notability of any sort. Fails WP:GNG too. A cursory search didn't help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 textbooks criticism

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

Insignificant and irrelevant unless proven otherwise, this kind of events can happen, it happens every year, textbooks can be criticised, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has issues with its quality and literally every year and even day, textbooks are criticised, this type of events are not suitable to stay in Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Madge

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

The subject is an MMA fighter, but fails WP:MMA and does not have significant coverage. Event annoucement/results and passing mentions are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Lekkha Moun (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfique Khan

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

Seems not meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket Somajyoti ✉ 08:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 08:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teng Lin

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

This fails WP:NACTOR. All sources are none WP:RS Ednabrenze (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i've add links to biographical data, the sources can only be found in his own social media livestream as short drama actors info are in general lacking online. I've included the link and even the timestamp at which he mentioned those biographical data Laiwingnang (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brunsky

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

No indication of significance. Single refs doesn't contain his name (at the end of doc). Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Motion Control

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

Non-notable company. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freiburg-Madison-Society

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

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Promotional. See WP:NOT. Fails WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Mojica

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

WP:ROTM entrepreneur. No clearly reliable sources-- all are either non-substantive, from suspicious sources, and/or interviews. Promotional. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Students Union

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

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Fails WP:N and would seem unlikely to ever meet it. Cabrils (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Aminpour

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

Non-notable US attorney. No reliable sources, and would seem unlikely any exist. Clearly promotional. WP:NOT. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 'nuff said. Newspapers.com has no results, never a good sign. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

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

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicked March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention his role, Anthony, in Round the Twist#Characters#Other. That section doesn't name any actors, though - but maybe more characters and actors could be added to the Round the Twist#Casting table. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Energy Drink

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

This description of an obscure energy drink doesn't pass notability guidelines. Its only indication of notability is association with Lil John. We don't make Wikipedia articles on subjects that are only "famous" because of their association with something or someone else, according to notability policies. Also, only one citation, from a business journal in 2007. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sidney Frank, the founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a The Commercial Appeal article (pages 1 and 2) that verifies Sidney Frank started Crunch Energy Drink. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the same as notability: see WP:POPULARPAGE — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep admittedly this is my first time seeing this argument so I don't know if my interpretation of it was correct but one of the criteria for it seems to be " if the subjects role in the event isn't documented" and judging by the sourcing that doesn't seem to be the case multiple sources cover the controversy and some of them are years after it which seems to be lasting coverage. That said I'm new to this standard so if my analysis is wrong I'll change my vote Scooby453w (talk)
Delete as this article per nom meets the WP:BLP1E definition. All of the coverage is about the subject's appearance on the reality show Big Brother and racist comments she made. All sources with WP:SIGCOV are within a narrow time period in 2013. Sources that mention the subject since that time are only in passing. I searched and cannot find any additional sources for the subject other than the ones for this one event. Note page views are not a measure of Wikipedia notability. Nnev66 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree i believe the subject does not meet 2 of the requirements for Wikipedia:BLP1E first she is not "low profile" https://www.instagram.com/aaryn_williams?igsh=MXNkY3g0MThhMHAxYQ== as she has a big following on social media secondley I concede that the sources are all about the racism however I believe it qualifys as "a significant event where the subjects role is well documented" there are dozens of reliable sources covering the bb15 controversy which was a one of the most massive controversies in bb historh and it goes well into detail about her involvement in it Scooby453w (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia "low profile" means the subject doesn't have independent secondary coverage in reliable sources over time. Instagram followers don't count as high profile for Wikipedia notability although in a more general sense one could make a case for it. I see your point around a "significant event" and different people will see any event's significance differently, which is why the consensus process is used here. Nonetheless, the main basis for my !vote was lack of significant coverage other than in the summer of 2013. I recently stumbled across WP:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? which discusses why a very popular YouTube series with billions of views that doesn't have a Wikipedia article - you may find this helpful for understanding policy. Nnev66 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note i will still keep my vote the same (as i view the racism controversy as a significant event) but i wont site social media as a notability thing again Scooby453w (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've spent about a year participating in AfD discussions and trying to figure out the policies. I'm glad you're here to weigh in and learn about them. Nnev66 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant event" usually means major historical events. The example at BLP1E is the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. I don't think being a controversial reality TV star is quite at that level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nom that this is WP:BIO1E and the subject is not lastingly notable beyond the one not-notable event. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 15 (American season). I agree that WP:BLP1E applies to this article. Significant portions of the "Pageantry and modeling career" and "Personal life" are sourced to Gries's LinkedIn (!) or Big Brother, which still comes up in those sections. A lot of the public reaction to the season has ended up in this article and should be merged into there. hinnk (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Faraj

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

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results listings and insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show indepth sources LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikr Al-Shabani

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

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results listings and insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Espart

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

An athlete who started his career recently does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Htanaungg (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Htanaungg (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amouna al-Mazyouna episodes

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

Completely unsourced episode list for a show that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines on its own. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, I have moved it back to the draftspace for now. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amouna al Mazyouna

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

A WP:BEFORE search didn't find any reliable sources, although there might be better coverage in Arabic. This was moved out of AfC by the creator after a few rejections, and it just doesn't seem ready for mainspace. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smartfoxserver

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NWEB and it seems like there aren't many sources about it at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources that would meet WP:GNG. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion here, but deletion seems unnecessary, better to merge to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis: The infobox on that page is even titled pro-government protests so these seem to be more or less the same events. The page is also desperately in need of being updated so I might take that up. (or at least updating the language) Moritoriko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, probably shouldn't be deleted but notable enough for mention in parent article. GoldRomean (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more look into the ATDs suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laugs

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

This article fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 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. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Album review here [11] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the German wikipedia article has some book references that look reliable here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is very likely that he is notable, but it is not going to be easy to find reviews of his concert performances or recordings (although Oaktree b has already found one on jstor). Some do come up on a Google Books search, eg Fanfare (14/1-2:263) and The Gramophone (52/613-618:536), but they have only snippet views, so can't be used as sources. Finding hard copies from that era would probably need access to a very large library. Apart from reviews, Discogs shows multiple albums released by the Musical Heritage Society and by a German label called Da Camera Magna. I realise that Discogs is not reliable, but it gives album names and label numbers which can be searched for elsewhere - and does suggest that he meets WP:MUSICBIO#5. I have added some sources to the article, and removed the unsourced tag. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korczak's orphanages

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

This is a messy stub that hijacks its interwiki. Korczak ran two notable orphanages (Nasz Dom, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11789892, and Dom Sierot, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6431490). The article nominated here (Korczak's orhpanages) is incorrectly linked to Q6431490 (all other wikis in it are about Dom Sierot specifically); it also doesn't make obvious the concept of "Korczak's orhpanages", combined, has stand-alone notability (I see some passing mentions in my BEFORE, but no clear SIGCOV). The current article has just one (non-English) reference and is a stub; I suggest deleting it as it also seems to contain many errors. For example, it gives dates for its two orphanages, unnamed, as 1911-1942 and 1918-1940. The dedicated Wiki articles have different dates (1912-1944) and 1919-1946, reactivated in 1991). If our underreferneced stub cannot even get basic facts straight (such as names and dates), dubious notatability aside, WP:TNT is needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agna Group

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

Doesn't seem to meet NCORP and I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE, but someone more familiar with Albanian sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As a recent creation with no independent or reliable sources, it should not have hit mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuki Fujitaka

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

No indication that the article subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Default Keep on basis of inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Please justify your comment by referring to WP:NACADEMIC, or this should be discarded per WP:NOREASON. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Petersen (businessman)

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

There doesn't seem to be any independent notability here, it seems like deleting or redirecting to Flexport would make sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: There exist some reliable sources WP:RS: [12][13] [14] and to a lesser degree [15] for some biographical information. The current article is bad and may be worth blowing up altogether (WP:TNT). A future article has potential. I'm also okay with Draftify as a result. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuu Matsuura

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

Article gives no indication that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. According to Google Scholar, the subject has a total of 18 citations [16]. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Social science, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They have published this book "Guide to Aro/Ace" (in japanese) but I don't have any details on it being a significant book. The article appears to be mostly translated from the Japanese article of the same name but without attribution so that should be fixed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Bitches

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

Following WP:NALBUM there aren't any sources showing that this meets the criteria for notability of a recording. It could be redirected to FBG Duck#Discography but I don't think it is even a popular enough search term to need a redirect. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions, Music, and Illinois. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. The only non-database source which lists opening day starters for the team is this story posted on a rain date. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flib, thanks for the feedback once again. I see your point. If there aren’t multiple independent sources showing notability beyond basic stats, and no prior consensus to split this off, then a standalone list may not be justified. I’d support merging it back into the team article unless stronger sourcing is found. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kudakwashe Regimond Tagwirei

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

Delete on the grounds of WP:TNT for now, there might be notability. Inappropriate sources used, many sources don't mention Tagwirei or just have a passing mention, unnecessary commentary and promotional language (likely LLM) used in the page, MOS issues. Hmr (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt

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

To reword what I previously wrote in the article's talk page, I believe that this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: it doesn't elaborate much on the subject (i.e. what exactly the plot was, who was involved in planning it, where was it planned to occur in, etc.), and since there doesn't seem to have been follow-up information about it (no WP:LASTING coverage), it looks to just be an example of WP:RECENTISM.

Alternatively, it could be merged into articles like Anas Khattab (career section), Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), or Syrian transitional government (possible reforms section), but its vague enough that I don't know if it would be appropriate. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interest to this article, please give some time to improving the article. Great achievement (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze

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

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.

- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Raynor

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

COI/UPE editing, potential autobiography. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is an article about a non notable wrestler. Couldn't find any coverage in independent, WP:RS sources. There are references, but they're mostly fight logs.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing i pull up are databases, social media and primary sourcing/websites. Nothing used now in the article that isn't a database. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems to be an autobiography despite claim of it not being one. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bender (soccer)

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

Only played in lower leagues. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Raskuly (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only routine coverage exists and lower league player. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Amankwa

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

Played only at lower divisions. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, and South Carolina. Raskuly (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, only source is database. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot PROD this since it has been deleted twice. Sources seem to all be same as those from prior discussions, nothing has changed to indicate more notability. Still falls under WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Manipur. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: once we get closer to the election the page can be created at YEAR Manipur Legislative Assembly Election but there is no reason to create a vague page like this with no certain information. I could (but won't) create the page 2036 US Presidential Election because it will happen, but there is no content for it. And the fact that this has been deleted twice and recreated twice along with similar articles for other Next Indian elections is why salt. Moritoriko (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cooper (soccer)

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

I'm not sure what makes Cooper more worthy of an article than other collegiate soccer coaches, especially since he has a non-notable playing career. The most notable thing about him (from what I understand) is his long tenure and winning a coach of the year award which may be enough to warrant an article, but I'm not sure so I've put it up. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage of the player/coach. Most sources are primary. I don't think winning a coach of the year award is enough without in depth coverage of other accomplishments. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Kočik

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. I've found two potential secondary sources (1 & 2) referenced in the current state of the article, but the first thing that struck out to me is that they do not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, so there is no real reason to presume that the subject is notable as of right now. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Slovakia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the two sources above, I'm able to find quite a bit of material in Slovak sources (1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6) indicating he's at least regionally notable in Slovakia for his darting abilities. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazih Geagea

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and a search in GNews/TWL didn't come up with anything to help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this guy is an olympian, but doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NOLYMPIC requirements. This is also a BLP and good sources are lacking.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wajdi al-Hajj Ali

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am the creator, I am aware that it was only highlighted by conflicts. Farcazo (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a instance of WP:BLP1E, as nom said. There is no secondary coverage aside from this event about the subject, which means that there is no real reason to believe that this subject is notable enough to have their own separate article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

- RamiPat (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a case of WP:BIO1E. Neither the person nor the event is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

[1]