Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 March 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

< March 26	March 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Azriddin Rosli

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 480 minutes in the highest Malaysian league. Article creator is blocked indefinitely.

PROD was BLARed (blanked and redirected), but I hereby contest the redirect to Kuching City since he is no longer with that club. The article 2024–25 Malaysia A1 Semi-Pro League shows us that Rosli now plays there. On 22 February he scored for Persada Integriti Bersatu, who won in front of an attendance of 20. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kew

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

I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Suonii180 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and England. Suonii180 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Shrestha

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

In Special:Diff/1255412434 an IP vandal partially WP:AHIJACKed this page through a change of the birth date of possibly another Roshan Shrestha, and following that, the substitution of "Gyan Bahadur Pradhan" with "ROSU".

The underlying, ostensibly single and real subject is the non-notable actor born as it may be in 1980, whose real name may be Gyan Bahadur Pradhan, and who started his modeling career reportedly in 2003. This subject fails WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:ANYBIO, as none of the criteria are met (the supposed awards are non-notable and the information on the awards is difficult or impossible to verify using reliable sources in the first place). The subject also fails WP:NACTOR, because the films aren't notable; two of the films are direct-to-YouTube productions:[1][2], and Hero Returns is this, possibly a less obscure but also non-notable film; I am unable to identify "Kapura". Some of the sources are about the films, not about the actor, but the films fail WP:NFILM, as the coverage is not significant, and for other reasons specific to NFILM.

I wasn't able to find anything in my WP:BEFORE search. —Alalch E. 15:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. —Alalch E. 15:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from the IP "born in 2004" hijack, the article was also partially hijacked by adding information about Rohan Shrestha (this individual; more), who is neither Roshan Shrestha nor the ostensible "ROSU" entity. This was resolved in Special:Diff/1282622039.—Alalch E. 16:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caught in the Night

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

The album page was twice redirected to the artist's because of lack of notability, and reverted without any additional relevant sources being added. Bringing it here to reach consensus. I propose a Redirect to Luna (Polish singer) Broc (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Poland. Broc (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yongchang Real Estate

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

I wasn't able to find much significant coverage in English, or anything that would demonstrate notability as a company. There may be coverage in Chinese-language sources, but I admit having trouble conducting a WP:BEFORE for Chinese sources. Mooonswimmer 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 KCA President's Cup T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KCA President's Cup T20.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to satisfy WP's GNG criteria for this hospital. See [3], [4], [5], [6]. AndySailz (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the new sources will be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omnissa

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

not notable software (WP Product) Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Omnissa is the new name for what was a whole EUC division of VMware. There are wiki pages for the two main products of VMware Horizon (which should now be called Omnissa Horizon) and AirWatch (which should be called 'Omnissa Workspace ONE') MrTAP (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently configured, no notability has been established. The two references are press releases by the Omnissa and its new owner, KKR. They are not independent of the subject of the article and therefore shouldn't even be used as references. If this products lasts and gets independent coverage in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but not yet. Ira Leviton (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional references, but had only just started. Please note that both product wiki articles have existed for many years - they had just referred to the new company name but only linked to the old company name. MrTAP (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added references to two news articles on 'The Register' and 'TechTarget' regarding Omnissa being spun out of VMware. MrTAP (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete added sources are not reliable enough. However, if someone add new ones I may change my mind. Still think some sources may exist. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with VMware#Acquisition by Broadcom: Not quite enough coverage for a standalone article - I'm specifically concerned about the reliability of the TechTarget source, which is an opinion piece. Merging to its former parent company seems like the most natural solution. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

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

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to Moritoriko for creating this AFD. My intention had been to nominate both together, but they should be okay as separate AFDs. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page has very few sources that actually discuss it, and relies too heavily on primary sources. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Elliott (barrister)

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

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

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

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

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

Ausar Auset Society

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

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

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

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

Also [7] [8] [9].

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

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

Katrina Johansson

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists. There needs to be coverage about them or their work. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources are database-type, and can't find anything that should qualify on my own searches Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Lai in Chains

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

Promo for non notable sign. Lacks independent coverage about the sign itself. Gets mentioned or pictured in coverage about protests around the detention of Jimmy Lai but no real indepth coverage of the sign itself in independent reliable sources. Soapbox for a cause. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Scheybeler

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a designer, and have added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Redirect to Rapha (sportswear) is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Sports, England, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, nothing to suggest independant notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bencasso Barnes

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP on a musician, and am not seeing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; I have not found any references to add. The existing sources are primary or interviews, and a press release. The Bash looks like a platform for musicians to advertise on. The "alternativetentacles" reference is to the record company's website. The mention of Barnes in the Fischoff competition docuyment just says "Benjamin Barnes, 21, Viola". The other reference for the Quartetto Rilke doesn't mention Barnes. The grant documentation is a quote from him, and a primary source. The missionlocal reference is decent coverage, but another interview. The mayoral paperwork just lists his name as a candidate. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST or WP:NSUBPOL. Redirect to Deadweight (band) is a possibility, per WP:BANDMEMBER. Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiaan Yeo

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources aside from WP:Interviews. See also Special:Diff/1282547801. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury-Bankstown

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

This page is redundant as there is the council page for City of Canterbury-Bankstown which covers this region and is the official local government area WP:Duplicate article. All information from this page can be merged onto City of Canterbury-Bankstown which can cover both customary region and government district. Alternatively this article could be rebranded 'Inner South-West' as per the ABS region of the same name however that would then need to merge the St George region article into this page which should remain a separate article on its own. YolandaBeCool1 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Absence of delete rationale. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. City of Canterbury Bankstown and Canterbury-Bankstown are distinct entities as seen by the fact they don't have the same suburbs listed. They overlap but are not the same. XwycP3 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list of suburbs is entirely unsourced, and all the suburbs listed are included within the City of Canterbury-Bankstown. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content inside this article is sufficient enough to exist outside of the municipality's article. Also this customary region extends outside and in the surrounds of the municipality's boundaries. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to City of Canterbury-Bankstown I don't see any sources (that I can verify) that confirm the existence of a Cantebury-Bankstown region with a different area to the City of Cantebury-Bankstown. The term 'customary region' is a made up hoax term that only brings up circular sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Will there be a Canterbury-Bankstown Express, a local newspaper, for a non-existent place? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus after I closed it as Keep but was kindly asked by Goldsztajn to relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I requested Cinder painter revert their close (as keep) of this and relist, which they kindly did. I left the following message on their talk page: "On the basis of concerns over the the lack of sourcing, which was not effectively refuted, I do not see this as keep. While the discussion did not reach a consensus to delete, neither is there a consensus to keep since the assertions for keep were not strongly grounded in the existence of reliable sources." Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Hamilton

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

A case of WP:BIO1E. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wyoming. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Has coverage many years later. [10] [11][12][13][14][15] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal, but article does need a fair bit of work. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Behounek

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

Does not pass GNG. The player appears only in databases. No sport achievements, he played only in lower German tiers. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The player appears only in databases. This article from Hamburger Abendblatt is WP:SIGCOV. he played only in lower German tiers. After signing a professional contract with Hamburger SV,[16] he made 28 appearances in the fully professional 3. Liga and over 130 appearances in the semi-professional fourth-tier Regionalliga Nord. The Abendblatt article is not sufficient for me. Perhaps someone can dig up more? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The first source is decent, but in my opinion, even only one significant coverage provided on articles is still too weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shazalee Ramlee

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted before. Massive fail of WP:SPORTCRIT, having played only 12 minutes in Malaysia's highest league. Provided source only contains WP:PASSING mentions. I am not finding anything that goes in depth, meaning that WP:GNG is failed as well. Finally, the creator has been globally locked (though possibly by own volition?) Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Malaysia, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence in the Isle of Man

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

No sources cited, and I couldn't find any sources to cite or to verify the information Landpin (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTBIO. Created in 2006 with no intro as to its purpose, no sourcing. Creator User: Manxy3 has not been active since 2008. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [17] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embention Sistemas Inteligentes S.A

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources, as the organization does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on promotional content Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West African Brand Excellence Award

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources to substantiate its claims, as the award does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources Xrimonciam (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – First, the name of the award is wrongly spelt. It is the "West African Brands Excellence Awards", and not "West African Brand Excellence Award". Second, some of the links are broken and/or from unreliable sources. Even those from reliable sources like the Daily Champion points to a 404 error page. However, there are other RS including Business Day, The Guardian, The Nation — one of the old guards of true West African journalism with former branches in the region with loyalty to only true journalism - with some notable editors in chief even being harrassed and charged by some African leaders who did not like they were writing about them. Historically, they are one of the doyens of true and responsible West African journalism beholden to no one. This coverage is not long but adds to the notability, and the event has been going on for years. And more on G. News. (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this results in a keep, the article should be renamed West African Brands Excellence Awards. Tamsier (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Aljeda

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

this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies and general notability Xrimonciam (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq, England, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'architecte textile

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

Promo for non notable film. Claim of "critically acclaimed" not supported by sources. Being screened and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Fashion, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IF we consider Mika'ela Fisher notable, redirect to her page. But her notability being based on her films (almost all having a page being currently discussed at AfD), it might be best to decide that first. She certainly fails WP:NACTOR. ("She gained recognition as an actor for her role in the movie Tell No One (Ne le dis à personne)."is simply not true, or at best puffery). She received various nominations/awards (Columbus, Hof, Newport, Sonoma, Florence, New Haven), and they are certainly "well-known" festivals but are these awards/nominations sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, that is the question? ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"). Her page needs trimming. -Mushy Yank. 09:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

All India Gaming Federation

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

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

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

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

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

SLC Invitational T20 League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Guru Nanak Through Pictures

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

Cited or listed a few times in books about Sikhism but little significant coverage. I found one review that I cannot really access but it seems a standard length academic journal review so that's one [18]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [19]. There may be more in whatever language this was originally published in but I was unable to find the original title. The source in the article mentions the book but doesn't mention what we are citing it for (that it was judged one of the best by the president - they're talking about an artist, not the book). This mentions the best thing again but is only one sentence [20] Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sikhism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who & the Daleks: The Official Story of the Films

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

Most of the sources look more like group blogs/fansites and seem to lack proper editorial review. If I am wrong about that and one or more does seem to be an RS feel free to object. Starburst is probably fine. There are unverified and strangely formatted citations to SFX magazine, but from the way they're quoted I cannot be sure if they are reviews or passing mentions. All in all idk if this passes WP:NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dr. Who & the Daleks if no further secondary sources are found. I am also not sure about a number of the sources here, but at least Starburst, SFX and Doctor Who Magazine should be fine. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SFX and Doctor Who Magazine are RS, my issue is just I can't verify they contain sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few more occurrences and added them here, so I think this now meets the notability criteria for an article about a non-fiction book. EditEdward (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Money

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. There is one maybe usable review here the other is a NEWSORGINDIA issue and seems sponsored. I'm not entirely sure about the other but it seems fine. From a search nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to pass WP:NBOOK. Found two additional independent reviews from reliable sources such as this, this, and this .Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are, 1, the NDTV Profit source already in the article; 2, from Money Control; and 3, from Firstpost. Firstpost is specifically mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA as sometimes doing undisclosed sponsored advertising, though it doesn't mention their book reviews. So I don't think it's any better than the NDTV Profit review that PARAYANKAA flagged as also concerning per NEWSORGINDIA. I am neutral-to-negative on both but acknowledge I am not an expert. As for Money Control, I really struggle to consider it an RS when the website is nearly inoperable with ads and it merely calls itself an "online financial platform" rather than a publication with editorial control. But I am OK with the source from IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, the journal doesn't look predatory and the review seems normal. So I still agree with PARAYANKAA that we just have one fine source. Unless someone is able to provide a strong defence of NDTV Profit or Firstpost (or turn up new sourcing), I think this is a delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Very WP:MILL money management book. Nathannah • 📮 16:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 KP Oli Cup (cricket)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nominator is launching several AfDs within a short timeframe, with copy-paste deletion rationale without virtually any detail. AfD nominations are launched with just minutes apart, pointing to that nominator has not performed WP:BEFORE in a reasonable manner. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: I may have initiated the nominations within minutes, but I spent an entire day performing web searches etc. to verify its notability. Vestrian24Bio 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet somehow you missed the press reporting on for this event. See Kantipur, Gorkhapatra, Online Khabar, Annapurna Post, Ratopati, Naya Patrika. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Prime Minister Cup (Women)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : [21][22][23][24][25][26] these are links of the coverage of the tournament from the prominent newpaper for this season which should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 02:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 SLC T20 League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Sri Lanka Cricket Super 4's T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010 National Cricket League Twenty20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV for a separate season article. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for same reasons. Vestrian24Bio 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This article is notable due to coverage by reliable sources like ESPNcricinfo and other relevant media outlets. The sources have been added to support the article's notability.

--Sakib H Hridoy (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of offline and Bengali language sources ([27]) regarding NCL T20. I consider it to pass WP:NEVENT/WP:SIGCOV. This is a top-tier domestic league of a full member nation, seasonal articles are obviously needed for a proper arrangement of information and convenience for the readers. Apart from that, my concern is about the nominator, who had run a deletion campaign of several articles of cricket tournaments with exactly the same rationale Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG without a detailed explanation. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT would be the appropriate guideline here, and these are WP:ROUTINE sources as in the WP:NEVENT guidelines as well. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shoe0nHead

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[28] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

[29][30][31] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
[32] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
[33] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
[34] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
[35] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV [36][37]. A WP:SIRS source eval would be helpful here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Church of Lucifer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fringe organization. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of local media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but those that are not self-published works refer to an older group of the same name during the 1960s, not this 21-century church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Paganism, and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering about the article deleted by the prior AFD discussion, as I was: Yes, it's the same subject, but the article is different, and also differently sourced. It's also a very similar nomination rationale, which is only to be expected if circumstances with available sourcing have not changed. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article of Luciferianism and Michael W. Ford mention this group. The Luciferian group in question has garnered not only local but also national media attention on two distinct occasions: (1) the inauguration of their Satanic church in Texas, which incited significant local protests from Christians, resulting in a modicum of national coverage; and (2) the conversion of one of their prominent leaders to Christianity, a development that has been extensively publicized by a Christian ministry with which he is affiliated. So, the article has some value historically. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article all appear to be Houston-local. Please list the in-depth national coverage you assert exists. Also under (2), we can't use affiliated sources, are there third-party sources covering that? If not, it's irrelevant. Also please note that the above editor is the recreator of the deleted article. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that other articles include cited content about the subject does not support it being notable enough for a standalone article, so that's not a valid argument against deletion. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources covered by international media like CBN, ABC etc. Also there's The Huffington Post. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ABC citation is to the local Houston station page. That doesn't mean the coverage was national. And the HuffPost article adds nothing new, it simply summarizes the local coverage and links to it. This is all reporting on an event, specifically the Christian protest against the church, not in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am fixing the article now using more reliable sources. I fix a lot of articles at AfD but this one actually just flat out wasn't ready for mainspace. A bunch of claims were made about living people that weren't backed up by the sources cited in the footnotes. (Where did the information actually come from?) Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The best move would have been to draftify. Now that I've started fixing it I will try to finish. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the church has three pages in Massimo Introvigne's social history of satanism. That alone is sufficient to pass the GNG. It's also discussed in many other scholarly works on contemporary satanism, which you can see with a simple gbook search. Not least among these is Olivia Cejvan's whole article on the church found in the OUP book Satanism: A Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although there is a growing consensus to Keep and no support for Deletion. It's strange how the deletion nomination from this AFD seems copied from the 1st AFD. Haven't seen that before in my AFD travels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improvements done show notability, sourcing is solid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article, and per above arguments.JunkBorax (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: New sources provided are sufficient to keep this article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonists of the debate on sects in France

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

First of all, not notable, the sources do not establish notability. The French cult disputes are very notable, but this is not that, and that content is covered on other pages. This is an arbitrary list of three groups with no sourcing to past NLIST, with a brief bit of criticism from one group to another. None of the sources indicate notability. Also this article is poorly translated (beyond even the cult/sect issue, the phrasing is bizarre... very strange title. "Protagonists"?), and is almost entirely uncited, so there is nothing here to salvage or move to other articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morris A. Kravitz

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

Tukšumi (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator has provided no reason for deletion whatsoever. I also found multiple sizeable obituaries in addition to the ones already in the article. Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Shopping malls, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not even a rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An inadequate argument for deletion from an editor with a concerns about competence. Even treating the nomination with the seriousness that it does not deserve, the article demonstrates notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inamorata (Metallica song)

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

WP:NSONG clearly states the following: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label [...] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. This song unfortunately falls under the latter category.

I have done a great deal of research on this song and the album in general (as I plan to one day get 72 Seasons to GA), and I have come to the conclusion that Inamorata is not notable outside of 72 Seasons. All coverage of the song in reliable, secondary sources can basically be summarized to the following: "Metallica just released their longest song ever, go check it out!" or "Metallica just played their longest song ever live for the first time, go check out the VOD!", without offering any actual significant coverage or critical commentary towards the song itself. Instead, pretty much anything that actually has anything to say about the song is in the context of album reviews, which don't demonstrate notability; every opinion currently in the reception section is cited to album reviews except for one article that is mostly just demonstrating fan responses to the song. But obviously, fan opinions aren't useful here. The only thing that the song actually has going for it was charting in one lower-level, genre-specific chart in a singular region. However, every song from 72 Seasons also charted on that chart at the same time before each song quickly fell off shortly afterwards. Plus, NSONG clearly states that charting doesn't automatically make a song notable and has to be combined with sufficient coverage in other sources, which this song does not have, so that should be discarded. Hell, there's not even any "best songs of 2023" rankings or "Best Metallica song" rankings out there that cover Inamorata, and I'm usually an advocate for rankings being able to provide significant-coverage depending on how much meat the ranking has in regards to covering the song. But again, Inamorata has nothing on that front.

TL;DR: As a result of the lack of critical commentary and coverage beyond album reviews and run-of-the-mill coverage, Inamorata fails NSONG, and anything that can be said about the song can be easily summarized in the article for 72 Seasons, which this should be redirected to. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadjadji Anwar

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

Doesn't meet any of the eight criteria at WP:PROF and fails WP:GNG. Sources provided include a passing mention, and 1 dead link cited twice (unable to find archived link). I'm unsure about the DW source. Flat Out (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Flat Out (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Rest of Your Life (album)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. There is not significant enough coverage of this album to warrant an article. When searching through Google News, I could only find the two Stereogum sources used in the article (one covering the album and one listing one of its songs as one of the best of the year.) Other than that, there is a mention in The Fader, but it is trivial. The rest of the sources in the article are ultimately questionable and should not warrant this album notability. A student radio is used as a major source, but those are a bit iffy in and of themselves. Locust member (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:RS, whole article is mainly made up on : one source which itself is a self publish blog source. Other sources cited aren't reliable as well. This article was nominated for deletion at first on which the result was delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naf War, therefore this is a recreated article for a article itself which was deleted before, which passes WP:G4. Also the article is a pure hoax where Pretty much all the sources fails neutrality. No sources like "BBC news, The Tribune or The Frontline" covered this like 2001 Bangladesh–India border clashes. Additionally to mention, even the top Bangladesh news media did not cover it (prothom alo, dhaka tribune, financial express). Such a hoax article does not need to exist. Imwin567 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Imwin567 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's School, Jhajha

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

Sources are primary. Fails criteria for Schools. Not Notable . Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Bihar. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seemingly fails to meet the WP:NCORP, with a WP:BEFORE showing a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Education, Technology, Computing, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Day (Law & Order)

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

Not notable. Google books/news/scholar gives zero sources to show this article has any notability. The article also has templates from almost ten years ago (!) about the article not having sources. Article is mainly description of the episode plot and has no reception tab. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Ratones

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Caedrel per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Los Ratones does have coverage in reliable sources focused on esports, such as Esports Illustrated (a subsidiary of Sports Illustrated), The Esports Insider, Esports News UK, and Esports.gg, but the coverage does not establish a claim to notability.

An organisation being popular because of its owner (Caedrel) and players' fanbase does not speak to the notability of the organisation, but to the owner and players. Being the first professional / semi-professional team to be allowed to live stream practice games ('scrims') is not an incredibly notable element even within just the purview of League of Legends esports.

The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters). General popularity driven by its owner and players does not equate to standalone notability, but probably does warrant a mention in the owner's (primarily) and players' articles. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. I completely agree with the proposal. Labratscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sports teams, and especially esports teams are not covered under WP:NSPORT.

The sheer amount of coverage and fanfare from esports journals is unprecedented for a team this new(with no prior continuity) and playing at this level. Even in the linked articles, specifically the one from esports.gg, there are claims of notability here:

"Los Ratones revitalized a small league"

"It's not an understatement that Caedrel and his team saved the NLC as a whole,"

"it's undeniable that Los Ratones brought some changes to the esports industry's business model"

Just two days ago Dimitri Pascaluta of TheScore Esports stated

"Los Ratones are basically single-handedly revitalizing western League"

And he's made similar statements in the past published by TheScore Esports such as

"Los Ratones are changing competitive League"

"For us western fans, (Los Ratones) is the best thing to happen to League of legends since 2019"

I can find other examples if wanted about prominent LoL journalists or prominent figures in the LoL pro scene espousing LR's significance if wanted. If the issue is poor sourcing, that is not grounds for deletion. The esports.gg article you linked passes the criteria in WP:SIRS and I can easily find others such as this one from SI. Otherwise, I fail to see how LR doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ORG.

I agree that neither winning a minor tournament, popularizing scrim streaming, having several high profile members within the scene, having a large fanbase, nor simply recieving coverage from reputable journals on their own constitute notability for Los Ratones, but surely the sum of the team's contributions to professional LoL do. LR get vastly more media coverage than most teams, media coverage that mentions the significance of specifically the team, and while if the popularity of the team were simply a result of Caedrel, then the proposal to move the LR page to a section on the Caedrel page would have merit, but that's an inaccurate assertion. TheBausFFS is the second biggest English language LoL streamer(behind Caedrel), Rekkles is one of the most popular European pros even just half a year ago having been on stage lifting the worlds 2024 trophy with the rest of T1, and Nemesis also has had a very prominent following for years. Should each of them, who have all espoused LR as being so personally significant to them, and each have brought their own audience to LR have a "Los Ratones" section in their pages?

The sheer amount of references to LR in otherwise unrelated LoL broadcasts and online discussions should reinforce the need that a Wikipedia article exist for it. It's already clear from the past 5 months that LR's influence isn't just tied to any specific event or person, and while it's exceptional for organizations of this kind to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article within such little time, in this case, I argue the criteria is met. Bausen Slaw (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of Los Ratones' claim to notability. Popularity != notability. A lot of personalities are well-known and covered in their respective niches, but they don't have a claim to fame aside from being popular. Opinions and praise, even from relevant people in the scene, are irrelevant to this discussion.

My point was that Los Ratones does have coverage in the esports scene, but it's within the background of the articles' larger discussions of the owner (Caedrel) or players, or in one article's case, Doublelift. Los Ratones, the organisation / team itself, has not achieved or done anything notable; the actions you highlighted were decisions made by Caedrel. Accordingly, the sources we gave aren't focused on what the organisation did but what Caedrel did with his organisation; i.e. Los Ratones is covered because Caedrel is covered.

Therefore, the notability is inherited from Caedrel and the topic is better suited in Caedrel's article if retained in some capacity. As a standalone topic, the team has one title in a tier-three tournament, possibly a title in a tier-two tournament in the near future, and its biggest achievement outside of competition is starting the trend of having its practice games live streamed. I argue that's not enough for standalone notability. Yue🌙 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though LR have just won the EMEA Masters on their first-ever attempt, I would ask you to seriously reconsider your conclusion that LR are not "notable" as per the guidelines. Caedrel started LR with very little, if any, coaching experience and his team has won every single tournament they have competed in. That in itself is notable. The team's notability is not just inherited from Caedrel, but rather the popularity and attention the team has collectively attracted. They are a mixture of ex-retired competitive players, high-ranking European players, and content creators, and they are all over the esports news scene, especially recently. LR's existence and popularity are the reason their EMEA finals match has garnered the most views in the competition's history.

I would not propose the deletion of an entire article that enables people to cherish, appreciate and recognise LR's accomplishments just because better sources can be cited. Those sources undoubtedly exist, and are a testament to LR deserving their own page. In my view, you have not proven that LR's notability has fallen below the threshold as per the guidelines. Iyanakin (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every topic has value for someone. My arguments are based on policy, not my personal feelings. As I argued above, it does not matter that a team has fans; all professional and semi-professional teams have fans, especially if their players are well known. Los Ratones winning a tier-two tournament does not change my argument, which you and others can challenge and argue against by citing policy. Instead of alluding to sources that "undoubtedly exist" (presumably you mean in-depth coverage as well), just cite them. Also, a less-than-day-old account concluding that I have not proven a policy-based argument after citing their feelings as the basis for notability rather than the notability guidelines is something. Yue🌙 18:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it doesn't matter how old my or your account is - that's a fallacious "appeal to authority" as you're trying to legitimise your argument based on how long you've been an editor on this site. I work full-time and viewed that your hopes of removing LR from Wikipedia were serious enough to warrant making an account and defending LR's online presence. I couldn't care less about how long you've had your account, but I would question your authority on the topic of esports given the majority of your more obvious background relates to editing articles about country flags. What I care more about is your brazen disregard for anything "notable" that LR have done. It seems to me that you don't understand what "notable" actually means.

I don't disagree with your policy argument at all. I never spoke about "fans" or my emotions in my reply, so you're unfortunately attacking a straw man. There are also other arguments to be made apart from policy arguments, and while they can be convincing, there is no automatic superiority of policy arguments if we were to make a hierarchy of argument types. It is very reasonable to argue that popularity does not necessarily make something notable, but there is often a strong correlation between the two, as in LR's case. I never said LR should not disappear from Wikipedia merely because they are popular. But I will still bother to list below several weaknesses in your argument, and why, starting with the most obvious.

"The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters)." If that isn't notable, what is? Winning the LEC? Winning Worlds?

You don't actually explain why those things are not notable. You diminish LR's achievements by speaking of tournaments in terms of tiers. LR won the NNO Cup, NLC and the EMEA Masters on their first attempt, which is every competition they tried competing in since the team's inception in November 2024. Hilariously, they even beat T1 in a showmatch. Dom Sacco, an award-winning esports journalist, writes how LR "make history with the EMEA Masters Winter 2025 win, become first UK-registered esports organisation to claim an EM title": https://esports-news.co.uk/2025/03/23/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025/. This is not the first time Esports News UK has written about LR: https://esports-news.co.uk/2024/12/09/nno-cup-season-2-recap-los-ratones/. Sports Illustrated have done so: https://www.si.com/esports/news/los-ratones-dominate-emea-masters-recap-league-of-legends, and so have Esports Insider: https://esportsinsider.com/2025/03/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025-viewership, PCGamesN: https://www.pcgamesn.com/league-of-legends/los-ratones-esports, The Pinnacle Gazette: https://evrimagaci.org/tpg/los-ratones-the-rise-of-league-of-legends-newcomers-99443, BetUS: https://www.betus.com.pa/esports/news/los-ratones-are-the-nno-cup-season-2-winners-12-10-2024/, and Esports.net: https://www.esports.net/news/lol/los-ratones-win-emea-masters-winter/. You get the idea. These are all independent media outlets as far as LR are concerned, and you have not explained why LR's achievements, in light of this coverage and the wealth of information it includes, are not notable.

How about some other reasons LR are notable? I'll just list them here as there's too much to say.

Their players come from a diverse range of backgrounds, have many achievements, and from an external perspective, have not received anywhere near as much financial and training support as some of the other teams they have competed against, such as KCB. They are a very small team outside the starting five players, and are able to sustain themselves thanks to content creation. This makes LR seem like a very strange yet unique combination of different parts. Caedrel has been a content creator for ages and has himself admitted that he does not have much, if any coaching experience outside LR. Baus never competed seriously in a professional capacity and is known for his extremely unconventional playstyle, proving that he can still succeed in pro play with such a style, as seen recently during the EMEA Masters. Velja is similar but has ranked very highly in European ranked play. This is to be contrasted with Crownie and Nemesis, who have re-entered the competitive scene, moving on from previously very successful careers, including where they both won the EMEA Masters together 7 years ago. Rekkles was most recently a sub when T1 won Worlds, and has competed in Worlds before to come 2nd with Fnatic. What may have started out as a passion project between these players has become much more serious and high-stakes. They are very fan-oriented, which many other competitive players and their team staff members have commented on, in the way they bond with their communities and show their esports development journey. They stream their scrims, which is highly unusual given they are essentially exposing their tactics for anyone to make use of however they wish, including their competitors, and have inspired other pro play teams to do so too.

In winning the EMEA Masters, LR have become the first UK-registered team to do so ever. In competing with LR, Rekkles has become the first-ever player to win the EMEA Masters in ADC and support, two different roles. This would not have been possible with LR. I highly doubt any of these players would appreciate their achievements with LR being reduced to something they are solely and only responsible for, or something mainly attributable to Caedrel's popularity before founding LR. In many instances, they have said how their achievements would not have been possible without LR, such as Velja, who was the MVP for the EMEA Masters final. LR, as a newly emerging team, have made a significant portion of LOL players/watchers actually enjoy watching pro play given the way they have been able to captivate and entertain their community, which no other team similar to their size and history has been able to do recently. If you want to continue insisting that all of this, when taken together, is not notable enough for its own page on Wikipedia, be my guest. Iyanakin (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bit of Love (Kesha song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the critical reception section and references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception section is all album reviews, which NSONG specifies don't establish notability. There's not one source that is about this song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion so far contains assertions about sourcing and notability, but actual analysis of sourcing beyond the nominator would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator, but I hope this is helpful: Four of the six citations are album reviews for High Road, which NSONG specifies can't be used to establish a song's notability. One is the single on Spotify, which is the source cited for its release date. One is a now-deleted article on Idolator that was presumably like "hey, a new performance on Ellen is viewable on YouTube". There's a similar article, unused here, from Billboard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7777

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

Notability tag has been on the article since 2021. No other sources added to establish notability. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: it's the eponym of a small galaxy group, but there hasn't been much content published. I suggest a redirect to List of NGC objects (7001–7840) where it already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]