Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 16	April 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Darnelda Siegers

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and there are not sources to establish WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imed Ketata

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

I can't find anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV. In fact, I haven't even been able to find any database entries at our usual sources like worldfootball.net, Soccerway, Global Sports Archive etc. The player's profile on Transfermarkt [1] suggests they made a single appearance in Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1 in 2002. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hargrave Malamud

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

No significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Women. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPL Co., Ltd

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

Obscure game company who released numerous notable games and went defunct long ago, whose only notable event in the 21st century is selling their intellectual property to Hamster Corporation. Little to no significant reliable sources about the company individually exist on and off the Internet, with the article sustaining on a single Twitter source for as long as one can remember. A Google search of UPL associates the name with an Indian company of the same name. Easily fails WP:NCORP. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Milton

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

Another Supernatural character article on thin ice. I don't feel the sources here prove this character's notability. Mostly primary sourced or sourced to articles that don't primarily cover the subject. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley (Supernatural)

AfDs for this article:

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

Why are there so many articles for Supernatural characters? Sourcing seems almost entirely primary here and doesn't really indicate notability. I say merge to List of Supernatural and The Winchesters Characters, but that page is so bloated and needs trimming as well (much of the information seems lifted from the Supernatural fandom). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

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

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
- [2]: 3 pages of coverage.
- [3]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
- [4]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Recon rabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage exists and isn't a hoax. The article is fine. This seems to be part some sort of revenge spree. RachelTensions (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per An editor from Mars. None of the sources provided by article creator Heraklios establish the authenticity of this conflict, let alone significant coverage. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable when viewed through a neutral point of view. The only issue seems to be the title of the article, which could be changed later. Please refrain from filing articles for deletion simply to escalate disputes between editors or groups of editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing called the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War" and the sourcing is also poor. desmay (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This source starts with- The long standing rivalry between the two Jassa Singhs...Zahura on the Beas became a scene of battle between Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and jassa Singh Ramgarhia in 1775. and this flow follows in the other 2 pages. Somehow it tells us that a conflict existed between the two parties.Shakakarta (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) [reply]
That is called WP:SYNTH. Your own research cannot be used. We need reliable sources and they certainly don't exist for this subject. Capitals00 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable as already described above. Even if it is not a hoax as "keep" voters suggest, then still the issues raised about the article remain unresolved because the sources do not support the named conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from editors familiar with milhist but who do not normally edit in this topic area would be hugely welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinswitch

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

The company does not meet the notability criteria per WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sources mentioned are trivial mentions and promotional in nature, failing to provide the depth needed to establish notability. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. I have found no in-depth coverage of coinswitch in reliable sources. Largely seems to be another generic crypto exchange this time focused on the market in India.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying 'no in-depth coverage in reliable sources' is incorrect, what is true is that this is crowded by routine coverage, press releases and sources under WP:ILLCON. Money ≠ notability, though this is India's largest crypto exchange. Along with Coinswitch mainly being known for its products which have received sustained coverage meeting WP:NPRODUCT, there is much coverage to support NCORP criteria. Forbes article, The Economic Times, Mint, are some examples. Hmr (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The three articles in the comment above are ok, Forbes is a staff report, second one is about the company, Mint is an interview with the CEO but has some other info. These look okl Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the [Reuters] article is pretty good arms-length reporting on results annouced by the company (e.g., talking about competitors, saying they can't confirm some claims). Agree with Oaktree b that Forbes is good and independent, and Economic Times has its heart in the right place. Mint is borderline puff piece, not just a press release but not very independent either, but the first three are sufficient to meet WP:NORG Oblivy (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berun Omar Fatah

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Iraq. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avolution

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

Created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced for 17 years. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seem to be a few companies using this name [5], [6]... I don't think it's the avocado company, I'm not really sure what the company in this article does. I don't see sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McCormick (Northern Ireland politician)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search does not yield useful resources either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaiya Shaikh

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

Does not fulfil minimum notability requirements. Somajyoti ✉ 09:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Somajyoti ✉ 09:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mudit Shrivastava

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

The article has been deleted multiple times under the title Mudit Srivastava. A previous PROD was contested by the creator, who then added a few references. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Doctor Who is an iconic series, and nearly every iconic series has been parodied at some point; there is no coverage indicating that parodies of Doctor Who specifically are notable. The overall topic has no coverage: All GNews hits are from unreliable sources or trivial mentions, while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular. There's absolutely nothing indicating the notability of this subject, and none of the spoofs individually appear to be notable either given the lack of strong sourcing for all of them. This subject completely fails notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular: Dancing with the Doctor has a multi-page chapter dealing with the subject, "Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy". A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories reviews one parody in-depth, The Reign of Turner, but also discusses Doctor Who spoofs more generally on p. 171 (and presumably 170). It does have an ISBN, does not look self-published to me at first glance. Is Houston Press unreliable? Daranios (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A list of parody moments is in general a much more dubious proposition than a list of parody works—the latter being particularly suitable for a WP:CSC #1 (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.) kind of list, assuming there should be a list in the first place. If we are going to have such a list, I would be in favour of keeping information about each parody to a minimum on the list page, relying instead on the link to the article about the parody work for the details of the parody.
I took a quick look at the sources linked above by Daranios (or more accurately, the parts Google Books decided to show me). I would note that The Reign of Turner (IMDb link) does not currently have a stand-alone Wikipedia article and based on a quick search for sources likely does not merit one. The other linked source is a bit difficult to assess as Google Books rather severely limits what I'm able to see, but it mentions (at least) Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch, and "From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love". The first and last of those are explicitly described as specials (a Doctor Who special and a The Sarah Jane Adventures special, respectively), which seems a bit dubious to describe as "parodies" without further qualifiers or elaboration (one might term them "self-parodies", perhaps).
I would also note that there is a Doctor Who in popular culture article (which is, it should be said, not in great shape at the moment). It is not immediately obvious to me that we should have separate articles for parodies and other types of cultural references. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a stab at reducing this to a list of parody works with stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think. At any rate, we should not be listing parody works, parody moments, parody characters, and parody in-universe media together—that's just sloppy article construction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not sure I agree with the recent extreme "cleanup" of the page (including removal of all the sources!!!] but that might be a different issue (I can't see why different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be inappropriate; quite the opposite). Anyway clearly meets WP:NLIST. Sources presented above could seem sufficient. The topic is also addressed in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age (p. 102-104, for example) Also see sources like https://templeofgeek.com/list-of-doctor-who-parodies-and-doctor-who-inspired-music/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/24/no-doctor-who-sketch-in-comic-relief-this-year-you-can-watch-one-of-these-instead-6508088/ One can also add a Game Rant list (that CAN be used to expand the article, that's what WP:VALNET clearly states). Among missing titles in the list is Doctor Whore (https://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Porn-Parody-Series-Exists-Compare-Casts-66875.html ; https://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18633654.html?%20Series)) so that (re)-expansion seems AT LEAST possible -Mushy Yank. 09:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be a third approach, different both from what the article was like when it was nominated (which listed different types/levels of parody alongside each other, not grouped as such) and how it is structured now. Whether it is a good idea depends on whether that's how the sources treat the subject—parody works and parody characters (and so on) are different concepts, so if sources only discuss one of them if would be inappropriate to cover them together here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notability, and everything else can be solved through normal editing. With regard to The Reign of Turner, if it is discussed in secondary source(s) but not enough to be notable, it is suitable to be included in a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M and such. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this in a larger context, like Doctor Who in popular culture, on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that's again a discussion that can be done outside of the deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there are arguments to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel so far, there has been very little sourcing discussing parodies as a whole, which is required by WP:LISTN to establish independent subject notability. So far the bulk, if not all of the sources, have been merely listings of ones that exist, or coverage of particular ones; nothing has thus far lent itself to showing the entire overarching subject is notable. I'm still not convinced that this meets notability right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pokelego999: What would you say to the argument that a purely navigational list—i.e. one that only contains links to parody works, not descriptions of them or coverage of the overarching topic as a whole—need not meet WP:Notability per WP:Stand-alone lists (specifically, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.)? TompaDompa (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @TompaDompa in the article's current state it's so small that I don't see if having any navigational value, especially as a standalone article. At best it should be a section of Doctor Who in popular culture and nothing more. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright, that seems like reasonable position to take vis-à-vis this list fulfilling WP:LISTPURP-NAV. I am also personally skeptical that anybody looking for e.g. the article The Curse of Fatal Death would do it through this page. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please list some more discussion of the sources, or you will be exterminated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxigen Services

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

The article should be deleted due to its promotional tone, lack of reliable citations, questionable notability. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathkind Labs

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

The article should be deleted due to concerns regarding its overall notability, lack of extensive coverage in independent sources, and the potential for promotional language Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle & Trick

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

No sources, lack of categories, page looks untidy Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m still working on this. Apologies if I published this too early, I’m still learning. Please can it be kept, I’ll have references and tidy it within the next few hours. Is there a way to unpublish it but not delete it? Kwinky (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a tip: create a draft page for the article(s) you’re working on. That way you can edit without the risk of deletion. You’ll be able to get sources, constantly check them to make sure they’re reliable sources (hint: sources leading to sites like Fandom aren’t reliable). Once you feel the page is ready you can submit it and wait for an admin to look over it. If the admin thinks that the page is good, it’ll be published. If the admin thinks it’s not good, the submission will be rejected. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your help. I did edit some articles years ago and thought I would remember but I'm a bit rusty.

I've corrected the issues that you mentioned above in the published version and will continue to add more content in a draft version. While it is still a bit brief, is this enough to stop the current published version from being deleted?

(Please note that I have included a citation which links to Paul Kelly's official Instagram where he states who his daughters are as I have not been able to locate this information elsewhere. I understand while this is not ideal it can be acceptable in some circumstances.) Kwinky (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per criteria 3 based on the absence of a valid deletion rationale. Having no sources, lacking categories and looking untidy are not valid reasons for deletion, especially since none of these are true of the article anymore. I don't see any reason why this needed to be nominated for deletion just 15 minutes after it was created when it was clearly still being worked on.

In terms of notability, I don't often participate in music-related AfDs and don't have a strong view about notability in this case. But a nomination for an ARIA, which is generally considered to be Australia's most prominent music award, seems to me like a reasonable claim for notability under WP:NMUSICIAN criteria 8. MCE89 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recover (EP)

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

Contested WP:BLAR. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources for this EP: [7][8] contain nothing more than passing mentions. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. I propose reinstating the redirect. Frost 07:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lebedeva

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Armenia, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia at the 2002 Winter Olympics: Both this and the corresponding Russian article are devoid of any type of secondary coverage. As such, the subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was actually quite famous. But my brief search didn't come with anything. (Understandably, cause 20 years have passed.)
I wouldn't delete articles like this. Cause you would need to find Russian and Armenian print papers from 97–02, they haven't been scanned for Google Books.
I've looked her up, she currently coaches very small kids in Moscow. Her students are so small, none of them are in the news, sadly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bordrline notable Olympic sportsman. Independent coverage does exist, but difficult to find. --Altenmann >talk 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable how? Finishing in 27th place out of 27 skaters? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why she dropped competitive sport, sad. Still borderline WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 17:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "significant coverage" in the room with us now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, Altenmann found her entry on Sport-strana.ru, a Russian online sports encyclopedia. There's a detailed article.
The Sport Strana encyclopedia may not seem well-designed (it is stuck somewhere in the 2000s), but it is being used in 590 Russian Wikipedia articles ([9]). So it is definitely a serious, reliable website. And their article about Lebedeva is actually well-written and looks good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She represented Armenia at the Olympics and the Europeans, basically being an "acting" Armenian champion. (I have no idea if actual Armenian national championships were held at that time. So I can't prove she was actually a champion and thus passes WP:NSKATE.)
And she wasn't someone unknown even in Russia. She placed 6th at the Russian championships in the 1997/98 season and thus most probably qualified for the Russian national squad. Cause she represented Russia at the Golden Spin and Skate Israel early in the next season. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All that said, I think she passes WP:NSKATE as a de facto Armenian champion. (At least de facto.)
@Altenmann:. I was afraid to vote because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE. Where the emphasis of the discussion I started was shifted to attacking me. Since then, I've been avoiding AfD and decided to come here only because I know Lebedeva was famous enough. As were many other Russian skaters whose article were deleted during the past year. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar mop-up was earlier for footballers and ... pornstars. There was even a joke inforgaphics where, like, 55% of Wikipedia articles were pornstars, 25% pokemon :-). It is sad that now it seems to be 80% of Wikipedia edits is from wikignomes (that's what I see in my watchlist) rather than content creators. But there is a reasonable position that if a person is indeed notable to general public, not just to wikipedia lawyers, the bio will be recteated anyway ... or not. My personal approach is if I see some name mentioned an several wp articles, I write up a brief bio, such as Shulamit Volkov or Niyameddin Musayev or Bronislava Kerbelytė, to name a few of my articles no one cares about. --Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course Bgsu98 comes down as a 25-pound hammer on all these articles, but in his defense I may say that a HUGE number of nanostubs were created by dumping various databases into wp, without real loving care of the subjects. I remember this happened to locations in Antarctica (it took lots of work to merge/redirect them into larger features) ; we are still struggling with GNIS dumps of locations which do not exist anywhere but in GNIS; I remember one guy ctearted several dozens 200-character articles on railway stations in several minutes, I guess in a rat race to be the one to create the 1,000,000th Wikipedia article. And so on. So I see nothing wrong in backfiring with massive AfD nominations. --Altenmann >talk 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But these figure skater articles were not like that. Many were well-developed. There were several prominent editors who created such articles a few years ago. Maybe if these people were still active they would defend their creations.
This is a lesson why you need to write articles for contemporary skaters now and not wait 20 years. Cause in 20 years most of the online sources won't exist anymore, and it will be impossible to prove the people were famous once. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added sources to this article. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so sources in languages other than English must include 1) the title translated into English, and b) the language of the source. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Must include". — That's not a requirement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 what guideline is this based on? I don't see anything like that in WP:NONENG. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even when those articles were improved (I improved some of the mass AfD summitted skating bio articles after submission and they were properly cited before the nomination) they still draw attention of the nominator for deletion due to the narrow view of what is considered "notable". That said I'm not sure how these deletions makes a better Wikipedia. The nominator's assertion "No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing." is inaccurate as sources have been added to the article that are appropriate and as a national champion she passes WP:NSKATE. Nayyn (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia at the 2002 Winter Olympics. Not much coverage to keep as stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems she passes WP:NSKATE as a champion. Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Champion of what?!? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhelpfully neutral on what to do with this article. On the one hand, we have a fairly credible NEXIST claim and sources have been added to the article since its nomination. On the other hand, I am not sure we met the requirement that All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject in WP:SPORTCRIT. Moscow Connection, can you please tell me what one source provides significant coverage of Lebedeva? I checked the a few at random and did not find any, aside from source 1 which I am not sure is reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 21:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one provides significant coverage.
  But I have just done another search, and I have found one short paragraph here:
  • "Фигурное катание: редкие архивные снимки российских фигуристов с соревнований 1996 года" — Sport Express, 1 March 2021
  Not much, but see for yourself what company she's got there. The article is dedicated to the top Russian skaters of the 1990s. I'm telling you, she is famous.
  I think, this one qualifies as a significant coverage. Considering that 25 years have passed and she is still remembered.
  I've also have just found this:
  • "Побег от конкуренции. Как сложились карьеры фигуристок, сменивших российский флаг?" – Maxim Yagudin blog.
  It's a popular and reliable blog dedicated to figure skating. There's a big paragraph about her. See the "1999" section, it's dedicated to her. And again, look what company she's got.
  I think the article should definitely be kept. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "I'm telling you, she is famous." Yes, the "Trust me, bro" argument.
  
  Blogs are not acceptable sources. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the source. It is not crowd-sourced. It has an editorial oversight. --Altenmann >talk 22:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An outside note. I wanted to check Lebedeva's Russian Championship record. And I've noticed that many Russian Championships articles have been redirected. I wonder why people do things like this, for example: [10]. It's absolutely crazy to think that the 2007 Russian Championships didn't have any news coverage. Like, really, if you don't know anything about Russia and figure skating, don't touch such articles. Write about something you know. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- An inside noteback. IMO it is good thing that wikipedia does not have such articles. If someone wants to know results, then they better to go to official place rather than to wikipedia where nobody freaking cares and the table was vandalized 10 times with random names in it and a picture of penis on top (if you think I am joking, this actually happened a couple days ago somewhere else, fortunately someone noticed... er... next day). --Altenmann >talk 00:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "redirect" but was challenged, so I am relisting for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:SIGCOV level coverage in secondary sources: the refs alluded to by Jclemens, but I also think the Oerth Journal sources can merit mentioning, with the caveat of appropriate weighting and attention to NPOV as per WP:UNDUE. If there are issues with that now, then we can and should fix it as per WP:FAILN as an alternative to deletion. I also prefer keeping the article as opposed to a merge on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS grounds and as per WP:NOPAGE: it is impractical to collect the information into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passed the last AfD and has since only become more popular (inclusion in Critical Role) and has had more refs added. If anything, it is better positioned and sourced now than then. Web Warlock (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty sources out there that go into detail on its role in Critical Role. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passed the last AfD is not a policy based rationale. "I'm sure there are plenty sources" isn't, either. What sources exist? Who is writing about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find them and show how they meet SIGCOV. Otherwise its WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no significant coverage that has been illustrated either in or outside of the article; plot summary does not contribute to notability of a subject, nor demonstrate impact. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfboy - The sources outside of trivial mentions and plot summaries are either primary or officially licensed products. Rorshacma (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 05:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stephen (dog trainer)

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

A promo piece for a dog trainer based on a lifestyle blog, lots of in-house material, the odd passing mention, and nothing else. The man himself has not been the subject of any substantial coverage, and what tidbits there are have been spread out into what looks like a massive LinkedIn profile. Fails WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Star (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/04/high-time-dog-owners-are-sensitised-to-the-importance-of-obedience-training)

The other are physical from The Star (English Newspaper in Malaysia), China Press (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Sin Chew (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Harian Watan (Malay Newspaper in Malaysia) --need idea to include physical/print version newspaper

Spanizh fly (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of the article for your reference, print version for in the reference section Spanizh fly (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources are from print version newspaper (physical), please advice on how can I include. Spanizh fly (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems PROMO. This was all I could find for sourcing [11] and it's mostly this individual talking about the business. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the business part and retain the individual part for the sake of experience in the field of Dog Training Spanizh fly (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of the article for your reference, print version for in the reference section Spanizh fly (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per otb ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are in physical newspaper, how shall include the physical newspaper please advice, Thank you Spanizh fly (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good to know! What are the newspapers? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/04/high-time-dog-owners-are-sensitised-to-the-importance-of-obedience-training)

The other are physical from The Star (English Newspaper in Malaysia), China Press (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Sin Chew (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Harian Watan (Malay Newspaper in Malaysia) --need idea to include physical/print version newspaper Spanizh fly (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of the article for your reference, print version for in the reference section Spanizh fly (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because an apparently significant number of sources have not been discussed at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 05:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanizh fly: can you please cite the offline (paper) newspaper articles using TM:Cite news? The Visual Editor makes this easy, simply add a citation by clicking on the quotation mark icon, click "Manual", then "News", then fill in the fields you have (author, date, title, name of newspaper). If you have trouble with that, please list the information here. Toadspike [Talk] 05:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike I have articles in pdf but when I upload in wikimedia, they say it's copyright protected. This articles are more than a decade old but I don't know how to prove it. Hope you can help Spanizh fly (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you don't need to upload them, just tell us the title, author, date, and newspaper. If you want, you can also provide excerpts of the parts where they talk about Anthony Stephen by typing or copy/pasting the text into a comment here. Toadspike [Talk] 06:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme modulator

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

article low in context, does not offer much Iban14mxl (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may be bad, but that's not a reason to delete it. The topic passes WP:GNG with many sources specific to the topic showing up with a Google Scholar search. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT, or redirect to an article worth reading. I have an open mind on whether we need an article on the topic at the moment, because my Google search produced mostly copies of this article[[12]], material about enzymes that failed to mention enzyme modulators[[13]], or mentioned them as a fuzzy after-thought, and very few genuinely useful articles (such as this [[14]]). There are also articles that talk about modulators of enzymes as possible pharmaceuticals, but it's not clear to me whether they support the idea of "enzyme modulators" as a specific term, or whether this is just natural language (see [[15]] where many of these are titles referring to enzyme modulators but they're just trying to say that a class of pharmaceutical modulates the activity of a particular target enzyme; it's like jam-jar labels, they label jam jars, we talk about jam jar labels but there's nothing special about them beyond being labels that happen to have been stuck on a jam jar. But the fact remains that this article is three sentences. The first is a dictionary definition. The second is only partially correct. The third is a quote taken out of context and entirely incomprehensible (and irrelevant). There's nothing here worth salvaging. Our readers would be much better served by something like being redirected to Allosteric modulator or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is just a broad label encompassing enzyme activator, enzyme inhibitor, and allosteric regulator. A large number of Google Scholar hits for such a general term isn't surprising; you'd probably get a lot of hits for "high-speed synthesis"; that doesn't mean the dozens of uses of that term would be a single cohesive topic. I could accept a redirect to enzyme regulation if people feel strongly against deletion, but I don't think there's anything here to save. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games

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

Frankly unnecessary article with all enhancements being sufficiently discussed in the games' respective articles. This is equivalent to "List of PlayStation 4 games ported to the PlayStation 5" with no encyclopedic value of note, while being increasingly cumbersome to manage as more games get their "Nintendo Switch 2 Editions", essentially a designation of ports to the new system. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination is contains multiple fundamental incorrect statements. These are not ports. Switch 2 is backwards compatible with Switch 1, so there's no need for "ports". What the list documents are game with enhancements or new content. Still evaluating if there encyclopedic value here (I think there is) but half this nomination is factually incorrectand invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly found the list itself having insufficient encyclopedic value. I believe the explanation about the Edition games in the heading of the list article fitting better in a subsection in Nintendo Switch 2#Library alongside notable examples with notable enhancements, like the Zelda duology, instead of documenting all major and minor games whose criteria is just being a Nintendo Switch 2 Edition game. At the same time most of the enhancements' documentation on third-party games in the article are empty at the moment, and they are expected to contain not more than "Added mouse controls, runs at higher resolution and frame rate" instead of Nintendo's dedicated feature. There just isn't a lot of useful information to be documented to warrant a whole list on this topic. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I just wanted to make it clear that there multiple factual inaccuracies in your nomination - they are not just "ports", nor are they just like documenting "PS4 on PS5 games". We can have differing interpretations on notability, but like half your nomination is objectively incorrect. I did not want other participants to latch on to your blatant misinformation. You should want to WP:STRIKE the misinformation and WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Shooting Range, Kollam

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

No sign of notability, with virtually all coverage being WP:ROUTINE Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Banda

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources [16] and [17] are not indepth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. An unremarkable career, never made it to Olympics and 37th in world championships. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. As always, a redirect does not prevent any user from adding some content from the sunject's article into the target, ideally with discussion on the target's talk page. Frank Anchor 13:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMP (streamer collective)

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

most of the notable stuff are about a member of the group, not the group itself. the only significant coverage about the group are from the tubefilter article, the rest are mainly about kai cenat. Http iosue (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Anything potentially notable sources about the group seem to be focus on Kai Cenat. Delete per GNG and lack of group notability notability (WP:NOTINHERITED)Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you go through the sources they have coverage of each of the amp members and if you search each of the amp members each one of them is notable. Momentoftrue (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneArena

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Technology, Computing, Websites, Bulgaria, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meditopia

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ali

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

Low-level government functionary whose news coverage does not go beyond run-of-the-mill. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Čomu

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

Does not seem notable. The article has four sources, none offering much info. The first states An increasing number of projectors were owned and operated by such individuals as Milan Golubovski from Skopje and Konstantin Comu from Bitola. (archive link, it's not in the article), with the third stating basically the same ([18]). The second states The brothers Tasho and Kosta Chomu showed film as early as 1909. The fourth states Como brothers give the first performances in Manastir. and includes the photo used in this article.

This person only has an article in one other Wikipedia, Bulgarian Wikipedia, which is home to dozens if not hundreds of biographies of individuals from the region that are not notable (I can elaborate more on this stance if necessary). It only includes one extra reference [19], where he's simply listed at page 14 as "Ciomu Constantin" in a list of graduates of the Romanian High School of Bitola, having later become a merchant according to the source. But it might not even be this person as in this 1906 source "Ciomu Constantin" is marked as a dead person [20] (p. 195). It might be this latter Ciomu that was a student in 1888-1889 according to this source [21] (p. 60). There also was a Constantin Ciomu as a member of the Aromanian community in Constanța [22]. Also there's apparently a scholar called Konstantin Chomu at the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje [23].

Looking in languages that use the Latin alphabet I've managed to find these other sources [24] [25] [26] [27]. What they say is Čomu, among others, helped the notable Manaki brothers open a cinema in Bitola, today North Macedonia's second largest city, that he and his brother Tashko ran from 1909 to 1915 a cinema there which hosted foreign movies and was attended by politicians and diplomats and that they opened another in 1919 that had already closed by 1921. I could find no sources in Google Scholar, Google Books or Scribd using Latin alphabet spellings.

Looking up Константин Чому, most results in Google aren't related to this cinematographer, in fact most are in Ukrainian. Коста Чому yields more results. According to this source [28] he opened Bitola's first cinema with Naum Gogu. In some sources the same is highlighted: he was a collaborator with the Manakis and opened cinemas in Bitola [29]. This is the single source with the most mentions of him I could find in any language, but it only adds that his collaboration with the Manakis ended in financial loss for him [30]. I managed to find some other sources like this one [31], which add nothing else.

This is everything I could find. What we know is he, maybe, attended a notable high school, was a partner of the Manaki brothers and opened several cinemas, including the first, in North Macedonia's second largest city. He did not collaborate with any other individual with an article in English Wikipedia (and most likely in the rest too). Sources don't seem to elaborate much on these initial cinemas in Bitola and they don't seem notable. The level of detail I've included here is about the same as the ones sources give. In fact I don't know where did the birth and death dates come from. So, he does not seem like a notable person per Wikipedia standards. Just a figure in initial Macedonian cinematography. Super Ψ Dro 01:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and North Macedonia. Super Ψ Dro 01:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be thankful if I could count in another AfD with the help of Jingiby and StephenMacky1. You don't have to read the text wall above, I'd just be thankful if you could tell if there's much material available on this person after a quick search in your native languages, which if anything would be the most likely ones to host sources for him. By the way, please tell me if I annoy you with pings of this type and feel free to ignore this altogether if you feel like it. Super Ψ Dro 01:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not use any of these sources to try to establish notability, except Igor Stardelov's monograph about the Manaki brothers, where there is a bit more detail. Since there is barely any in-depth coverage about him, he is not notable. Source 1 and source 2 also mention him, but without much detail. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]