Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

3 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 02	April 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sam Instone

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

Business person does business things. Previously PROD'd as non-notable, then restored. Now tagged for notability. Let the discussion begin. Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 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: [1] 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]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 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 [2]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [3]. 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 [4] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Macabuag

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

Was a contested Prod, and this is difficult to evaluate. I think this is borderline, but I think he doesn't quite rise to the level of meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Michon

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

While accomplished, I can't find any in-depth coverage of him, and while there is another person with this name who is widely referenced, this person is not, and I can't find anything to show that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Navarro

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

Non-notable WP:COOKIE sportsman who failed WP:NSPORT and WP:BEFORE. As for the sources listed in the article, the first source is basically a database and nothing else, and the second source does not work as either an original link nor on the Wayback Machine, but works on Archive Today. What I could gather from that second source is only a passing mention of Navarro and nothing else.

I had WP:PRODed the article, but then EchetusXe (talk · contribs), the article's creator, removed the tag because they thought it looked silly. However, I do not believe this is the right faith to de-PROD an article, as Navarro is a run-of-a-mill sports bio. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bautista Cambiaso Valdez

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this person from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Körös

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

Young Slovak footballer who only played 96 minutes of professional league. My secondary searches are limited to passing mentions, such as this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Alves (footballer, born 1982)

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

Non-notable WP:COOKIE sportsman who failed WP:NSPORT and WP:BEFORE. PROD failed because Geschichte (talk · contribs) thought Alves' career might indicate significant coverage, but I see it as subjective importance and doesn't actually adhere to WP:SIGCOV. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Soto Chalhoub

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

Created by a single purpose account. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. Could only find namesakes in google news and books searches. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of srinagar (Garhwal)

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

Lack of sources and notability. Some phrasing is suspiciously vague, e.g., "The occupation of Srinagar marked a major victory for Kumaon, showcasing its military strength". Cinder painter (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of srinagar (Garhwal)

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

Lack of sources and notability. Some phrasing is suspiciously vague, e.g., "The occupation of Srinagar marked a major victory for Kumaon, showcasing its military strength". Cinder painter (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project (San Francisco)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, suggesting it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xrimonciam Can you please outline what you did WP:BEFORE? And are you familiar with WP:DEL-CONTENT?

Also, how familiar are you with the political advocacy scene of the San Francisco Bay Area? I scrolled back through between 1,000 and 1,500 of your last edits and don't see any edits that are obviously about san francisco. While it's entirely possible I missed one or two because it was a quick skim, if that's the case, it would be only one or two edits related to san francisco - which is why I ask the question.

Thanks! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First three sources seem decent enough with significant coverage. I'd say that they were sufficient to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ionel Armean

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

Failing WP:SPORTCRIT, this footballer has only played in one first tier, the non-professional one of Estonia. The sole non-database source in the article is a match report from an U19 match which he refereed (!). Fails WP:GNG as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 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]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 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]

Redirect to High Road (Kesha album) per nom. मल्ल (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support redirecting to High Road (Kesha album) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[5] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[6] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [7], this is an opinion piece [8], [9], [10]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [11] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[12] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-dron

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

Fails to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [13], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [14], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [15]. [16] and [17] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [18] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lubański source might not be that elusive additional source for David Eppstein. It talks about things already written at https://msl.org.pl/k-dron-janusz-kapusta such as the co-authored paper with Stanisław Kwapień; and adds a couple of tidbits like a puzzle piece, a 3D map of the planet, and the use as the logo in a 2018 fair. It also quotes the inventor. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure about sourcing, but commenting that I would be very surprised if a design element popular enough to have a monument constructed of it was non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hershii LiqCour-Jeté

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

Non notable person other than being a contestant on a show Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person competed on a little known drag show for one season to be the "drag queen". Not notable at all. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DotesConks, I'm editing your reply to say "delete". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary I'm not sure why I said oppose there, but thank you for correcting my mistake DotesConks (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, @DotesConks, is RuPaul's Drag Race a "little known drag show"? I'm not a fan of the (reality show) genre, and have never watched - but I'm well aware of it's existence, that it's shown around the world, and that it spawned an entire franchise. Surely this is very well known (and loved) show. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Interesting, I have personally never heard of it until right now which is why I thought it was not notable. DotesConks (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has 24 Emmys - and dozens more nominations. It's a massive high-quality well-respected and well-received show for many years. But I guess if one doesn't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DotesConks, participants in AFD discussions shouldn't base their arguments on what they know but on their evaluation of sources in the article and ones they find when they do a search. Pleases do your due diligence if you want to fully participate in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found some sources covering this person. Yahoo Pride (not sure if that's reliable), Gay Times (not sure of this one either, seems like a lot of "Madonna Stuns in New Selfie" crap), and an interview with Billboard.

I'll also note that "not notable apart from being a contestant on a show" and "the show they competed on is little-known" (which is really not true, it's a famous show) are not policy-based arguments; deletion arguments should derive from the notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This coverage does not seem significant enough to me for this person to meet the GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary Thank you for the feedback! So just in the future, notability guidelines generally include coverage even if it's (for example) someone who starred in one show or movie? Let me know if I should ask this on your talk page too Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose entire career (and notability) comes from a TV show appearance can still be notable and meet GNG. It's just unlikely that they would. But take Dorinda Medley for example: she was not a public figure before being cast on the Real Housewives of New York, and now she is an independently notable person. In my opinion, coverage of a person that is about nothing but their time on a reality show (like how Survivor contestants often get a bunch of Entertainment Weekly articles about them and interviews after they're voted off) does not demonstrate notability, but I don't know what the community's consensus on that sort of thing is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 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!} 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator that coverage is about appearance on one show which to me fails WP:ENTERTAINER and falls under WP:BLP1E. Most references are about the appearance on the show and many are interviews. If the subject goes on to have additional roles and/or significant contributions as an entertainer I'd be open to revisiting. Nnev66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep This strikes me as a better candidate for deletion than some of the other AfD noms of drag artists recently, but I think the Yahoo Times article linked above by Zanahary (because it is a profile on their life and background, and not coverage about their season on Drag Race) together with the performer being in an OUTTv documentary as well as two cable-broadcasted television shows, RuPaul's Drag Race and Untucked!, is enough to clear the threshold set by WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, calling Ru Paul's Drag Race a "a little known drag show", as some editors have, is like calling American Idol a "local singing contest". That's simply inaccurate and should probably not be assigned a lot of weight in the consensus decision. Flip^and Flopped ツ 16:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails general notability. 190.219.103.81 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that notable besides being a contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deblocking of Dulje

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

Poorly sourced and dubious article written by a blocked editor with a history of copyvios, dubious/poorly sourced articles, and some form of SOCK/MEAT editing. Sources don't seem to describe this as a thing. While some military actions did appear to take place in this area during this time, I haven't been able to find reliable sources that talk about it in Serbian or English, let alone sources that allow this to pass WP:NEVENT. Analysis of current sources is below:

[19] - picture of the Martyrs' and Martyrs' Memorial in Duhël confirming two soldiers died in 1998. That's it.
[20] used to support a definitive death/casualty toll in the deblockade in the villiage, actually says Ethnic Albanian sources claimed that eight Albanian civilians have been killed and about 40 wounded in two days of fighting across the province. Makes no mention of the deblockadement or ties these deaths to it or the leadup to it.
[21] 2008 news article from Glas javnosti titled "Crimes of Albanian terrorists 1995-1998: Mortar and bomb attacks". Verifies the attack near Duhël on the 23rd, and parts of the other list of events, but makes no attempt to connect them to each other like out article does. Makes no mention of the deblockadement.
[22] confirms injuries of Milutinov, Milutinov, and Nenad near Duhël on the dates and times in question, presented as a list of injuries during the time and makes no attempt to connect them to any larger event apart from the war itself.
[23] and [24] are substantially superficially modified versions of each other with no clear authorship; suspect they were both copied from the same source. First is a blog/forum thing, second is hosted by Tripod (web hosting) which is UGC. Tripod version does not appear seems to fully verify the content: makes no mention of events on "27 August 1998", only discussed a 1999 action by the KLA. Also discussed events in the apring of 1998, but generally, making no reference to this village or blockade or deblockade. Mostly appears to be about tanks. Blog version actually does make reference to a blockadement/military actions in Duhël in July and August. Doesn't mention the KLA by name, doesn't treat the actions in Duhël that summer/fall as connected.
[25] Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission report from the time; makes no mention of the event and can't be used to prove NEVENT notability even if it did.

Haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this outside of a few mirrors of the Serbian Wikipedia's version of the article (of which this is a translation). If somebody more knowledgeable in this topic area finds a book discussing this in detail, please ping me, but considering the poor state/SYNTH concerns, lack of reliable sources in the article, the fact I can't find any other sources, the contentiousness of the topic area, and the previously documented issues with the writer/translator, AfD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article. I suggest taking this article to Wikipedia's list of hoaxes. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like it was just cobbled together from random sources, and randomly given a title. I've come across many of this editor's articles in NPP, and all share similar issues. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor non-notable incident of in fact it happened in this way at all. Lots of this stuff popping up at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amarfis

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unfootnoted article about a musician, and added one reference, though it is a passing mention. I cannot see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and nor can I find evidence that he meets WP:NMUSICIAN. No obvious redirect target. Tagged with notability concerns since 2018. Tacyarg (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Caribbean, and Dominican Republic. Tacyarg (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vocalist for a non-notable band. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nu deathcore

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

Theres already an article for nu metalcore (which if you know about this kind of music metalcore and deathcore are very related to one another). An article like this existing seems unnecessary, if not silly. The only sources that mention a "nu deathcore" are MetalSucks posts making offhand tongue-in-cheek comments. Not only is MetalSucks arguably not a reliable source when it comes to music jounralism as it's a blog website. But I dont even think they're serious about it, im familair with the website being very sardonic when it comes to their commentary, the site very commonly comes up with quips to describe a band really fast, which obviously arent real genres, such as "breakdowncore" [26] or "death crunkcore" [27] A wikipedia article doesnt need to be made for every "genre" they coin. Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about 95% unsourced WP:OR - it's largely a personal essay. I was going to trim it up but realized there's be little left if I kept going. If an article is plausible, it wouldn't be the current firm if the article. Also not a good sign if half of the "notable artists" section aren't notable enough to have their own article either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kangra

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

Sources fail to provide significant coverage to this topic. This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Condominium

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

Lacks notability and appears like self-promotion MrTaxes (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a run-of-the-mill high-rise. There's no actual claim to notability given and the coverage is local. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just your average random skyscraper in the outskirts of the District of Colombia. The coverage is all local and I am questioning the notability. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamis Rashid Al-Neyadi

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

Declined prod. His international medal is from a low tier competition and not a top level competition as outlined in WP:NATH. The only third party non database source is a 1 line mention. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Constitution Party

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of every single political party. No established notability. No established independent coverage beyond describing the party as existing, such as election victories or notable results. No notable personalities or figures involved. No notable or established third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every political party registered to fight elections. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable British political party. Doubt they have ever won a seat in the House of Parliament. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing is very poor on this one. The sources already in the article are fairly short on information, with there seeming to be little information to be had outwith listings on ballot forms and one person. They're also the same sources that I turned up when I looked, so this seems to have the most sourcing that it can get at the moment, which is borderline. The non-independent sourcing is rubbish, and if unreliable Twitter posts are the only way that anything of significance is purportedly known (It's Twitter. It could be a total fabrication.) about this organization, which appears to be the case, then this is currently on the delete side of the borderline. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bidhannagar Government High School

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG. The only source I could find are vague mention, and the only other one is about a principal from this school facing legal issues. This would still come under WP:ONEEVENT making this subject non notable. www.skoolz.in and schools.org.in are not reliable as they list every school in the country. It does not mean every school in the country is notable. The following is from their website : ″We are an independent platform providing a space for users to submit and access school listing data. ″ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable school, as you have pointed out. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mika'ela Fisher

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:GNG, and reads heavily of WP:PROMO (and likely COI editing). The article relies heavily on primary sources (the subject's own websites, IMDB entries, and self-produced promotional materials) rather than coverage from independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Most references are to listings on festival websites, agency portfolios, and film databases, which do not constitute substantive coverage; others are of little significant coverage that fail to meet even WP:100W, therefore failing WP:SIGCOV.

It is also relevant to mention the other recent AfD's related to the subject, such as WP:Articles for deletion/Victory's Short and WP:Articles for deletion/Männin. Madeleine (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT this promotion. Main contributors to this and her film pages are Chryopras and Chryopras1, matching up with her production company Chryopras Films. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Andraka

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. The subject is only notable for a single event - his 2012 science fair project claiming a novel pancreatic cancer detection method. This work was never peer-reviewed, published in scientific journals, or developed into actual clinical use. Leading experts including Ira Pastan (discoverer of mesothelin) stated his method "makes no scientific sense" and his patent application was rejected for "lack of inventive step". Brief media attention without sustained coverage per WP:SUSTAINED or lasting significant does not establish notability. Madeleine (talk) 00:17, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is that the subject of the article has to be the subject of media as described in WP:GNG. This person meets that criteria. They were profiled for being gay in Metro Weekly, Francis Collins profiled them for their views on on open access, and the The Colbert Report presented their general life as interesting. Media reported their being the guest of president Obama. All of this is in addition to specific coverage they got about the science. What anyone thinks of the science is not a consideration for Wikipedia, and in fact, if there is criticism of their science then that is just more media to cite and more reason for them to have an article. Wikipedia does not judge whether someone's work is correct or valid; we just keep articles when people get media coverage.

About sustainable media coverage - they got attention for long enough to meet Wikipedia's definition of "sustained", and being in the media for a lifetime thereafter is not required. When a young person gets media attention and they are gay, then they always get death threats based on politics and religion. This person undoubtedly experienced that. Whether that was a convincing reason for them to avoid media attention would be speculation, but it definitely happened because it always happens, and it is never surprising when a young gay person disappears from media because the threats so often lead to that. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Under "Awards and recognition" , I added his being seated in First Lady Michelle Obama's box at the 2013 State of the Union Address. — Maile (talk) 03:29, 3 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]

Paul Tedford

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

Fails WP:NBIO & WP:SPORTBASIC ~Liance^talk 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Liance^talk 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references with significant coverage; subject is not notable. Madeleine (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable archer and probably just a big fat billboard. Not a hater, Mr. Tedford, you seem pretty cool! An editor from Mars (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]