Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

21 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 20	March 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Recoil (1998 film)

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

Was PROD’d for lack of general notability and WP:NFILM; an IP editor removed the PROD tag with the edit summary “Gary Daniels and Robin Curtis…” so now we go to AfD. The only mention I could find beyond the usual churn of IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes was a blog called Unknown Movies which does not cut the mustard in my opinion. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually movies are easy. There are huge "movie guide" books with casts, productions, and potted summaries, and "DVD guides" and so forth. But this one appears to have escaped inclusion in any books that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things. A redirect to the director was warranted anyway and a PROD certainly not appropriate. Meets WP:NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the references you added were to WordPress blogs and have been removed. I disagree that the sources provided show the sufficient coverage to establish notability per this language from the guidelines: “Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.” (emphasis added) Kazamzam (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(the 2 sources hosted by WP have been removed but were used only to verify the film was called a B-movie). For the rest, PRECISELY, the OTHER sources I added in the Reception section are reliable and include "critical commentary"!!!!! And that's pretty obvious. -Mushy Yank. 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank - the other reference used was to a publication by Books on Demand which is generally not considered reliable or suitable to establish notability. Also removed. The references you included from TV Spielfilm and Filmdienst fall under the category of a capsule review ("a relatively short critique of a specified creative work") and Schnittberichte seems to be another blog. So I disagree that these are reliable or that they establish notability per the WP:NFILM criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the material you judged appropriate to remove during an AfD you yourself initiated (and that was, again, not used to establish notability but for verification, in an attempt to improve the page), I still think that we have enough with the 3 sources. Of course, Filmdienst is reliable, for example. If others think a Redirect is better, I also mentioned that possibility. Opposed to deletion. I have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With sourcing, my rule of thumb is to only add sourcing that would be considered reliable by most or all Wikipedians. I tend to avoid SPS unless I can find where the sourcing or the writer has been cited as a RS multiple times in academic/scholarly sources (or other appropriate sourcing). The only exception would be for interviews, however I try to only add those after notability has been more firmly established. My rationale for this is that adding SPS or dubious sourcing can actually end up making an article seem less notable rather than more, even if it's being used to back up basic, non-controversial information. As far as capsule reviews go, I consider a capsule review to be a 1-3 sentence review where all but a handful of words are a plot summary.

Looking at the reviews in the article, Filmjahrbuch 2000 and TV Spielfilm are pretty short and would be considered a capsule review by most. Filmdienst is a bit of a wild card, as I get the impression that the snippet we see is a summary or a smaller part of a longer review given the clickable box that says "to the film review". Clicking that brings up a paywall and part of a first sentence ("Because his youngest son was looking for a...") that is slightly different than the first sentence in the snippet. So this one is probably usable - it also helps that out of the four sentences in the snippet, two are wholly review and not summary. That's one usable review, so then it becomes a question of what else is usable.

Schnittberichte is unusable. It's all user submitted content and while there are moderators, they are only looking for violations of the ToS. The site itself says that they are not liable for anything written by their editors, so that means that there's no editorial oversight of the content. In other words, view it as you would IMDb.

MovieWeb is Valnet. Much of their stuff is considered to be questionable as they tend to rely heavily on churnalism and AI content. WikiProject Video Games has a whole section about it as far as sourcing goes. The gist of that section is that Valnet sources are weak at best and are not great for establishing notability. I would say that MovieWeb would likely be considered situational per WP:VG's sourcing guide. With that in mind, this appears to be written by a staff member and there's a decent amount of discussion within the article to consider it a review of sorts. I would say that it's usable but not the strongest source.

Tiempo de hoy is unknown - I can't get a good glimpse in the snippet view to know if it is usable or not. The Video Source Book would be a capsule review, so a trivial source at best. Flickering Myth is a decent source, but it's a trivial mention so also can't establish notability.

That leaves us with two sources: Filmdienst and MovieWeb. Both could be considered reviews. Technically that's all we need to pass NFILM, two reviews, but it would be an extremely weak pass. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - thank you for your thorough analysis of the sources, ReaderofthePack. I had come to the same conclusion about the Filmdienst one being but a snippet of the full review that is behind a paywall, so that's one source to go towards WP:GNG or WP:NFO criterion 1 The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would say that it's a stretch to say that the MovieWeb review constitutes a "full-length review" (particularly as it's part of a top ten-style report). That leaves Tiempo de Hoy. We say that it's a weekly news magazine that, from 1987, tended to cover news about culture, entertainment, economy and sports. So it seems likely that it would have nationally-known film reviews in it. However, I too cannot see inside the book (which I guess is a compilation of published magazines) to establish whether it is a full review. I did also find this, in Chinese, also rather short. Taking all that into account, and given the age of the film the fact that any full reviews would more likely be in print media that is less likely to be online, I would give the benefit of the doubt and hence a weak keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we're at a Weak Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durrr Burger

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

While the article is comprehensive, it clearly fails WP:GNG. Durr Burger has only appeared in trivial mentions, and reception towards the fictional burger chain is not significant, only a minor Fortnite plot element. Its biggest claim to fame is an ARG that it featured in, but IMO the ARG has a bigger chance of being notable than the chain does (in a sort of I Love Bees way), even though I also do not see that passing GNG currently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdisalam Aato

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

The WP:BIO of this article does not meet notability guidelines due to a lack of WP:N coverage in independent, WP:RS. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, Film, and Somalia. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject doesn't pass notability guidelines. I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 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!} 04:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soares (Bissau-Guinean footballer)

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

Failure to find significant coverage to support WP:GNG. Seems to have made one professional appearance four years ago and nothing in the news since then. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Jet

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

This dab page has only two good entries. It should be replaced with a redirect to the jet fighter, with a hatnote to the film per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the Sabreliner. The nominator is correct that the only plane referred to by the moniker 'Sabre Jet' is the F-86. The F-100 is called a 'Super Sabre Jet' and the commercial plane is a 'Sabreliner'. However when the F86 and the F100 are referred to together they have been called 'Sabre Jets'. It is not unlikely that a reader looking for 'Sabre Jet' might be looking for the F-100. It is not particularly relevant to this discussion, but there is a not-yet-notable snowmobile called a 'Sabre Jet'. I agree that the F-86 is primary, so this page might be downgraded to (content restored to) Sabre Jet (disambiguation) and referenced by a hatnote at North American F-86 Sabre, with Sabre Jet becoming a redirect to the F-86. --Bejnar (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Janata Dal

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

I couldn't find enough reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability for this political party. I note that searching is tricky because socialist Janata Dal (where the adjective socialist describes Janata Dal) and Socialist Janata Dal (a splinter group of Janata Dal I think) are effectively the same thing to search engines! It is possible that there are decent sources not in English, and if they were added to the article I would willingly withdraw my nomination. I had previously redirected this article to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but that has been widely contested by a COI editor and their related sock puppets in the past (see history), and now an IP user is reverting to the same poorly sourced material. Hence my nomination for deletion. I would support a redirect to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but only if it were subject to extended-confirmed protection. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unida Christian Colleges

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

Has been unsourced since its inception in 2010. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're confusing being unsourced with failing GNG. There appears to be an appropriate amount of potential citations in Google, Google News, and Google Scholar. I saw a substantial number of false positives in Newspapers search. I recommend a BEFORE search and reassess. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no confusion. There are no viable sources at all available even. All I got is the official website, the Facebook page, LinkedIn and generic university directories. There is an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer but that is an advertorial for the Climate Action Project. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is more what I had in mind--things that aren't pieces about the institution, but everyday things you would expect to see substantiating it as what the article describes it to be. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends Cricket

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same one deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (Cricket) under a new name. Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This championship is approved by the England and Wales Cricket Board, And this league is being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket. Is in every prime media, hence if someone tries to find the information about it on Wikipedia, and the page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity. I request to keep this profile. If it will be deleted it shows the violation of rights of the wikipedia readers and users to get the information about a notable profile on Wikipedia. Nomadluck (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadluck

being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket - see WP:NOTINHERITED.
page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity - that's not how Wikipedia works, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has previously been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). It has recently been restored with one change: the addition of this source here. The issue with this source is that it never talks about Gourd Creek, even in passing ~~, and that the extrapolation of the relation of this Gourd Creek Cave to the creek is, strictly speaking, WP:OR~~.

post-nom edit There is now a second additional source here but only with passing mentions and thus irrelevant for determining notability. As I commented below, , the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention.

As these changes are irrelevant, we return to the reasoning given in the previous AfDs to redirect this page; I'd like to quote, additionally, WP:GEONATURAL: for example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all editors involved in the previous two AfDs per WP:APPNOTE: @Reywas92, JalenBarks, Djflem, Premeditated Chaos, Vsmith, and Oaktree b: Iseult^Δxtalk to me 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reverted the redirect because it was done without respect to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: information. Specifically, the redirect was not accompanied with the corresponding merge of information, resulting in a piece of unreferenced info in the target article. I expanded it beyond information available except name and location. The accusation in OR is plain ridiculous, but I added a ref with no less than from Smithsonian, which directly link the creek and the cave --Altenmann >talk 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A malformed redirect does not call for overturning an AfD. The proper thing to do is to then add references to the target article. I understand that this article has, for some reason, been a flashpoint. Now, the Smithsonian ref added after I nominated this page. As it happens, it directs to a pdf download which is malformed on my system; could you quote the relevant parts? I'll strike the OR if proved. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug>A ridiculous anti-AGF statement; buy yourself a better system I could have said, but whatever. The work is by Gerard Fowke (1855-1933), so it is in public domain. I will upload it to commons. --Altenmann >talk 18:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<hah>, it was already there: File:Bulletin_(IA_bulletin761922smit).pdf. --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A malformed redirect does call for the revert of a sloppy edit. Improper edits are reverted all the time. is to then add references, well, I made a different decision and implemented it. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For reference, the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention. I've struck the OR mention and have changed my nomination statement.

Regarding your other comments, I'm intrigued that you said that you could have made a flippant remark and chose to do it anyways. I don't see where I'm not AGF-ing, and the system comment isn't productive. In re the reversion, given that the consensus at AfD was to redirect the page, categorizing the redirect as an improper edit certainly is something. I appreciate your fait accompli, and that, I suppose, is what this discussion is for. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 19:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your "mention in passing" judgement. First, the Smithsonian source gives a number of important details about the creek, so you cannot call it simply "mention". Of course, the main subject is not the creek. Second, the description of the notable things found by the river is certainly relevant information. Certainly we will not write a separate article for each cairn found there, so IMO this page is a natural place to describe them; just look at Mississippi_River#Native_Americans. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I had a researcher's fun digging for information about this "Nothing Gulch" and realize that my position may be biased by a kind of "ownership feeling", so I am recusing from further discussion here per WP:COI :-) --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you call important I call routine. But I trust the community to have a healthy discussion about this and for the community to abide by the consensus found here. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 20:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Those bits should be all that is required for "notability". Now, with the archeological bits discussed above it has even more notability. Is Wiki running out of room? Or do we need some celebrity to go skinny-dipping in it ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Per WP:NGEO: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply. In other words, maps contribute nothing to notability. I see no reason that passing beneath a US highway (or any other kind) should have any bearing on notability, and certainly no such exception is made in the NGEO guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: I suppose with the archeological items, it lends to notability... but honestly if the cave is on the NRHP, that would have more sourcing than this creek and is likely enough for an article about the site. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously. I don't want to delete the information, and I resent the implication that my original redirect was in any way malformed or in opposition to Wikipedia's purpose. I do think that a few passing mentions do not demonstrate the kind of notability that demands the creek have its own article. Whether we merge it back up to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) or to an as-yet-created Gourd Creek Cave article, I don't care. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Weak only in the sense that this barely gets above WP:GEOFEAT, one of our more permissible guidelines - but it does clear that bar without touching. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or restore redirect? I'll note that while the "keep" !votes are more numerous, the rationales are for the most part not based on specific policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a no consensus, but given the prior AfDs a consensus would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilley's Dallas

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

No evidence of notability GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that Gilley's Dallas is not related to the earlier, famous Gilley's located in Pasadena, and has nothing to do with the movie Urban Cowboy. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Gilley's might be a lot of things, but lack of notability is not one of them. Urban Cowboy was filmed in the original Pasadena location. It was based In Pasadeba Texas 1970-1990. I think they closed the Pasadena location and are now operating out of Dallas since 2003. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Even says on their website the current Dallas location opened in 2003 and has kept the spirit of the original Gilley's alive. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 7 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!} 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octoraro Lodge

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

The text does not show WP:SIGCOV: all sources are either very directly affiliated, or mention the subject in passing, or both. WP:DRAFTification was attempted, but the article was returned in pretty much the same shape. My own search did not yield anything significant either. Викидим (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marlana VanHoose

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

Non notable singer. No notable productions. Multiple awards but none are major, most from AMG, a "professional artists relations and protection firm" who "handle her career". Bombarded with sources which many having fake authors, fake titles like much of the OPs work. Only decent source is the CBS news feel good piece. Not enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Christianity, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 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!} 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Jay Trophy

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have coverage in regional languages and reliable sources can be in any language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godknowme1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Vestrian24Bio 07:56, 10 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!} 03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient.

Cortador (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Jay Trophy and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:38, 16 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!} 03:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 International Masters League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG for standalone season articles. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HICC Pet

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP - sourced to press releases and advertorials.

Note: Initially a redirect, seeking consensus for deletion/restoration of the redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the page isn't kept, it should be deleted, and HICC should get redirected to Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect: Per nom; clearly non-notable pet supply company. I was unable to find any independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Mutallib

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

no significant coverage, fails the general notability guideline. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 01:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Banu Muttalib". The current article name appears to be a typo; "Banu Muttalib" has quite a few hits. I wouldn't necessarily object to deletion, but it seems like this could be a decent article if someone put time into it. Anerdw (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced one-sentence stub. Should've been sent to draftspace instead of being nominated here. No reason to keep, at least not in its current state. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Chaparro

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are databases. The only third party source appears to be now dead. A search for sources only yielded namesakes. Fails WP:NATH and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Paraguay. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Bondi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bradley Bondi (2nd nomination)

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

Subject was previously nominated for deletion [1] (as 'Bradley J. Bondi') in August 2024 and deleted on September 6. Besides the nominator, three other editors participated in that deletion discussion with all three arguing for its deletion due to a lack of sources establishing the subject's notability. Not much has changed in the last six months that would cause Bradley Bondi to become notable; although his notable sister's profile has grown as she is now Attorney General of the United States, notability is not inherited. Damon Killian (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be promotional, too short, quick and as if written by same user whose biography is available here. The article also do no follow WP:NPOV in clear way. Either this article must be deleted or using reliable source it must be rewritten. Sys64wiki (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree putting it in draft for now? Sys64wiki (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abele Ambrosini

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being one of millions of soldiers killed in World War II isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as a recipient of the Gold Medal of Military Valor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a translation from the Italian Wikipedia. Notable as a recipient of the Gold Medal of Military Valor. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject, Abele Ambrosini, appears to meet WP:MILPERSON due to his recognition with the Gold Medal of Military Valor. A WP:BEFORE search could uncover further coverage in Italian historical records or military archives, supporting his notability beyond a passing mention. The article may need expansion, but the subject documented distinction justifies retention. NXcrypto Message 05:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]