Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

29 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 28	March 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Maronite flag

AfDs for this article:

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

Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volte-face

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term has no particularized lexical content, but is merely an idiom—it describes nothing that about-face or U-turn does not, and that referent is not a real concept in political science or what have you. Remsense ‥ 论 10:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 10:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Victoria

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

Looks like an autobiography. It was PROD deleted before and now brought back with no real improvement in sourcing. Still no in-depth, independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources are self-written articles for Longhorns Wire, with nothing independent or substantial to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Malikov

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a soft delete through AfD last year, recently challenged. The original nom, Thenightaway's rationale was, "There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites." The resurrected article has zero in-depth sourcing, and I cannot see any indication they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guul University

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing for this private university. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel da Silva Rosa

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

Not enough independent reliable sources discussing him. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX

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

Contested draftification: non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. [1] and [2] are likely paid sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Singapore, United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit disk access

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic policy of South Korea

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced, poorly written seefooddiet (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay. Poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Motz and Bob Roth

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

Disputed draftification, here because WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral draftification. This nomination is to draftify by consensus, unless referenced sufficiently to verify notability. Fails WP:V, a key tenet of Wikipedia 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Notability not established; article has no references. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thushara Cooray

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Merely just having a few coverage in news articles for appearing in his 100th Test as a scorer doesn't demonstrate significant coverage per WP:1E. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to google news search this is the only news site mentioning him; so fails WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Bansal

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage (WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources are not useful). Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 IMC Over-50s Cricket World Cup

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

Unofficial cricket tournament that fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG for the lack of non-routine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, India, England, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unofficial cricket tournament, fails WP:SIGCOV per nom. Vestrian24Bio 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Volk

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

Contested draftification. None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as before, which was closed as a soft delete. The sources are not independent but consist mostly of press releases or passing mentions in routine announcements. Sources that discuss the subject are either unreliable or not independent, ultimately failing the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, Tamil Nadu, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The article now cites multiple **independent and reliable sources** that offer **significant coverage** of Ahimsa Entertainment. These include:
  - Independent coverage**:
- Style Vanity – a feature article, not a press release. - International Business Times – a mainstream news outlet covering the company's growing presence in overseas markets. - Chennai Vision – reports on the company’s direct involvement in international box office records. - CinemaSpice – regional film news platform covering their strategic distribution role.

These go **beyond trivial mentions** and highlight the company's significance in the Indian overseas film market. Furthermore, Ahimsa Entertainment has handled global distribution for high-profile films like Leo, Varisu, Beast, and Vendhu Thanindhathu Kaadu — all commercial blockbusters with international reach. This establishes its notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG.
Happy to work further on improving sourcing and neutrality, but this company clearly passes notability standards. — ~~~~ Nathan2711 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Style Vanity, as described on its website, evolved from a personal blog to a beauty website focusing on Asian Beauty, tackling skin concerns, and providing informative and honest product reviews. It has no relevance in reporting about companies, films or distribution. It is likely a website used for publishing guest articles to improve SEO.

WP:IBTIMES - International Business Times is unreliable.

Chennai Vision's article is more about Vijay (actor) and Leo (2023 Indian film) than about the subject and does not have a byline.

CinemaSpice only briefly mentions the subject.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt: Mega Edition

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG or, if you want to consider it a true "event", WP:NEVENT. Literally everything about this article, while attributed to reliable sources (minus some references to Gameranx, a Valnet source, and esports.gg which is dubious), is just basic observations that this thing happened and players had the chance to win money through it, but doesn't provide any critical commentary or observations about the event besides those two things. There is no significant coverage on the subject from these sources to be found, and the article itself is just mainly pieced together by content that at its core sounds extremely trivial and unencyclopedic (why do we care that Roblox tweeted clips of YouTubers playing the event, for example). And all of these sources were published within a short amount of time, so WP:SUSTAINED isn't met either. This does not warrant a separate page, and I recommend redirecting it to Roblox. Maybe it could be deleted entirely given that there isn't much to preserve or merge here, but I'd just go with a redirect. λ NegativeMP1 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roblox#Events. Concur with the nominator - it's a tricky one but I think reporting on game events tend to reiterate promotional or publisher information and lack much commentary that would suggest WP:NEVENT or otherwise. The Escapist article has some interesting commentary on the event maybe not going so smoothly in the end, but the rest of the sources are iterations of the same thing: it's going to happen, it will have these games, it has a prize, and will occur on this timeframe. All of that's really coming from the publisher. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another example of Roblox games having shoddy articles created from them just because a young Wikipedian played them and decided it would be a good idea. Absolutely no way this can be rewritten into a moderately acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Red Cross Society Central Blood Transfusion Service

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

Article lacks notability. Beside this, the information provided here is almost a copy paste from the article Nepal Red Cross Society . Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 22 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!} 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Bednar

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

Unsourced BLP riddled with unprovable or unnecessary claims. I can't prove this player played in the NFL in the given years. A search at NFL.com and Pro-football-reference.com return absolutely nothing, which would be unusual for someone who played for 12 years (and won a Super Bowl), and results from newspaper searches between the given playing years return nothing relevant. The only source I can prove here is the early years, that he did play football, but not enough to warrant notability. The personal life section is partially true but is not mentioned in non-primary sources. Most results for Kelly Bednar in newspapers and searches are for unrelated people. Additionally, author has only created this article and has not come back to edit since. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 06:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom charlotte ^👸♥ 07:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and North Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League venues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST for a standalone list and is a case of WP:NOTSTATS. Re-creation of a previously deleted material by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Premier League venues. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 29 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 06:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my rationale at the previous nomination. No improvement whatsoever since the deletion, so I am satisfied with the previous judgement. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Minor incident - no deaths. WP:GNG is dubious (consider WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Very unlikely to have enduring effects; if they appear the article can be restored once enduring coverage is shown to exist. We are getting really too inclusionist with minor incidents like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Netherlands. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. By Dutch standards this is a major attack and the national and international coverage reflects that. The stabbing took place in the very heart of Amsterdam which further contributes to the interest. In the deletion rationale, nominator points at WP:SINGLEEVENT: "People notable for only one event". An attack is not a person so this does not support deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not support deletion either: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. The references used fall outside the domain defined by the policy. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep broadly covered, it happened in the center of big city. It's terrorist attack, to terror there no need to someone be killed. Many nations involved: US, NL, PL, BE victims, UK citizen's arrest and probably Ukrainian perpetrator; that 6 nations involved. That's international terrorism Bildete (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. For now the sources and event is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

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

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U: per nom. Sources do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pondicherry Premier League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage; thus fails WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:08, 29 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 05:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Gereidi

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

Entirely reliant on database sources, and these only supply his results at the Olympics and a birthyear. As such, there exists no sigcov in reliable sources, from what I can find. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 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!} 04:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nations Party of British Columbia

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

Article topic fails WP:ORG. The party is defunct and achieved insignificant results in the one election it fielded candidates in (0.21% of the popular vote, less than 7% in ridings it contested).

The article was previously PRODed in 2020 but deproded by Spinningspark with the explanation: "This is more than the usual joke/personal soapbox minor party. It needs a more thorough discussion before deleting, and some evidence of WP:BEFORE". I looked through Google (general web search), Google Books, Google Scholar, and my university databases (local to BC) for reliable sources and found no in-depth coverage. The only content about the party that has survived on the web is non-in-depth public records from the provincial government (i.e. date registered, deregistered, etc.).

I found this article by a local Indigenous publisher, but the coverage does not include a claim of notability. The coverage is quite routine and is a basic breakdown of the party's ambitions. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My own (much less thorough) search for sources didn't turn up anything either. The one article linked in the nomination statement isn't enough coverage for an article on an otherwise entirely non-notable party. Toadspike [Talk] 22:03, 28 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!} 04:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Dhari Singh

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

Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO) requires that the subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The existing article primarily relies on routine announcements and official listings, such as his judicial appointments and transfers. These do not constitute the in-depth, independent coverage necessary to establish encyclopedic notability.The article also lacks citations from independent news outlets, academic publications, or other reputable sources that provide substantial information about Justice Singh's career, judicial decisions, or impact on the legal field. The absence of such sources violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V), which mandates that all material be attributable to reliable, published sources. The article predominantly focuses on recent events, such as Justice Singh's transfer proposals and appointments, without providing a broader historical context or analysis of his contributions to the judiciary. This emphasis on recent events without substantial historical significance may violate Wikipedia's recentism guideline (WP:RECENT), which cautions against giving undue weight to recent developments. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Sreedharan

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

Wikipedia's guidelines stipulate that subjects must receive significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. In this case, the available information primarily originates from official announcements and routine coverage, lacking in-depth analysis or commentary on Justice Sreedharan's judicial contributions. While his professional milestones are documented, the absence of substantial independent coverage suggests that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice) he would plainly qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattumaram (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable. concerns regarding notability and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia's content policies. For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Kattumaram has been reviewed by several outlets, the depth and prominence of this coverage are limited. For instance, Asian Movie Pulse provides a review that, although positive, does not constitute the extensive coverage required to establish notability. Similarly, BollySpice.com offers a review, but its reach and influence are not substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, the film's listing on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which include brief synopses and user-generated content, do not serve as independent, reliable sources for establishing notability. Furthermore, the article's reliance on such sources may violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that information be backed by reputable, third-party publications. Without substantial, independent coverage, the article does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, making it a candidate for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Gurung

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

The article Simran Gurung does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the cited references provide only brief mentions rather than in-depth coverage, failing to establish the subject’s notability per WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, several sources are either primary, affiliated with the subject, or routine announcements, which do not meet the standards of WP:INDEP and WP:RS. The article also relies on repetitive sources that do not add substantial new information. If the subject is primarily known for a single event, it may also fall under the concerns outlined in WP:ONEEVENT. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is WP:SIGCOV here and here, both of which were already in the article, so I question whether sources were properly evaluated. It's enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT with plenty of coverage as is usually the case for a senior-level player for a national football team. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The BLP is about a football player, who made her Senior India debut while still being a junior player... and received substantial coverage all over India including in vernacular press. The BLP easily passes notability guidelines and WP:GNG as one mainstream newspaper, Telegraph, a reliable, secondary source published a bylined indepth article on the subject. It also passes WP:INDEP. One more popular football website has a full article on her. Even if we ignore this, there are three other reliable sources where the BLP is the main topic. It passes WP:SIGCOV, which requires "coverage to be more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources are from Telegraph, Sportstar, Ukhrul Times (a reliable and reputed small paper in the region), Sikkim Express and North East Live channel. Her events coverage spread from 2022 to 2025, the nominator must have missed it. So it is not a WP:ONEEVENT. So I added more sources for her domestic events. I urge the nominator to check the sources once again and also to familiarise with notability guidelines. Posting in good faith. Davidindia (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Sikkim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources added by Davidindia in addition to ones identified by Dclemens1971. Canary757 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Sinha

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

While Justice Sinha's judicial roles are documented, the article lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth information about his career and contributions. The existing references primarily consist of routine announcements and official listings, which do not establish the level of notability required for a standalone article. According to Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO), a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple independent sources to merit an article. In the absence of such coverage, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability (WP:V) and notability, suggesting that it should be considered for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eluka Majaka

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

Notable director (his 75th film) and notable cast, so why are there no reliable reviews? A search in Telugu (or English for that matter) surprisingly yields nothing [3]. No reliable reviews or other reliable sources apart from the single sources already on the article. The old sources that used to be on the article and a WP:BEFORE yielded: [4] [5] [6] [7]. This is not a pre-2010 film, it is a 2016 film, hence it needs more sources.

Note several films by the same director lack articles including his immediate previous film (see the director's filmography). Note: I support a redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography, where the same source about this film is also there. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Feierabend

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

No sources found. Fails WP:GNG and only 20 revisions done since its creation. Gauravs 51 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed to Keep, see below): No results in either Swiss newspaper archive. I will search for German sources tomorrow, ~~but if I don't get around to it this should be read as a !vote to delete~~. Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After searching several newspaper archives, I finally found hits in the Schwäbische Zeitung [8]. Most of it is not sigcov, simply covering exhibitions of his work and by his art group Panta Rhei (likely notable) – this has four sentences about his work and his art, this has around a paragraph about his art, this has a sentence or two. I strongly suspect that their archive, which would have covered Feierabend when he was alive, will have more coverage, but it seems like I'd need their app to access it.

The search function of the Deutscher Zeitungsarchiv is very obtuse but it seems like they don't have anything on him – not a surprise, given that their coverage after ~1950 is limited. Toadspike [Talk] 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the German Wikipedia article, there's a biography of him titled "Die Stille ist laut genug: Der Maler Hermann Feierabend und seine Bilder" and have an article about one of his paintings being stolen [9] (paywalled). Searching that newspaper (Südkurier) for his name in quotes, I get over 39 results. At this point, I am certain that enough sourcing exists for an article, even if I cannot access it due to paywalls. We should keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has no citations and I am not finding any RS to support the information presented in the article. The German Wikipedia article does not show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read anything I wrote above? Although he isn't world famous, "He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is demonstrably false [10][11][12][13]and "or won significant critical attention" is also demonstrably false (there is a book written about him). While I admit that the sources I've linked don't cover all the info in the article, there are in fact many reliable sources that cover him. I also strongly disagree with "The German Wikipedia article does not show notability" – it cites a book and a news source, which is a lot by their standards. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read what you wrote and disagree with your assessment. Multiple items in Schwäbische Zeitung does not make an artist notable, just a member of a local group of artists who exhibit in the town hall every year. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my harsh language. I think the paywalled Südkurier articles and potential coverage in the Schwäbische archives, plus the book, are enough. You do not. This is reasonable and we may agree to disagree. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 18 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) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. That seems like enough coverage to be a notability pass to me, even if it is a bit hard to access at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article still does not have any references, include birth and death dates and places. Hope the closer will consider Wikipedia:BURDEN. There is nothing to create a source assessment table from, which is what I would usually do at this point. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the article's current content is unverifiable and you may remove it; that doesn't impact notability, though. A source assessment table can't be made due to my NEXIST-style argument, but I would love to hear whether you believe the evidence I've found is enough to assume suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. Toadspike [Talk] 15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the unverified content in the current article it would have no text at all. Not one word would remain. I do not think the sources you note might show notability or bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. Reading a machine translated version of the (uncited) article on German Wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Feierabend one can see that it is a nice article honoring a local artist who painted as a side gig to his mechanical engineering career. His wife wrote a monograph about him.

For some reason, an editor recently translated the German article and stripped out some the the fluffier fluff and pasted into the existing stub (that they created in 2009), without any attribution.

Hope this makes my opinion clear :) Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did not notice that the book was written by his wife, which does limit its value for determining notability. The book does retain some value, as it also contains contributions from others, like a foreword covering much of his biography by the mayor of Friedrichshafen, de:Bernd Wiedmann. That foreword can be found in the second image here – based on this image, I have rewritten the article completely to include only what I can verify. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I do have two questions, User:Gauravs 51. why did you remove the AFD tag soon after you tagged the article? Did you change your mind about the nomination? Secondly, would expectations for this article change if it was marked as a stub article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not fulfil WP:ARTIST, as noted above. The third criterion is not fulfilled, as the biography was written by his wife, and the other three do not apply. WP:POLITICIAN appears not to apply either. While there are clearly a few sources available, I would lean towards simply deleting. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boxabl

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

At first glance it looks Ok, but when you look deeper almost all sources are bad or primary, such as interviews, articles with too many quotations, press releases and announcements, a few SEC filings and routine news about ELon Musk buying a unit Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment. Several citations primarily discuss Elon Musk’s alleged purchase of a unit, which he later denied on Twitter, making their accuracy questionable. The remaining sources include SEC filings, routine news coverage, announcement, press releases, etc. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes, it does: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." On top of this, see what redirects there.Hell and Back. And Booze, Broads, & Bullets.. And two other yarns. So, yes it does clearly have merit in terms of navigation. -Mushy Yank. 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As if references about one the most famous and notable book series in the history of the genre were hard to find....WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and to refer to it regarding such a highly-and-universally-praised work as Sin City is not very necessary. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 27 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) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sourced now. And easily improvable with the tons of existing sources about the set or the individual books. And no, these are no ’subplots’!!!!!! -Mushy Yank. 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly accept a merge of an edited version to help the main article. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plots are missing PRECISELY because they are there as a SPLIT.... -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like ~~Vote~~. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott David Alldridge

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

He doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. A few sources are primary and the rest just mentions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Technology, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aurica Bărăscu

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. All I could find were mentions, but no significant coverage. Darkm777 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the subject passes WP:NOLY as an Olympic gold medalist and won numerous world championship medals as well. There's virtually certain to be coverage if the appropriate places are checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per common sense. There's some coverage such as this and this, and Bărăscu was a world champion, European champion, and Olympic champion in her sport, having a total of seven medals across the three competitions. According to ru.wiki, she was also the recipient of what seems to be the highest honor for sportspeople in Romania, arguably satisfying WP:ANYBIO as well. Most of her career took place before the prominence of the internet, and thus it is very highly likely there's further offline coverage given her very substantial accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple search reveals citations naming the subject.[14][15][16][17] These citations, among other ones that exist, could be used to expand the stub. desmay (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kalman

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

Subject seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill architect, only noted in connection with the notable building that he designed. BD2412 T 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Massachusetts. BD2412 T 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--User:BD2412, I found some coverage for him, and I'm sure more is available. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for coverage. I was not impressed, but my opinion doesn't weigh any more than anyone else's. BD2412 T 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Avram

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as clear notability as the others, but she was a world championship medalist and Olympedia includes a photo that looks recent from the Sportarad newspaper, which indicates that they likely covered her. What we have to do is find it. Its also quite likely there'd be further offline coverage, given her accomplishments took place before the internet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries with people on postage stamps

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

IMO fails WP:NLIST, not to say pointless: each and every country has people on their stamps. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless list with no source discussing the subject (and why would they; that would be like a "list of people with spinal cords"). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second AfD for this page. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps back in 2022. The page has been moved several times: from the creation of the page in 2002 until 2015 it was List of people on stamps, then it was List of people on postage stamps until 2020, then Lists of people on postage stamps until 2022, then Lists of countries with people on postage stamps. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source for the claim that all countries have people on their stamps? It sounds believable, but I would like to see a source just to make sure. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Beside the point. I a not writing an article and I made a reasonable guess. The one who wrote the list must find sources that discuss this particular list criterion. Otherwise next thing we get List of countries with birds on stamps, List of countries with buildings on stamps, List of countries with behemoths on stamps. In other words, my major claim was "fails WP:NLIST", and no, I do not have a reference for that either. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Just for the record, this page does not start with List but Lists, i.e. it's a List of lists. I'm actually inclined to keep it under a better name. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ouch. Anyway the process of getting rid of its members is underway: List of people on the postage stamps of Israel is gone, now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sudan. --Altenmann >talk 10:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a deletion of Lists of countries with people on postage stamps should not pre-empt those other deletions. As long as they're there, a list of lists seems valid. Geschichte (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of people on postage stamps by country and keep. It's a valid organizational list for these countries' lists rather than a topic under this title. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep per Reywas92 as a navigational page/list of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. User:Geschichte were you going to voice an opinion for a specific outcome? By the way, an AFD can not close as "Move" as that outcome, as it is renaming, is an editorial decision that is done after a closure. If this is your choice, then "vote" for Keep and then a move discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how. Please see Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. If the individuals are cultural icons, they sometimes have stamps in more than one country. Elvis and John Lennon come to mind. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Alupei

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

She has a metro station named after her in Romania, yet I cannot find anything else other than profiles, hence she does not meet WP:NSPORT criteria. Darkm777 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable with sigcov such as [18] and for being a multi-time Olympic gold medalist (WP:NOLY), world champion, and a recipient of the National Order of Faithful Service per ru.wiki thus satisfying WP:ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Afrăsiloaie

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another in a series of poor nominations. Passes WP:NOLY as an Olympic medalist and has coverage such as this, with there being almost certainly further coverage given her status as one of the star Romanian sportswomen in the offline era, with her also having achieved multiple world championship medals in her sport. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Homeghi

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Very clearly notable as a medalist at three different Olympics, a seven-time world championship medalist and three-time world champion, as well as a multi-time Olympic champion, who received the highest honor for Romanian sportspeople, per ru.wiki, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO. It is also guaranteed that there is further offline coverage given that she was one of the greatest Romanian sportswomen and competed in the offline era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per BeanieFan11. Ingratis (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]