Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

1 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 31	April 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mark Topal Gökceli

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

Mark Topal Gökceli should be considered for deletion due to insufficient independent sources that establish his notability and impact in the field. Additionally, the article mostly focuses on recent positions and roles without providing any significant achievements or widespread recognition, making it lack depth and relevance. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sarofim

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

Phillip Sarofim should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage from independent sources that demonstrate notable achievements, making the subject appear less relevant. Additionally, it contains excessive citations that detract from the clarity and conciseness of the information presented. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Werapong Prapha

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

Werapong Prapha should be considered for deletion due to the issue of citation overkill, which undermines its readability and may clutter the overall text excessively. Furthermore, it appears that the content primarily summarizes recent career developments without providing substantial notable achievements, historical context, or coverage from independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's significance. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 多少战场龙 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aly

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

Appears to be a place without a population and without other claims to notability, which suggests it might not meet WP:NPLACE. I don't read the relevant languages but am not seeing anything other than the name in a database and the other language wikis are not offering any additional information. For interest, it is in Eveno-Bytantaysky National District which is very sparsely populated so it is plausible is has a population of 0 although I can't explain why it appears in the censuses as a place. JMWt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. JMWt (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Whiti, New Zealand

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

Fails both WP:NPLACE (it isn't legally recognised) and WP:GNG

I cannot find any evidence in a reliable source that this is a real locality. The main source for this article is a UGC website (something akin to Geocities). The Gazetteer source does not mention 'Te Whiti' nor is a 'Te Whiti' gazetted in that source. The most I could find is a Te Whiti o Tu pa site [1] and some roads bearing the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching "Te Whiti o Tu" shows there was a conflict there in 1823, and the 1901 Kahiti O Niu Tireni showed that someone elected to the Maori council was listed as being from there (from May the People Live: A Story of Maori Health Development.) The NZ government even says a settlement was established there. The battle is discussed significantly in the text here at archive.org. If we can show a school there closed it'd easily pass GEOLAND but it probably passes GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND requires legal recognition, which this place (now aware there was some form of settlement bearing the name) does not have. The battle would be in reference to the pa that used to be there, which are not presumed notable. A school bearing the name has no bearing on the legal recognition of the area e.g. Bayfield School which is located in the unofficial neighbourhood of Bayfield (split between the legally recognised Herne Bay, New Zealand and Ponsonby, New Zealand).

Gladstone, New Zealand is the legally recognised area that covers the area and it could be mentioned there as an WP:ATD. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough out there on the battle alone that it deserves to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. A school would simply show it was a populated place at one time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the battle meets GNG that is a separate matter. A redirect to an article on the battle would be an ATD but currently no such article exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's now been fairly comprehensive information on the school added to the article, though the masters did live a couple of miles away. Between that, the battle, and the NZ government documenting people living there, I do think we're at GNG for this particular place, even if GEOLAND is in question. SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe GNG is met. The Wises source isn't in depth and very basic. The Carolyn Robyn source is self-published. The biography of Sylvia contributes to GNG but I don't believe it meets GNG by itself given it is mostly about the person and not the area. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the only sources, though, and GNG isn't based on what's in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other sources that contribute towards GNG please do provide them. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete The NZ names database identifies it as a "homestead", which is something we would require to satisfy GNG anywhere else. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument so illogical that I suspect you meant to write something different from what you actually wrote. Nurg (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it is these days defined in some database as a "homestead" is irrelevant. It is, or used to be, quite a large area. While Masterton Borough existed, Te Whiti was one of the borough's ridings.^[1] That alone shows that it had relevance that establish GNG. Schwede 66 04:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT19110421.2.15 See newspaper article from 1911

I wouldn't refer to LINZ as simply a database, they take a lot more care than something like GNIS when it comes to recording places and even include some background history/etymology for many places. I don't believe we can make a connection between the settlement and the riding. Waitemata County had Karangahape, Manukau, Waikomiti, and Waipareira as subdivions and Piako County had Patetere riding, none of these derive their name from a settlement for example.

I would like to hear from Nurg about what Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide has to say on the subject (I couldn't find a digital copy). Traumnovelle (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide entry says, in its entirety, "Farming locality on the east bank of the Ruamahanga River, Masterton District, 6km north of Gladstone, 12km south from Masterton." Nurg (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Paora (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources make this a GNG pass? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as to legal recognition of the place name: NZMS 261 sheet T26 shows Te Whiti North, Te Whiti South and Te Whiti West land registration districts in this area. https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_261/jpg/NZMS261_T26_1977.jpg Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tower restaurant

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

Doesn't appear to be a actual or at least commonly used category of restaurant after a BEFORE. Unsourced since 2009. Phrase not used in any dictionary, including wiktionary. In search, most uses of "tower restaurant" are part of a larger phrase, such as "Eiffel Tower restaurant". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this has been around unsourced since 2005! Most of the items on the list are just the buildings, not even the names of the non-notable restaurants. This is a pretty generic concept with no specific sources and the list is obviously quite incomplete. Revolving restaurant is certainly a notable and less ubiquitous concept, but there's not anything really distinguishing about a restaurant on the 50th floor vs. one on the 5th, just a view but I'm not sure what else to say about that. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how a more ubiquitous thing is thereby less notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopædia. The more ubiquitous thing might be less exceptional, but we're not just covering the rare and unusual here. This is an encyclopædia, not Ripley's Believe It or Not. Also, if the category is not as commonly used, that would tend to support these things being less ubiquitous, wouldn't it? I tentatively concede that if tower restaurants are really quite as ubiquitous as you suggest (press X to doubt), then perhaps examples aren't notable just for being tower restaurants only, and thus perhaps there is no need to list just any and every unexceptional tower restaurant. But not every article has to have War and Peace vibes. Perhaps a simple article barely over stub-length might suffice. That's all fixable without article deletion though. Granted, fixing that might be boring, and the article might remain neglected for a long time, but that's also not a good reason for deletion. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReadOnlyAccount The overall question isn't if it's ubiquitous we should keep it. Something even more ubiquitous than tower restaurants may be red towers, but if sources don't describe "red tower" as a grouping, we don't write Red tower. Do you have RS showing "tower restaurant" exists a concept? I hope you do, and we can WP:HEY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon just a tiny bit of cursory "research" (read: googling), it seems the related term "rooftop bar" is better established (these places often do serve food too, so there is significant overlap, and the differences are a matter of degrees, though not all of the former would be the latter and vice versa). I might have proposed merging with rooftop bar, except that doesn't exist, so shucks – or aw-shucks, even!

Possibly even more shucksworthy might be the fact that a good part of such third-party coverage as tends to hang out near the top of google results appears to often refer to tower restaurants by the superlative-minded moniker/description "tallest restaurants (...in the world /clarkson)". Even though that may be the more common term for actual tower restaurants (not mere rooftop bars), I prefer the less common name on grounds of technical accuracy: It's not actually the restaurants that are yay tall. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This reddit post made me smile, because "high-rise restaurant" sounds as European as a continental breakfast – which latter, btw. is another perfect example for something that's very ubiquitous but also not exceptional, yet probably deserving of its own article.

That's why the should be called "The highest restaurant in X" Moritoriko (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rooftop bar really captures this concept. Take the example above of the "Eiffel Tower restaurant", it's not a bar, nor is it on a rooftop (imagine). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hierarchy here: The most general concept is physically elevated establishments to eat, drink, and be merry. (WANTED: Pithy term.) Rooftop bars, cliff-top restaurants, and tower restaurants are all types of that. A revolving restaurant is probably always a type of tower restaurant, probably the most desirable type. You want the place to have a view. Just because it rotates, and you eat/drink in it— oh hello, Manuscript Found in a Police State (Brian Aldiss, 1972). Jokes aside, I think the—duly linked—presence of a tower restaurant article actually helps explain the revolving restaurant, and I'm still more in favour of keeping something like this in place. I realise that deciding upon a taxonomy verges on original research, to an extent; again, 'matter of degrees I suppose. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This is not an actual category as far as my searching found. It feels like 'Castle restaurants', is it a nice feature of some restaurants. A more extreme example is 'patio restaurants' because that's an actually established term. I think rooftop bar is a poor merge target as well because rooftop bars are generally open air which these are usually not. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to List of notable tower restaurants. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides "tower restaurant" not being a real term, it looks the former Windows on the World is the only one with a standalone article; typically the tower itself is what's notable and the respective article only makes brief mention of the restaurant. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More include Le Jules Verne and Vue de Monde. The article includes revolving restaurants as tower restaurants, so Seventh Heaven and Blue Orbit would be included, although duplicating much of List of revolving restaurants. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's has been a bit of a clue to panoramic restaurant in the second sentence of the article since 2005. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no sources whatsoever, and is basically just a definition with a list of dubious notability attached to it. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article fails to establish "tower restaurant" as a recognized or well-defined category of restaurant. Despite existing for a significant period, it remains entirely unsourced, and searches indicate the term is primarily used descriptively rather than as a distinct classification. The list format is problematic, often listing the towers themselves rather than notable restaurants, and there's significant overlap with the existing article on revolving restaurants. Without reliable sources that treat "tower restaurant" as a distinct concept, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, making deletion the most appropriate course of action. Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Times

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

No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please check wikiproject Newspapers. You will barely find sources to establish notability for any newspaper as media houses generally don’t write about each other. These newspapers have been used by the Wikipedia community to cite various articles and thus it’s important to have them. Please also see Shillong Times and other such newspapers. There are barely any sources for them as well. I have used the sources that I was somehow able to find. The "Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability" guideline acknowledges that not all newspapers may have extensive secondary sources but can still be considered notable due to their role and impact within their communities. Additionally, the "Wikipedia:Notability (media)" guideline offers criteria tailored to media outlets, emphasizing their significance even when traditional notability standards are hard to meet. Given these considerations and the precedent set by similar regional newspapers, retaining the "Wesean Times" article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to documenting diverse and regionally significant media outlets. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

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

No film title, just started filming, and anticipated release date in 2027. Nothing notable about the production and references are all churnalism, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I do not see a redirect as an option as it has twice been removed based on the history. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 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!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mrfoogles: Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. This will remove about half of the listings and leave only the ones that are notable enough to have their own article. There are enough notable breweries in the county to justify an article listing them. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:48 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is also Beer in San Diego County, California#Notable breweries as a merge target. There are fewer than 20 notable breweries and we certainly don't need a standalone page for just a bulleted list when there's this article and the statewide list. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsardom of Bulgaria

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

Largely unsourced for seven years. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bulgaria. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and television

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

Vanity article with deminimis view (several hundred a month) that is more like reflection. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, and Internet. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pageviews are not relevant in determining suitability for Wikipedia. And if the article is poorly written, that's reason for a rewrite, not a deletion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except.. we already have social media and television. This article is a vanity article with no clear merit. Graywalls (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norachit Sinhaseni

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and I don't see evidence that this one passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The coverage is brief and routine coverage of him in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV of him. Please ping if I missed any qualifying sources in my search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sin City characters - Mushy Yank has done good work, but in my opinion all of these are passing mentions of Marv, except for maybe the Dan Rempala book, so it still doesn't meet GNG. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of other sources exist; might add more if I have time. (and thank you but I beg to differ, most of the sources I added are not only "passing mentions"). -Mushy Yank. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of things again. No time to do more but sources exist (a lot). -Mushy Yank. 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Howard

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

Blatant WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable former college football player's asset-based lending, botox and supplement businesses. Behold the sourcing:

Stats pages (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE): [2], [3], [4].
Profiles/bios from his schools' websites or student pubs (WP:RSSM): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
His own companies' websites: [10], [11], [12].
Sponsored/paid-for profiles: [13], [14].
Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS (and most of these have the stink of paid-for content: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION: [21].
... and his LinkedIn page

We have basically one piece of independent WP:SIGCOV, about his decision to end his football career after six seasons of eligibility, and that's nowhere close to a WP:GNG pass. I've left all the spam in here for now so AfD participants can see what this page was intended for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, American football, and Arizona. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe cut most of the promo content. He's notable as a football player, see SIGCOV from e.g. Arizona Republic (2 3 4 5), Chicago Tribune, AP, and Big Ten Freshman of the Year probably passes WP:NCOLLATH as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPJO-LD

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

Largely unsourced; more OR slop Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Kansas, and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: You know significant coverage is lacking when its history before DTV America came into the picture is “unknown”. This is another case where a MyNetworkTV affiliation is a practical red herring; it’s a typical DTV America/HC2/Innovate station whose article nominally survived a failed bundled nomination two years ago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushi Tiwari

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

WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable actress; roles appear to be minor roles in notable productions and if there are significant roles they are only in non-notable productions, so fails WP:NACTOR. I don't see a WP:GNG pass either; the coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid or unbylined coverage in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the assessment of current sourcing and everything I find in a WP:BEFORE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stryder7x

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. While some of the sourcing is reliable, the issue is that none of the reliable sourcing provides significant coverage of the article subject. For example, the extent of the Kotaku source's ([22]) discussion of the article subject is: "As Paper Mario expert Stryder7x explains in the video below" and "Stryder did just that on October 23, 2016". This and similar mentions are not enough coverage to write a reliably sourced biographical article. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing in my own vote for deletion, as I can't argue with the reasoning provided. Prior to creating this article, I was surprised to find out that one had never been created for this subject, and I decided to just give it my best shot. Maybe one day he'll meet the notability criteria...if he ever comes back to the Internet. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filevine

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

Promotional article for a non-notable private company. The sources are limited to: the organization's own website and press releases; sponsored content; trivial mentions; or WP:ORGTRIV like capital raises. Nothing else found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Utah. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Ahmed

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

Fails notability guidelines for sportsperson. The only coverage of this person was regarding their recent unfortunate death which seems to be the reason for the creation of this article, which was made very recently and after their death. Therefore, the only potential article would be one focused on their death which also fails notability with lack of signiificant coverage and no lasting effects.

The article also seems to have been created by someone that knew the person personally. The article talks about unreferenced personal touches such as their career ambitions and hobbies. Half the sources are links to Facebook posts. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument(s) from the last? That discussion had a series of votes with absolutely no basis in policy (including that the song is charting well despite being an introductory track, that the article's author put lots of effort into the article, that it's charting in Asia) and one vote claiming that it meets GNG, which was unsubstantiated and the article's sourcing (as well as a search online) shows is clearly not the case. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having peaked in the top ten and top five in numerous Asian countries, it's the most notable album track from Eternal Sunshine. The article is incredibly detailed and includes coverage such as the song's live performance video on its own. An extended version will be included on the deluxe and be the subject of more commentary as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where it charted doesn't have anything to do with the notability guidelines for a song. A single report from Rolling Stone that a live version of the song was released online does not count as independent non-trivial coverage of the song in multiple sources. Future commentary can't be accounted for; this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). Any and all arguments for wanting to keep this article I feel completely misrepresent WP:NSONG, and I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition.

NSONG clearly states that a song charting or being certified might be an indicator that it is notable, but it usually needs to work with something alongside it. That could obviously be articles exclusively about the song that discuss it in detail (not "this song was performed live today for the first time!" or "here's an interview discussing it's creation!"), or rankings of the best songs in a certain category (e.g. best songs released in a year). Hell, in most circumstances I'd say that a song placing in a ranking of a band discography can be acceptable to prove notability if there's some meat to it. Even run-of-the-mill coverage like what I just mentioned could be useful if there's meat to it. But this song doesn't have any of that. It is near entirely pieced together by run-of-the-mill coverage such as the aforementioned Rolling Stone piece that says a version of the song was released online but not much more, or in articles specifically talking about the album in the context of a review or a track-by-track analysis. Sure, this is worthwhile information detailing the song... in the context of the album. In-fact, NSONG makes it very clear that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". I do understand that the article is reasonably detailed and I commemorate the authors work here to make it a GA, but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album)." But there, hopefully it is more clear now.

Redirect/merge I find that NegativeMP1 explains my argument better than I can. My thoughts on this article's notability remain the same as it did during the previous AfD. This view of charts as an indicator of notability is heavily misunderstood. Just because an album track charted higher than the rest does not guarantee it's notable; SIGCOV outside of album reviews does. A lot of tracks that appeared in two charts - or hell, none at all - are notable by WP:GNG standards (Joni (song) as an example, or many of the articles on Category:Unreleased songs). Conversely, many songs that did chart in a lot of countries are not. And re. "this is detailed enough to have its own article," (1) the details about the song here, such as the series of Eternal Sunshine surprise performances, can easily be covered in the album article. (2) a lot of incredibly detailed articles, many of which were of FA-quality, were merged into their parent articles. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those calling for a Redirect or Merge, please specify the target. Don't assume the closer will guess you meant Eternal Sunshine (album) or any other target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the track to its parent album.

MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the creator: This is my first time participating in an AFD, please tell me if I did something wrong. The last AFD for this article was one of the most impactful reality checks for me as a Wikipedian editor. Before that, I used to create and expand Taylor Swift's deep cuts and assumed that it wouldn't hurt to create such articles if they have decent coverage or are relatively successful commercially. It was the same for this article, but compared to Swift's, most of which still exists to this day, Grande's song have less substantial coverage nor have article sources pertaining to it.

Now, I agree with all arguments for this AFD that the article is warranted for deletion, and I completely understand with the intentions of redirecting it to its parent album. However, now that the extended version was released, please give me a chance to expand this article more thoroughly up until next week for the sake of saving this, as new/upcoming articles concerning the album's deluxe edition will hopefully focus more to this track. Gained (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the album is not sufficient to establish notability for this song. It would have to be new coverage of the song itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Given chart history, coverage in reliable sources, and amount of content in the article, I think this is a helpful fork from the parent article. I'd prefer to see this Good article expanded and improved, not deleted. An extended version of the song was just released today, so some updating is in order. I've shared a few very recent sources on the article's talk page and added links to the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe edition and the article about the accompanying short film of the same name (which uses the song). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect, skimming the citation titles, they are discussing the album, falling WP:NSONGS (WP:GNG is not above NSongs as claimed; this is the same principle of why WP:USPLACE is above WP:PRECISION). A perfect example of an independent song released off this album is Saturn Returns Interlude. If someone manages to find independent sources, then it should be kept, otherwise, this song is as trivial as other GA songs that were redirected years ago. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch to be clear, you favor redirecting to Eternal Sunshine (album)? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is mere bureaucracy to believe anything else. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but the relisting comment asked for specificity. Just hoping to wrap this up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch I recommend taking a deeper dive than just skimming article titles. An extended version of the song was released this week in a deluxe edition and short film, so there's another wave of press coverage focused on these new songs. Some of the sources even compare the extended version of the song to the previously released version. I've added a few additional recently published sources, but more updating to the article is required. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't specifically know why Brighter Days Ahead would make this song notable on its own if it is still a deluxe edition of the parent album / film by its own singer. There seems to exist a general reason on why users assume that mere charting or having dozens of links discussing a song tangentially from the perspetive of an album will qualify as a standalone article as per GNG. Even GNG stipulates that the song must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, the subject is Eternal Sunshine, not Ariana Grande.

So I clicked on every link and is was a disappointment. As of [23]

Primary sources discussing the song: 1, 8, 31
Secondary sources that don't even mention the song: 2, 3, 5
Secondary sources discussing the song from the album perspective: 4, 6, 7, 9 (tracklisting), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (rank of Grande's songs), 28, 29, 30 (rank of Grande's songs), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44
Secondary sources actually discussing the song (most of them are charts): 10, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Source 10 ([24]) is about the live promotion of the album, but it is the only source that does discuss the song. Ariana Grande discography#2020s already covers the charts anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this breakdown! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting Brighter Days Ahead "would make this song notable on its own", I was just saying there's a recent wave of press coverage that's barely been applied to the article and should also be taken into consideration. Not expecting to change your vote, just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability of the song would likely increase following the release of the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe. It might've been too early to call for an AfD before she released the extended version. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL, and a far-fetched one at that ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my earlier comment: "I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition." Your comment is openly voting to keep an article based on coverage that does not exist. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG and NSONG. The existing cited sources about live performances and composition/critical reception are good enough to make a relatively detailed article, and there are more available. Per GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." IMO the spirit of NSONG is about not creating articles for songs that are merely mentioned in an album review. That is not the case here, as the song received detailed commentary in album reviews, not just mentions that it exists. The cumulative material is such that it would be inappropriate to place in the album article. GNG says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." I read "or" to mean that NSONG does not supersede GNG. I think it meets both anyways. The subject is "Intro (End of the World)", not Eternal Sunshine. Coverage is independent of people affiliated with the song. This is what "independent of the subject" means. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NSONG states that "notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This is a reasonably detailed article about a song that also charted in several countries. Medxvo (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That clause means that even songs that meet notability requirements may not warrant their own articles—it does not mean that detailed articles about songs that don't meet the notability requirements should be kept. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would prevent the songs that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" from having a reasonably detailed article that can grow beyond a stub? Medxvo (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT19110421.2.15 See newspaper article from 1911

[1]