Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 06	April 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Beacon (signal fire)

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

The article Beacon (signal fire) duplicates information already covered in the Beacon article and exists entirely within its scope. The majority of the page is entirely unsourced, other than two WP:Self-published sources within popular culture. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beacon article is too broad. The early warning system has its own Wikidata object. The idea with it is to port over relevant information from beacon and instead describe it shortly in the main beacon article with a link to the specific subarticle.

Autônomos FC

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

Contested PROD. Amateur team with no relevance in Brazilian football, having not played in any competition in which it has achieved sporting merit. Most of the sources present do not demonstrate WP:CONTINUED coverage, only mentioning the curiosity that the club has an anarchist theme. Blatant fails in WP:GNG and WP:MILL since there are countless amateur teams in Brazil with their own themes. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Organizations, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Sai

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

This entry has no other references, and the person is not an important figure in history, so it may not meet the inclusion criteria. Babaibiaobin (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

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

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[1] but also two recent bylines[2][3] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cardi B

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

Her voice sounds like an anime girl. I want a Japanese person to delete her page ASAP. 2024DaciaSanderoStepway (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardi C. Just like how Selena became Selena Gomez. 176.216.237.28 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. She is a westaboo, and she raps ONLY in English or Spanish in her songs. 176.216.237.28 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send her back to Japan. Maybe she will learn some Japanese and become a J-pop star. 176.216.237.28 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Troll nom…. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Amelia Hamer

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sources seem to be about Hamer's political campaign, nothing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL unless she wins an election. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was deleted in the past for being non-notable, nothing has changed to make her notable enough to keep. GraziePrego (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- She's up for elections, & has been hiding this information that has recently come out in the press. She has, in fact, been campaigning on the exact opposite of what is the truth ie presenting herself as a renter when really owning multiple multi-million dollar properties in multiple countries. How is this not notable enough to keep? This information absolutely should be out in the public. Did she propose it for deletion? ExpertEgeo (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like political commentary rather than a policy-based reason for why her article should be retained on Wikipedia. GraziePrego (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a candidate in the federal election is about your platform and how you identify yourself.
    
    Amelia Hamer has identified herself as a renter that understands first hand the struggle of making rent each week.
    
    News has found out that Hamer actually owns two properties for herself invalidating her claim that she is a 'renter'.
    
    I think its fair to allow the reader on wikipedia read what information or 'political commentary' that she has offered and then have a counter-claim with a highly regarded piece of investigative journalism. A statement of fact is not political commentary as Amelia Hamer is indeed a landlord who owns two properties as provided by her in The Age article. 128.250.0.193 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not fame nor importance and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political campaigns. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough coverage to pass. The press articles about her are more focused and organic than the usual election candidate announcements, statements or press releases. She is seen as a "high profile" candidate. Mekomo (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Society

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

Dubious notability (WP:NCORP/WP:GNG). The article has no footnotes, there is a list of possible sources in 'Further reading' but no indication they mention this organization. My BEFORE fails to find anything except a few passing mentions (like in this academic article, which is reliable but WP:SIGCOV is an issue - passing mentions in two sentences are not good enough, I fear); maybe there are sources in Japanese but ja wiki article is no better than ours. This is about to be deleted from pl wiki (where we recently cleaned a bunch of articles on non-notable Polish akido organizations that nobody except themselves have noticed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:

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

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, India, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:An editor had edited a name change on the article and broken the link to this AFD. Ihave restored that and am adding a Findsources for the alternate name here. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

José Luis Ricón

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

Dubious notability. The Org seems to be the equivalent of a LinkedIn page, and the Future page does not provide any notable information. Many of the citations in the article are not verified in the sources, such as the claim of a "widely cited resource" Longevity FAQ. In addition, I have reason to believe this might be a trolling attempt, due to the creation of a prediction market on if the article will survive to the end of the year (https://manifold.markets/infiniteErgodicity/will-the-wikipedia-article-for-jose) Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert

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

I rejected this at draftspace but it was moved to mainspace and renamed. This fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. The book was written by someone who went to the high school and isn't secondary, and the reporting is local coverage, mostly of the book which was written. It's also not written from a neutral point of view, which is a clean up issue if this is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book is usable for historical information, and we don't need it to establish notability because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are enough to establish notability. The articles are relevant. The Detroit News is one of the most important newspapers in the United States. The Oakland Free Press is the most important newspaper in Oakland County. Articles relevant to Metro Detroit help achieve notability. The area has a greater population than some countries. The Metro Detroit area has millions of people. If you asked 100 people what their subjective opinion on what a neutral point of view is, they would give 100 different answers. As far as I am aware, the statements in the article are backed by reliable sources. I believe that is as objective as you can get. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wikipedia rules require significant coverage of reliable and independent sources so that a fair and balanced article can be written. All of the articles used in the Pop Concert article are from reliable sources, including the Detroit News article and two separate Oakland Press articles, and those articles have the pop concert as the main subject and not just a passing mention, making the coverage in the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles significant. The Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are also independent sources as they were written by writers who were not affiliated with the pop concert. Wikipedia requires at least one secondary source for an article to qualify, and this article has several secondary sources, including the Detroit News article and the 2 Oakland Press articles. Wikipedia requires multiple sources for an article to qualify (The definition of multiple is more than one). The Detroit News article and the 2 separate Oakland Press articles satisfy the multiple articles Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines posted here in the section "why we have these requirements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Pop Concert article also establishes notability by explaining that the Pop Concert was innovative and groundbreaking for its time in the field of high school choir performance. Also, I had the right to move up the Pop Concert article once it was no longer in the articles of creation space since I am an autoconfirmed user. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Local sources are considered to be reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being reliable sources. They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject." See this Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)#:~:text=Articles on local interests are,going, non-trivial coverage. As I stated before, the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles provide in-depth coverage, and not just a passing mention of the Dondero Pop Concert. Also, the article Mr Hartoe's Opus was written 9 years before the other articles and compares Mr. Hartsoe's story to the movie Mr. Holland's Opus while discussing the history of the Dondero Pop Concert. The other two articles mention the book but focus primarily on the history of the Dondero Pop concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:14, 24 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!} 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created by an IP in 2024. Sourcing is not good. Does not seem notable or encyplopedic. Probably a promoter or someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite why you think the sourcing is not good? Seems not notable is not a reason. You should back that with some sort of Wikipedia regulation. See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy It's not about how you feel about something. A potential conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, and it is already under review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest Orlando Davis (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dondero High School. I don't think this can be said to have notability separate from the institution, given its purely local provenance. BD2412 T 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging seems like a plausible outcome, but no consensus has been reached on this. It would be good if those who think the sourcing is good, or the sourcing is bad, would explain their policy-based reasoning for their position.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

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

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 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!} 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (franchise)#Versions since it seems more notable to have article in arabic wiki than English wiki. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, that's not how notability works. It doesn't matter what language the sources are in. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that this is not notable here. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (franchise): Doesn’t need a whole page…. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

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

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 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!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Variety312. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor (franchise) . 190.219.103.171 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

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

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is poor, topic not notable. Maybe better for Japanese wiki. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not properly made, and sourcing isn’t the greatest… Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shag Musa Medani

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

Declined prod with reason "subject meets WP:NATH as a cross country national champion". I'm not sure if this relates to WP:NATH #4 "Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those who have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year". There isn't enough evidence that he is in the top 60 IAAF for cross country. All sources are databases and fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sudan. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with citing NATH in general in AfDs, but if you're going to bring it up, yes, subject clearly meets NATH prong 4 as an XC national champion and was in fact ranked 55th (top 60) in the world by the IAAF in cross country in 1977: [4].

What's always been more important was the general notability guideline, which can be met in a variety of ways including by WP:NEXIST. The case for NEXIST for this subject is strong, as the top Sudanese representative around the world in several disciplines over a multi-year period in the 1970s. I've looked and couldn't find prose-based coverage yet, but I would expect to find articles in physical Sudanese newspapers of the era, which could be accessible to us via a Wikipedian in Sudan. --Habst (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudan at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the notability guidelines. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage to be included in the article, which has never been the case here. We also can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD, while also preserving the page history in the event better sourcing is found in the future. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant guideline, which the article subject easily meets, is WP:SPORT, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows more than enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the supplied sources are databases. as per WP:SPORTBASIC "All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." LibStar (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

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

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deletion rationale presented above. Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? Also, the suggested merge target is completely inappropriate. Billie Jean King Cup is the article that contains all the high level information about the competition from its founding as the Federation Cup to the present day, and currently has 0 mention of this particular team (and also has 0 depth of any other team at the level this article goes in to). AfD isn't supposed to be used to propose bad merges or as a time pressured source finding/article improvement tool. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Billie Jean King Cup team so why on earth would we delete it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 29 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!} 23:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sources indicating the Austria team for the Fed cup/Billie Jean King cup is or has been notable. There is routine coverage of their results from certain years, but I have not found anything else. Merely claiming it is a notable BJK team does not make it so, there needs to be sources to meet general notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you asked for sources, here's some: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Is that enough for you? Iffy★Chat -- 10:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to be more than coverage of the team's results or their hopes for the Fed Cup/BJK cup. In my opinion, these would fall under routine coverage as it's pretty common for teams/players to be interviewed before, during, and after tournaments. I don't think these sources establish notability per WP:NSPORT or WP:ROUTINE. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you're going to get for sports teams. If there's consistent year round coverage of their performance/team composition, that should go towards notability. I'd struggle to find many sources even for Austria national football team that wouldn't meet some definition of routine. Jevansen (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been here since 2007. Should have some sources by now showing wider coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] - The fact that the sources aren't currently in the article isn't a basis for deletion. It's an reason to improve the article. Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

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

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 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!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a directory but the awards are sort of notable and the link [20] in the mian page shows multiple similar summary pages exist for other award categories. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain in the United States

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most American films are entered in the public domain from 2019 or later, but other non-US films, including Indian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are also public domain. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done a great many filmography articles and lists. Some are stand-alone lists, and some are imbedded in an actor's article. This particular list is very helpful in checking and completing those lists. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These films that are public domain in the United States are not otherwise tracked on Wikipedia (for example, by a Category or template); this article remains the only effective mechanism on Wikipedia to find such films and their associated articles. In addition, the research in this article is considerably more reliable and well-referenced than any other non-wikipedia reference I have found on the same topic. 72.81.222.194 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important. Maybe split the silent films, b&w vs color films. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

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

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[21] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 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!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really encylopedic. Article here since 2016. With such poor sourcing after this time, it means not even editors seem to care about the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles 201.225.3.154 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather (Glaive and Ericdoa song)

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

No reliable sources give significant coverage to the song. Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: YouTube, youtube, twitter and more, no reliable sources…. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sourcing which are all to primary sources. Mekomo (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]