Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

5 May 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

< May 04	May 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see the passes of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 2 Lead and significant roles in notable television shows (Mann Mast Malang and Zulm). Misopatam (talk | contribs) 06:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you point out the coverage which is still required since WP:NACTOR is not a guideline for inherent notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confirming that articles don't need to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. But NACTOR isn't a guarantee, especially if sourcing is thin. Any additional thoughts/sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization of wine

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

This article mostly duplicates existing, better articles. It has featured various improvement tags dating back to 2008, and seemingly was PRODded in 2020 - which was only removed this week (I'm not sure how that happened). I think at this point it's fairly safe to say WP:TNT applies, as it's got very little reedeming it.

In addition the article seems largely to be an essay, failing WP:NOT. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Wine. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree this article largely seems like an (incomplete) essay based on a chapter of a single book source. I would redirect to History of wine as most of the article is about wine history.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered a redirect but I think that as the Globalization of Wine article managed to have a PROD on it for 5 years! it likely isn't looked at very much if at all, and I'm not sure how useful a redirect from such a term would even be. CoconutOctopus talk 19:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that the link doesn't need to be maintained. There are several pages that link to this, but redirecting to the history article isn't really relevant and those would be better simply delinked. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How it happened: it was deleted in 2020 and undeleted this week. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes so much sense. I think that's even more proof we don't need this. CoconutOctopus talk 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Anonrfjwhuikdzz. Barr Theo (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of wine. Neither the Tabor nor the Rachman source in the Globalization article it's currently mentioned in the History article, and I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be. BD2412 T 22:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babarloi Dharna

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

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.
I argue that:

The two topics are related, but not identical.

Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N

Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.

Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests

Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.
JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cholistan Canal Project. Fails WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your merge suggestion isn't relevant to this article. I have elaborated above in details. And it doesn't fails WP:NEVENT. JogiAsad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article's title should be changed from Babarloi Dharna to Babarloi Sit-in because former title is not giving news results in search that is why it looks insignificant otherwise the protest has captured significant attention from notable news agencies. If the content of article is artificially generated than it can be easily rephrased or re-written. However, it should not be merged with Cholistan Canal Project as this article covers one the major political movements in the history of Pakistan. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why you have not fixed it or re write it. First improve the article than give the statement that now the problems have been fixed and than vote for the Keep. Misopatam (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm taking down your vote for now. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cmt.Issues have been fixed, further you can also fix it.

JogiAsad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Controversial Canals on Indus River, or Cholistan Canal Project both articles are about the mega project (which has become controversial). It's important to pay attention to the details of a large infrastructure project that has sparked controversy. On the other hand, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in highlights a different social and political movement, which covers a public protest against these proposed controversial canal projects.

Combining the protest article with the project-related articles would mix up the topic of dissent with how that dissent is expressed, which isn't right. Just like the Faizabad sit-in is significant enough to have its own article, the Babarloi Dharna / Sit-in article is about the movement against those controversial topics and deserves the same treatment as a standalone article.It is an important civic response, complete with its own timeline, dynamics, leaders, and political effects. For these reasons, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in should have its own entry to keep the narrative clear and true to the essence of this protest movement. JogiAsad (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the issues, updated the article as per current status. See page revisions. JogiAsad (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 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 delete‎. I just relisted this, but that was before I saw that these source-free keep !votes were copied onto multiple AfDs. asilvering (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College

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

One of the Cantonment schools in Bangladesh. Not particularly notable. Similar articles were deleted. See ---- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Cantonment Board School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School, Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College, Ramu Cantonment English School and College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramu Cantonment Public School and College etc.... Somajyoti ✉ 19:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yeah, those topics weren't notable but I have a question, can you search on the internet, and check the sources to see what it says? and read WP:Three. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk), 7:46 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

How is this a keep !vote? Perhaps you meant this as a comment/request? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a request but i also wanted to vote, sorry for the confusion. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk), 8:49 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep - there are a lot of highly notable Schools in Bangladesh, but simply they do not come to any news unless there is a incident. So finding citation for them is quite hard but they are notable. If you google you can find that. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 12:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources for this very new school are primary/not independent. We need sources that demonstrate this meets WP:GNG, which is to say, multiple sources with significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Because the school is young, it seems unlikely there is anything out there, and we do ont list all schools uner the WP:NOT policy (Wikipedia is not a directory). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check the page again and that how it meets WP:Three, just check the sources, it won't take a lot of time. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk), 02:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I already looked at the sources when I made my !vote. But as you mention WP:THREE, I will be happy to review the three best sources you believe are on the page or elsewhere. Which are they? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources are independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the nominator’s job to make a case for the sourcing situation being insufficient. Cortador (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but it is the job of a !voter to establish whether WP:N is met and to !vote based on their opinion on the matter. I do not see how any of the sources on the page meet IRS SIGCOV. AfD is a discussion. Which sources do you think meet IRS SIGCOV? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above. Cortador (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, atleast 6 out of 11 sources are independent and secondary and it is sufficient for in-depth coverage which are reliable and publishers being recognised by the Department of Films and Publications under the Government of Bangladesh (see here and here and here), it passes WP:Three and WP:GNG. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk🗣️) 10:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at these in more detail later, but an immediate question arises: aren't these all the same source? That is, they all come from Gov.BD. Multiple articles from a single source usually count as a single source for notability purposes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, I am not sure you have understood what WP:THREE is. Here you give us three sources, all from the Bangladesh Government. The first is simply a list of registered newspapers in Bangladesh, and says nothing about the page subject. I can only suppose that you present it here for some other reason than as one of the three best sources. Perhaps you intend to use it to show that sources on the page are reliable. Whether it does that or not would be moot, as the purpose of source evaluation would be to see whether there is significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of the page subject in independent and reliable secondary sources. You simply state that sources are independent and reliable, but nothing here demonstrates it. Alternatively you perhaps actually meant this to be one of the best three sources, in which case we do not have SIGCOV, the page is a government list, which is a primary source, and not independent and does not even mention the subject. So that one is definitely a N. As to the other two, they are at least about the area but again, a list of newspapers does not even talk bout the subject. N. This problem is general. No sources on the page meet the requirements for GNG. But per WP:THREE that you mention, I am still willing to look at any three sources you think may show notability per WP:GNG. Sources must be independent reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the subject. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, When i gave those sources, i did not say it was about the page itself, those 3 were cited as a sign that the publishers of the sources are registered. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk🗣️) 05:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you read my comment, please understand it properly, i was basically trying to prove the reliability of the article by providing sources that talk about the publishers of references in the article, not about Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College, it was about the reliability of the publishers of the references. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk🗣️) 05:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand my comment too. When you say this passes WP:THREE, what are the three best sources you believe demonstrate the notability of the article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trash article, wiki isn't for creating articles on each & every school. This is a routine government-run cantonment school established in 2019, and the coverage is entirely local event-based (visits, anniversaries, admission notices). Such institutions are non-notable unless there's significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent national/international sources which is lacking here. Chronos.Zx (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, a nearly identical article on Ramu Cantonment Public School and College was previously deleted after an undisputed AfD by me for the same reasons see afd. This article suffers from the same fundamental notability issues. Chronos.Zx (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:26, 5 May 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.

Tafsir Meshkat

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

I'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the English article by ChatGPT, though it has referenced enwiki material too. Also, please don't remind me of Wikipedia policies. I am aware of them. I try to use common sense. Taha (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Nešković

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Notability: Đorđe Nešković has led a national team at multiple European Curling Championships, which is a significant international competition. That's a point in favor of notability.
Achievement: He won Serbia's first ever curling medal at the 2013 European C-Group Championships. First national medals in any sport usually carry weight.

Боки 💬 📝 21:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those criteria meet WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 European Curling Championships – Men's tournament#Group C where his name is mentioned. By the way, has anyone tried searching under "Ђорђе Нешковић"? Because that's where potential coverage would be. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, notability should be only judged by references provided on the article, not achievements anymore. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 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)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Poland

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Side note: article also being currently discussed in deletion context on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:04:25:Volt Polska). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you, although from my standpoint this creates a pattern of arbitral inconsistency since there's other national chapters of Volt also operating as associations and not yet parties with their own Wiki pages. The article is going to be recreated anyway once the association registers as a party. "Other stuff exists" refers to comparisons understood in a wider sense than literal corresponding chapters of the same multinational organization. Daeheung (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be deleted again if there is no WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources. Not all entities registered as parties are notable. Only the "important" ones. As for inconsistency, sure. Folks spam articles on Wikipedia trying to promote niche concepts, we keep deleting them, but it takes time to clean up spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 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)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin' Out (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine that is apparently out of publication. Unable to find any sources discussing it. The single source that was standing to the article is to a website that was removed or otherwise blacklisted from archive.org, which is a red flag. Further, about the only thing I found on this publication indicates that its last article was published about four years ago. Probably fails other specific notability guidelines, but it's a clear WP:GNG fail. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Delete 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted but there was no need for that stuff on my Talk page. I didn't have any rude attitude towards editors at all. I did nothing wrong and was removing unsourced crap from that page. I was totally in the right dude. 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stumbled on this while doing spam cleanup (the home page has been usurped by the infamous WP:JUDI gang). Looking at the Wayback Machine, the site has been around for about 20 years. That's a long time. Surely there would be coverage about it somewhere, to write an article with. Today is AfD Day 7 (doomsday). Encourage anyone who has the time to really check around for sources. -- GreenC 15:21, 4 May 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)} 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers (band)

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

I couldn't verify the "international #1" claim. If such a claim is false, this page clearly fails WP:BAND. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Chart history. Coverage of single. Coverage of album. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the third hit in the single search is about Brothers acquiring a gold record. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per WP:BAND if you have Top 100 song in any country chart then you qualify.Darkm777 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Michaels (songwriter)

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

Promotional tone, failed verifications, more citations needed... in the end, may not meet the notability standards. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hi. Please note that Grant Michaels is listed as a writer on the Banners' song "Someone To You" on its entry, which chartered to no. 11 on Billboard's Adult Top 40 and Hot Rock & Alternative Songs charts and is credited in the Wikipedia entry for the song. He is also credited as a writer on Sia's "Dressed in Black" on her 1,000 Forms of Fear which charted to no. 1 the US Billboard 200. He is credited on the credits list in the entry. Among his other credits, he is again listed on the songs for Descendants 2 (Soundtrack). My understanding is that he meets the requirements of notability as a musical artist. I've also attempted to address the issue of promotional tone when it was returned to draft with a rewrite, but am open any help regarding addressing that issue.

JohnGuo1971 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 27 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)} 01:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to locate any significant sufficient coverage that demonstrates notability beyond national law review. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Information and sourcing is over a decade out of date. See https://nchv.org/ — Maile (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 21 April 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 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I only found significant coverage in National Law Review still it is a reliable source but not independent it majorly contributed by law firms. So, it lacks to establish notability. Fade258 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper & Singing Simon

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

Contested PROD; only found trivial mentions on user-generated sites and social media, nothing nearly reliable or significant enough to satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Bhattarai

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

Unexpanded after a decade and a half, likely due to lack of reliable sources. I have found nothing in depth. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nepal. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This astrologer operates in a fringe area but has not made enough impact to be notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 5 May 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) TzarN64 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's Lava Chicken

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

Nothing more than just a meme article. Steve’ Lava Chicken isn’t notable enough than to just be its own standalone article; The chicken jockey meme also doesn’t have its own article (for good reason) why should this? TzarN64 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article is clearly notable, multiple sources about the song specifically from reliable secondary sources. There is also enough content to justify it being its own article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Steve singing about lava chicken warrants its own article. Again, this could have been just a passing mention on the relating soundtrack article. You don’t see Chicken jockey (meme) having its own article. TzarN64 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could have its own article if the sources existed for it. Which they very well might. Stranger things have happened.

Anyway, this argument isn't actually helpful. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator keep It has an article because it's notable and passes WP:NSONG. There are several references in the article, and many more sources out there, that demonstrate how this song broke charting records as the shortest song to ever chart in the history of the UK singles chart, the Billboard Hot 100, and charted in many other territories. It is a clear pass of NSONG. Also, I want to note that this deletion discussion was likely made out of revenge or spite after I nominated two files made by the creator of this deletion discussion for deletion that they uploaded for the article. The initial redirecting of this article also had no explanation given. And knowing that no acknowledgement was given to the sources actually present in this article that demonstrate its performance, I cannot classify this as ANY more than a revenge nomination. I also want to go ahead and put it out there that this user has a WP:1RR restriction at the moment, which they violated with this revision. λ NegativeMP1 00:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This user in question has now attempted to leave a warning on my talk page accusing me of edit warring because I reinstated the article after they redirected it with no reason. This basically confirms my suspicions. λ NegativeMP1 00:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:TPNO violation. you must not misrepresent any editor in talk pages. saying that I am “jealous” and spiteful over a lava chicken article is stupid. TzarN64 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources in the article show a pass of WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 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.