Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 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 10	April 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jive PR+Digital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All but the final two sources are passing mentions, and the final two are from Instagram/Linkedin. Found nothing useful after a search online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.

"Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."

-Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church

"Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"

“It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”

Paul Copan

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per their talk page[1], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Aliro

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

This article is massively incomplete and poorly formed and needs to be draftified, at the very least. I also was not able to find any meaningful WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond transfer notices and similar sources. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kwikiriza Shafik Nana

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player, not to mention the fact that the article is terrible, which is neither here nor there. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapel (glass treatment)

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

There is no substantial RS coverage on the topic. There is nothing to indicate they are relevant. The page was created by an editor who is creating many promotional pages for related product. Iban14mxl (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let this ride cause it's a terrible article, but this nomination? Who is the "they" in the second sentence? What editor--this is 16 years old. What are "related figures"? This is not a "figure", it's a product. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

AfDs for this article:

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

There is fundamentally no WP:SIGCOV about this battle. The sources that mention it say that it occurred and what its result was, but there's essentially no more information than that. Much of the coverage uncovered at previous AfDs is either unreliable, or relates to different battles of Anandpur, of which there were many, including in the previous and following years. The topic is better covered as two sentences of background or aftermath in those articles. There is nothing to merge or redirect, as the only meaningful content was a copyright violation, and the title isn't a meaningful search term because of the parenthetical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will wait with baited breath and stop the world to wait for your opinion. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[2] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[3] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [4], this is an opinion piece [5], [6], [7]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [8] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[9] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [10] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrobics

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

Was previously soft deleted at Quadrobers. Appears to be a flash in the pan Russian furry-adjacent subculture where every source exists from a tiny window of time where this blew up into a moral panic. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is notable, as demonstrated by 33 (!!!) reliable sources.
The English-language sources include:
1. Vogue: "Quadrobics is the fitness trend that improves all-over strength (and your abs)", 5 July 2024
2. New Indian Express: "Quadrobics: low-impact, high-intensity workout", 21 July 2024
3. The Manual (via Yahoo Life): "Quadrobics is a full-body workout surging in popularity — Here’s what to know", 10 December 2024
4. Women Health Magazine: "Horsing around: what is quadrobics and how do you do it?", 8 January 2025
The Russian-language sources include RIA Novosti, Vedomosti, Russian Public Opinion Research Center, Channel One Russia, RBC, Hi-Tech Mail, Izvestia, Gazeta.Ru, Lenta.ru, big Russian sports portals like Sports.ru [ru] and Championat.ru [ru]. Actually, too many to mention.
And just take a look at the Russian Wikipedia page (ru:Квадроберы) that has a stunning count of 70,000 characters. I have no idea why the nominator insists the subject is unnotable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. The nominator is the same user who wanted to delete the "Quadrobers" article back in January. The article has been edited/improved by many people and it seems that Warrenmck is the only one who has found something wrong (or inappropriate?) with it. In January, he argued that it was "a mostly unsourced flash-in-the-pan subculture or moral panic" and that "every source is from the same roughly one month window in Russia". Neither was true. The article was carefully sourced even back then, and the publications used as references were from as early as May 2024 and as late as December 2024. Now, there's at least one from 2025. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Russian articles about quadrobics:
1. RBC Life: "What is quadrobics: Is it a sport or not. Why do they want to ban the quadrobics in Russia", 23 May 2024;
2. Mail.ru: "Quadrobics: What you need to know about a new hobby", 5 August 2024.
3. The Moscow Times (in English): "What is quadrobics, Russia's viral but divisive youth culture, 13 September 2024;

But, as I've said, there're too many to list here.
Therefore, if even this were an article about a Russia-only subculture (as the nominator argues), its subject would still pass WP:GNG.
(But it is not specific to Russia.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more English-language sources, currently unused:
1. BBC: "Quadrobic panic in Russia over craze to dress and walk on ...", 27 February 2025
  (I can't look at and use this one cause bbc.com isn't working for me.)
2. Barron's: "Fur flies as Russia takes on young fans of 'Quadrobics'", 8 November 2024

--Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the author of both this article and the previously deleted one. I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the person who tried to delete the "Quadrobers" article in January. And the sole person on Wikipedia who finds it "inappropriate" or whatever.
"I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia."
— OMG, I've listed several here. Some were published as early as May 2024. And they already were listed in this article back in January. I wonder why you couldn't see them and still can't. I've also listed two from 2025 right here today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSUSTAINED is the issue, here.

Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year it's in the news. That's already not a "brief burst of news coverage".
Moreover, the four English-language sources I listed in my first comment aren't even news articles. They just talk about quadrobics in general, as a workout. They explain what it is. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't sustained over a year, it seems to mostly be English press occasionally picking up the situation in Russia and covering that offset in time, i.e. a huge amount of those sources are about the exact same event (in this case the virality of Quadrobing in Russia occasionally as it relates to LGBTQ+ persecution in Russia) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think so. Quadrobics is not just about Russia. Quadrobics is still trending on YouTube, TikTok, and probably on Instagram too. There's also a "Quadrobics" subreddit, it is alive and well. Quadrobics isn't going anywhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and nontrivial impact. --Altenmann >talk 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per previous AfD. Only a regional variation of the Furry fandom. Svartner (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true on so many levels... (It's so wrong that it's impossible to argue with.... "Furry fandon", whatever... In short, there are 1 trillion sources, the topic is notable. Full stop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False argument. (1) not regional (you can easily see this from refs cited) and (2) not furry fandom(you can easily see this from refs cited) --Altenmann >talk 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be regional; practically every reference I can find is referring to a social media craze that is, by all accounts, just Russian. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely false. The four sources that I listed first don't even mention Russia.
I have no idea how to comment on your comments. What you say is simply false. You should just admit that you want to delete this article no matter what. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that don’t mention Russia mention a social media craze which, per the articles specifically talking about that, is from Russia. There is no sourcing for a social media craze outside of Russia I’ve been able to find.

please remember WP:AGF, a lack of belief WP:GNG has been met isn’t the same thing as being hostile to a topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no sourcing for a social media craze outside of Russia I’ve been able to find."
—The first four sources I listed aren't Russian and don't even mention Russia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they cite that it’s been a trend on social media. I’m unable to find any references to that trend extending outside Russia. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe that’s enough to pass WP:GNG, but I haven’t seen a single source yet that really implies this is anything other than a flash in the pan Russian fad. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that there aren't any sources except the first four ones I listed on this page. They talk about quadrobics in detail, and they are already enough for quadrobics to pass WP:GNG. And they don't even mention Russia. And neither do these ones: Garage Gym Reviews, Baptist Health, Findmykids.org. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NARCHITECT as the lead architect on multiple notable buildings/projects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article erroneously stated that he was party secretary of Inner Mongolia, a position that would probably make him automatically notable. Based on the cited sources, he is only party secretary of the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department, which is not a position that makes him automatically notable. I have corrected the article accordingly.

Though he is not automatically notable under NPOL, I have not yet done a search for sources to check if the GNG is met. Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhuang, Yu 庄彧 (2021-06-22). "郑光照任商洛市委书记(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Party Secretary of Shangluo Municipal Committee (Photo | Resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网地方党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月出生，2016年起任商洛市委副书记、市长。原任商洛市委书记的郭永红近日已任陕西省副省长。郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the database of local party and government leaders of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao was born in September 1966 and has served as deputy secretary and mayor of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee since 2016. Guo Yonghong, the former secretary of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee, has recently been appointed as vice governor of Shaanxi Province. Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics."
2. Shi, Lanlan 石兰兰 (2016-08-27). "郑光照当选商洛市市长(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao was elected mayor of Shangluo City (photo | resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月生，此前担任渭南市委常委、常务副市长，近日已任商洛市委副书记、市政府党组书记；原任商洛市长的是陈俊，女，1960年10月出生，近日已任商洛市委书记（相关报道）。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the data of the Party and Government Leaders Database of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao, born in September 1966, previously served as a member of the Standing Committee of the Weinan Municipal Party Committee and Executive Vice Mayor, and has recently been appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee and Secretary of the Party Group of the Municipal Government; the former Shangluo Mayor is Chen Jun, female, born in October 1960, and has recently been appointed as the Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee (related reports)."
3. Hai, Jun 海军 (2022-12-04). Zhang, Xuedong 张雪冬; Liu, Ze 刘泽 (eds.). "郑光照在凉城县宣讲党的二十大精神并开展林长制巡查工作" [Zheng Guangzhao preached the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Liangcheng County and carried out forest chief system inspection work]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "11月28日，自治区副主席、公安厅厅长郑光照到乌兰察布市凉城县，为机关干部和基层民警宣讲党的二十大精神。"
  From Google Translate: "On 28 November 28, Zheng Guangzhao, Vice Chairman of the Autonomous Region and Director of the Public Security Department, went to Liangcheng County, Ulanqab City, to preach the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Party to cadres and grassroots police."
4. "郑光照同志简介" [Brief introduction of Comrade Zheng Guangzhao]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-07-29. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月生，在职研究生，中共党员，现任内蒙古自治区副主席、政府党组成员，自治区公安厅党委书记、厅长、督察长，自治区党委政法委副书记（兼）。"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, is a postgraduate student and a member of the Communist Party of China. He is currently the Vice Chairman of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and a member of the Party Leadership Group of the Government, the Party Secretary, Director and Inspector General of the Autonomous Region Public Security Department, and the Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Autonomous Region Party Committee (concurrently)."
5. Li, Zhiqiang 李志强 (2016-08-06). "陈俊任陕西商洛市委书记郑光照任商洛市委副书记" [Chen Jun is appointed as the Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee, and Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。历任咸阳市粮油食品土畜产品外贸公司副经理，长武县副县长，"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics. He has served as deputy manager of Xianyang Cereals, Oils, Foods, Local Products and Livestock Foreign Trade Company, deputy county magistrate of Changwu County, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zheng Guangzhao (simplified Chinese: 郑光照; traditional Chinese: 鄭光照) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these appear like basic political profiles, which would be a run-of-the-mill career. IgelRM (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. The guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline do not exclude an article on a politician who have had "a run-of-the-mill career" if the politician has received significant coverage as is the case here. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you see as significant besides being chosen as secretary? IgelRM (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on this[11] which confirms he was a National People's Congress delegate in 2018. Per WP:NPOL a member of China's national legislative body is presumed notable. The sourcing found by Cunard addresses verifiability of his positions. Oblivy (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

75 Hard

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

This is (in my opinion), clearly promotional content. Yes, there are some articles about it, but significant coverage seems to be lacking. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MXlo

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

No sources, very scant usage of the term mxlo online. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Best Regards (CP) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Flowers

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

An IP (188.31.32.68) tried to put this up for deletion a week ago but didn't complete the other steps for it to show up everywhere. I also did my own search for anything to show notability but all I got was an article from the s*n complaining about quality and a local paper interviewing the owner. The article was also created by a single purpose account (aka creating this page) and has not been significantly edited in the 6 years it has existed. Moritoriko (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]