Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 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 26	April 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of villages in Gopalganj district

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This appears to be a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Just because this information exists, not does mean it should be in Wikipedia. Blackballnz (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast International Model United Nations

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

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you're the only user who has substantively edited the article. If you want the article deleted, you can tag it with G7. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue to seek help with improving it, but I'm not sure what is, although someone more familiar with cases like these may provide more meaningful advice. If you don't want to delete it but aren't sure it's ready for publication yet, it can probably be moved to your userspace or draft space to allow you to improve it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep gotcha. The thing is that I’m 60-40% on the fence for this. I kinda think that the subject is notable owing to the sources but this might be a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. So thought that an AfD would be the best way to ascertain notability quickly. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to List of model United Nations conferences. There doesn't seem to be articles for other conferences, even THIMUN. As for the current content, it reads somewhat promotionally, and with little that would apply to this MUN conference and not any other. That is not to say a MUN conference couldn't be notable, but if it was I would expect there would be more to say. CMD (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest vines

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

Unfortunately, this list fails on the guidelines for notability of lists. WP:NLIST I have not been able to locate any source that discusses longest vines as a group. In addition I have not been able to locate any sources that support the claims for notability/inclusion of most of the list items. For example "Longest monocot". "The longest parasitic vine." etc.

This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH with the editors doing original research. This would make a great article in a popular science magazine, but WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of original publication.

I discussed these issues with the article's primary editor on the talk page, but they have not been able to provide any source that would deal with the notability issue. I placed a synth notice on the page in October of 2024 and no other editor has responded on the talk page or provided a source.

I don't know that there is anywhere appropriate to redirect this article to. Maybe to matchbox bean (Entada phaseoloides) as the probable longest vine. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This looks like original research without a notable subject behind it. I agree that there are no clear AtDs at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and Mtbotany have set an impossible standard which I state categorically cannot be met. I know. I have been searching since 1969 for the sort of hard evidence which MtBotany insists on. It doesn't exist. Reports in botanical journals such as Treub's measurement of Calamus are the extreme exception. 56 years of stubborn research is evidence of that. MtBotany's suggestion of redirecting it is certainly better than nothing. If John Doe, having just measured his grape vine, begins to wonder "How long do vines get?", he should be able to get some sort of answer if he types in "longest vine". Here's another thought: You have a half dozen clones using your material for free. Why not let them earn their keep? Block it for Wikipedia per se, but continue feeding it to the clones. Just a thought. Treeenthusiast (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not much reference to the individual vines themselves, just the name of the species they are in. There is no article specifically about each specific longest plant, and iirc a list's purpose on wikipedia is to link articles about its content to the reader. I checked the very first entry (snuff box sea bean), supposedly the longest entry in the list, and the longest specimen length is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article about the plant in general. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark (newspaper)

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

Non-notable newspaper, does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or local in scope, a WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage of note. Author has a WP:COI and likely undisclosed WP:PAID interest. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies that I’m relatively new at this. I attempted to disclose my conflict that I’m the co-owner and editor of this newspaper. I was not paid by anyone to create this page; I did it in my free time on a weekend. The list of California papers ([[List of newspapers in California#Daily newspapers]]) is full of dozens of other weeklies with nothing exceptionally notable about them at all, and with circulation the same or smaller than ours. We’ve been named the best small newspaper in America several times by the National Newspaper Association (National Newspaper Association and California News Publishers Association (California News Publishers Association), which seems more significantly notable than than other non-daily newspapers with non-deleted wikis, eg the Salinas Valley TribuneSalinas Valley Tribune — with all due respect to my colleagues there! Thanks for your consideration and happy to answer any questions. Kzhessel (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kzhessel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions that newspapers qualify under the criteria for "corporations and organizations" is fairly absurd. Yes it's a product but so are films, video games, books, which we have our own guidelines for, or any other kind of media, which we do not - clearly NCORP is not meant to cover "literally any piece of media", because that is absurd and counter to the spirit of notability. Better to go by WP:GNG or the suggestions at WP:NMEDIA... under which this does not pass, if the sourcing is all there is. This page does have no independent sources at the moment and needs to be largely trimmed. If this is all there is I would lean delete but if there is more coverage from outside sources (as the award would indicate there probably is) I would be more sympathetic. This seems like a relatively significant local paper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing RfC about making Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability an SNG, so I would look to that for guidance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more citations. I'm not sure what kind of additional citations are needed though -- individual papers are typically the source of news, not the discussion of news. When they're not national newspapers and they get written about by other media, it's usually because something very bad happened, eg, the 5,000 circulaton Manteca Bulletin has plagiarism allegations. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW we do have other newspapers citing us as the source of original/breaking news, eg, https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/05/tiburon-ridge-nearly-doubles-open-space-size/ ; https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ex-boyfriend-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-12559393.php ; https://www.marinij.com/2018/09/18/michael-mina-to-open-first-marin-restaurant-in-tiburon/ -- but we have no reason to include it in the wiki. I have included some other outside sources for citation though. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- although I could argue that being a significant local newspaper is notable in some cases, but I do not find this one passing WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate that, I'm having difficulty with both the criteria and the notion that this newspaper would be deleted when other non-daily California papers smaller and/or less significant than ours remain, some of which also have substantial wikis: Daily Democrat, Whittier Daily News, Idyllwild Town Crier, Sonoma Valley Sun, Placerville Mountain Democrat, Paso Robles Press, Half Moon Bay Review, Palisadian-Post, Monterey County Weekly, The Mendocino Beacon, Madera Tribune, Larchmont Chronicle, Lompoc Record, Hollister Free Lance, The Healdsburg Tribune, Selma Enterprise, North County News Tribune, Del Norte Triplicate, Hellenic Journal, Inyo Register, Atascadero News.

(Disclosure: I'm the page author and owner-editor of the paper under discussion.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sigcov in this university press book [1], but it's entirely about how the newspaper got its name. There's also something here [2] that is sigcov from the google books preview, not that it shows it to you. Finding sources for newspapers is hard, they seem to be cited a decent amount. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahlita Buethke

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. Lower level amateur footballer. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources are independent of the subject, nor was anything I could find on Google. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình

AfDs for this article:

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 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]

Parbad Kali Mandir

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

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	An interview	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion/dilution analysis

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

does not comply with, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC do not satisfy either Iban14mxl (talk) 03:36, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bascom Corner, Indiana

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

An intersection with some random houses around it, but other than Baker I have nothing on this barring a bald statement that it is an unincorporated town from a county history dating to 2021, so it could be dependent on us. Other book hits were exceedingly few and were all gazetteers. We really need more documentation than this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America West Airlines Flight 556

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Almost entirely unsourced, the two sources here don't help notability (unreliable, primary), I searched for sources and found none helpful. Also quite poorly written (the pilots over and over and over) PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Aviation, and Arizona. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here except an account of two pilots convicted of being drunk on the job. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Radio

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

Does not appear to be notable in itself given lack of coverage of the company that I could find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck (nickname)

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

Fails WP:GNG; little to no significant coverage. The Independent piece is the only one that contains any discussion about the nickname more substantial than "someone called Trump 'Donald Duck'". Even that discussion is limited to random online reactions, and is more about Christie than the nickname itself. The Politico piece shares Trump's reaction but contains even less coverage than the Indepdendent. I couldn't find better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is nothing more than childish name calling. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2025 stock market crash

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

If this turns into a prolonged market correction, there may be a need for a broader article. As is, the 2025 stock market crash at best lasted for a week between April 2 and April 9 (?) and it seems unnecessary to have a timeline for a 7 day event. The article largely duplicates info from the fairly short parent article. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this should be deleted based on WP:TOOSOON. Right now a full crash on the level of the dotcom bubble or the subprime bubble or the great depression bubble has yet to happen.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm an Eventualist, but not that much of an Eventualist. kencf0618 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draftspace for now. It could be expanded on and potentially moved back to mainspace when/if a future crash occurs. Given Trump’s erratic economic demands a future crash is not out of the question. ApexParagon (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

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

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This really only had coverage at local level. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to either Transport in Auckland#Walking and cycling or Cycling in Auckland, which does mention a 1998 "Walking and Cycling Plan" in Cycling in Auckland#Attitudes. There does not seem to be an article about pathways in Auckland, which would be a good merge target. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Highways Authority

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

Not notable, promotional article Loewstisch (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's notable or not I'm not sure (I don't know how we assess the notability of government agencies) but the article is not in the slightest bit promotional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ministry of Roads and Highways (Ghana) of which this is a department. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Loewstisch: Did you assess (WP:BEFORE) the extensive press coverage since 1974 to present? MarioGom (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government agencies are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Any luck? Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added sources and info from digitised newspapers (and a bit more info from the existing sources). A Google Books search shows that there is also some coverage in computer magazines, which I have not (yet) included - I will try to include this one [3] at least (though IT is really outside my areas of expertise or interest). I think there is just enough significant coverage for it to meet WP:NCORP (including the ISP Planet article - its age and the fact that the publication no longer exists are irrelevant.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RebeccaGreen, the InfoWorld article is based entirely on information provided by the company - that isn't "independent Content" - fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria, no sourcing available that is both in-depth and "independent content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically sources are all brief, routine business announcements, and I don't find anything more substantial. I will check back in case someone finds something better. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in the hopes of finding more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Yoshino

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

With 7 J3 appearances, [4], he doesn't seem notable, but as he played in Brazil briefly there may be stuff out there. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources from Targma seem to have significant coverage: 2020 and 2024. I'm just not sure if the source is reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [5], [6], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements do not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (apparently - AGF!) notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak delete.. changed course here after more recent considerations and especially in light of Sirfurboy's comments and further source review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:

1. & 14. [7] [8]- Primary / not independent -

2. [9] Listing, not SIGCOV. Primary?

3. [10] WP:SPS - blog. Not a WP:RS. Not SIGCOV - passing mention.

4. [11] - Interview. WP:PRIMARY per policy. Not independent.

5. [12] - This appears to speak about the subject, and have some relevant background, but it doesn’t look much like a reliable source. What is it?

6 & 7. [13], [14] - Club news is primary.

8, 10 & 11. [15] [16] [17]Reporting of team announcements - primary.

9. & 15. [18] [19] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further.

&

12, 13 [20] [21] - Team announcements - primary.

16. [22] - Reports an appointment - primary.

I will certainly consider a redirect as a WP:ATD - perhaps to a team? Or is he mentioned elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 6 and 7 are from GE (Grupo Globo), the largest sports portal in Brazil, so they are not primary. Svartner (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Miminity: Maybe you can help with the Japanese sources. Svartner (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found on JP name search is just primary sources and bunch of routine coverage. Here is the profile on Ultra Soccer, Gekisaka. JP wiki has nothing worth mentioning. The portuguese sources are beyond my scope so I cannot vote. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Sirfurboy's analysis. #5 (COJB) appears to be a club he belonged to ("I hope this will be the case for Yoshino and the other members who have left COJB.") and is thus not independent. #15 (Tagma interview) appears to be hosted, SB Nation-style, on the fan "web magazine" for YSCC. I can't find any info on editorial control, but it seems to be a one-man operation from the articles I can find. Doubtful it is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Of the sources listed, only #15 is possibly GNG-conforming (the reliability of the source is questionable though there is apparent significant, independent coverage). That alone wouldn't be enough to allow the subject pass GNG, which generally expects multiple references. Frank Anchor 20:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frank Anchor. Even only one significant coverage provided is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Yes, only Source #15 contains WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - @Iljhgtn:, should still be a weak keep at least... Idk how [23] ("a graduate of YS Academy. His calm tone and smile give this impression. But people like this always have something burning inside them. He left his hometown of Yokohama and honed his skills in Brazil. The language and culture are different. He survived in a country with a completely different security situation. Behind his gentle expression is a strong, courageous man. A fan of professional wrestling. He is fluent in Portuguese"), [24] ("After graduating from junior high school, he learned the language while playing in Brazil. In 2022, while he was undergoing rehabilitation, he also served as an interpreter for Brazilian player Rizzi, who was a member of YSCC's futsal team"), [25], ("went to Brazil at the age of 15 and played there for about six and a half years, and then built a professional career in Japan"), [26], ("Yoshino, who joined YS Yokohama in 2020, played in seven league games that season, but did not play in 2021 or 2022") combined with sources about his inuries and signings do ot and pro appearances does noit meet critria. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saks

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards.
But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Moderate Keep: It already has bare minimum of sources + this source from Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I seen worse cases where there's nothing to be done, and the deletion is reserved for these cases. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media source that is not about him in any substantive or notability-building sense. What bare minimum of GNG-worthy sourcing does that add up to? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. He hasn’t yet achieved enough coverage or notoriety to merit keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DeLeon (band): Changing my vote. Saks has coverage, but mostly in connecting with his bands. His podcast "has been recognized as a 2020 Webby Honoree and listed among Apple Podcasts' top shows in children's music education", but the article references a self-published source, and I couldn't find anything solid. Redirect to Deleon, because it seems more beefy with info, and The LeeVees potentially lack notability. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on this redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the addition of the official website as a source, while potentially useful for verifying basic facts per WP:ABOUTSELF, does not contribute towards establishing notability under WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and an organization's own website is inherently not independent (WP:IS). The core issue raised in the nomination – the lack of such independent coverage found during the WP:BEFORE search – remains unaddressed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total absence of sources. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach some kind of quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy Flashboards

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to Remedy Corp. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure we need a reference for a redirect, do we? I looked and found passing refs but nothing sufficient to establish notability which is why I’m recommending a redirect. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia redirects should have a mention in the redirected page, but there is currently no mention as there are no references. Otherwise fake redirects could be created without such control. Clenpr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a logical redirect target, but without a mention at the target it's likely to confuse people in a future RfD. Do we have anything worth saying about it at this target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Langford (politician)

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

Candidates for political office rarely meet WP:NPOL notability. This is no exception. Coverage is limited to sources that we would largely find marginally unreliable (moreso no consensus, but leaning UNREL), i.e. Post-2013 Newsweek, BoingBoing, and a variety of non-notable blogs. If he wins in November we can reassess, but as of right now, he is a minor candidate who does not meet GNG or NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom. All the refs fail WP:SIRS, so this fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCup HTML Editor

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Why does it fail that, @Clenpr:? If you don't expand any of these reasonings in your own words I will be NAC closing this group of nominations with the next couple days because I'm tired of these nominations you and others put forward where those voting are supposed to figure out why outside a WP: cite you're seeking deletion. And this is one of the more well-known consumer HTML editors; it will need sources but I'm not deleting without more information from you. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject is notable but I’m ok with the nomination’s terseness. If the subject is non-notable, what else would you say? “I looked and looked but found no refs” - that doesn’t add anything more. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar indicates there are sources out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference? Do you have references for all the page content? Clenpr (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m traveling or I would have added refs to the article. I’ll see if I can do that later this week. In the meantime, if you click the link I gave you, you’ll see what I mean. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Google Scholar results can be misleading - do we have sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer @Asilvering, there does appear to be sigcov available. There is at least decent amount of coverage of the software in a html "for dummies" type book: [27].

Further comment: @A. B. A reason that @Nathannah may be asking for more from the nominator in this case is due to rapid nomination of many articles for AfD by the same user. It's happened for software and songs and GI joe characters in the last few weeks which has led to some discussion about new guidelines for AfD over at the village pump: Wikipedia talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations. Given WP:NSOFT is an essay and not an official guidelines using it as the sole reason for nomination can also be considered invalidating.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[28]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

While American Sailing does offer training sources, this sailing program fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]