User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Foresters House	20 days ago	3	7050	1633.22
Smruthi K	19 days ago	2	5979	1596.16
March 2025 Daraa clashes	15 days ago	0	4634	1503.31
...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love	13 days ago	0	3064	1379.55
Prajal Regmi	14 days ago	1	6708	1340.31
Sharjah Sustainable City	14 days ago	2	6748	1296.21
QSvn	12 days ago	0	2968	1288.02
Distributed Ruby	12 days ago	0	3140	1287.07
Ddoc	12 days ago	0	2851	1287.01
Epydoc	12 days ago	0	2853	1286.84
EasyBeans	12 days ago	0	2842	1286.79
DIIOP	12 days ago	1	2807	1247.62
Sympitar	11 days ago	0	2998	1242.99
FileMan	12 days ago	1	3738	1237.5
ELMAH	12 days ago	1	3589	1236.97
OJ (programming tool)	12 days ago	1	3418	1236.84
Kaye Tuckerman	15 days ago	4	10167	1214.35
Mohsen Afshani (2nd nomination)	10 days ago	0	3540	1150.71
Grant Michaels (songwriter)	10 days ago	0	4213	1138.8
OWBasic	12 days ago	2	4529	1136.9
EAccelerator	12 days ago	2	3735	1136.88
Fredrick Muyia Nafukho	12 days ago	3	4743	1118.13
The Ark (newspaper)	10 days ago	1	8163	1112.23
2016–17 Młoda Liga	10 days ago	1	2954	1104.26
Sahar Hashmi (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	2	8967	1093.27

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ : Not a listed heritage building, so no listing there to help. I don't see news articles about this place, appears to be just another high rise in Toronto. No real sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

put the wrong address in, it's listed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. [1], but that's not enough for sourcing. Let's see what else we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Lengthy heritage study attached to the by-law [2]. Coverage here [3], column down on the left, suggests there is coverage of this in a book about the architect. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate additional sources mentioned by User:Oaktree b.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

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.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment Voice actors can certainly be notable per WP:NACTOR if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has voiced lead roles for many notable films, in a variety of languages. The main issue seems to me to be finding reliable sources to verify that she has voiced those roles. The sources currently in the article are not reliable or independent. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen, any luck? -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been working on other articles at AfD. I did find some sources - I'll get back to adding them and looking for more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources are found here then we can keep the article, but otherwise delete. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for sourcing to be identified (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as BLP's have strict sources...and the sources inside of the article are not strong enough. My googling found Imdb sources/film credits, possibly failing WP:NEXIST as well. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last extension.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

how about improving it?? JaxsonR (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love

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

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
draftify for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Prajal Regmi

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

Regardless of how this turns out, thank you Flyingphoenixchips for the reminder about WP:ATD-T. For reference, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people). I think the only sources for this biography that have significant coverage (Honei, Vanguards of Wesea, SEED Cell, and iU) are either not independent or not reliable. Honei could be independent. I consider them to be basically human interest reporting, which is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and I don't see evidence of reliability (like editorial oversight) to refute that generalization. Vanguards of Wesea is – per its website – an initiative of the Wesean High School Students Forum. It looks like its stories are produced from nominations that are then assessed according to that website's definition of notability. Despite the nominations being reviewed by editors, I am skeptical of that source's independence from the subject. SEED Cell and the iU interview don't seem independent. In my search for sources, I only found newsheads.in. That source ended up on the spam blacklist, so I won't spend too much time evaluating it. Overall, I don't see evidence of notability. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep, deletion discussion would be the best course of action to get a consensus on notability! :) For now I have added the additional references! I am kinda on the grey area on whether the subject is fully notable or not either. However would appreciate input from other editors here. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep I do agree with most of what PrinceTortoise had to say. https://www.iuemag.com/u20/is/an-inspiring-young-entrepreneur-from-the-northeast-india-Prajal-Regmi IU] is definitely not a reliable source. As for SEED Cell it seems reliable to me, because the article itself only reports of the person winning an award, and I do think this might be independent of the subject and is only reporting news about entrepreneurship from the state. As for Honei I defnitely am on the edge. Yes, it is definitely a case of human interest reporting. As for Vanguards of Wesea I do feel the subject is definitely independent from the article. There is a named author for each article, and from their website they state that "Vanguards of Wesea is strictly an encyclopedia... All nominations undergo thorough verification, and our editors ensure each person's notability through third-party sources and confirm that their achievements are legitimate." I do not see anything there that might show tht the subject is not independent from them. But again, yes, the editors listed all seems to be minors so the quality of journalism might be questioned. Not to seem ageist, but I would like to see what others have to say for the same. But yes, I myself have not been able to find any other sources apart from this. I think it just passes notability and will thus support a keep. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would welcome greater participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Sharjah Sustainable City

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concerns raised. I am currently improving the article by adding more independent, reliable sources that provide neutral coverage of the subject. Additionally, I am revising the content to ensure a strictly factual and non-promotional tone, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Given that the project has received coverage in independent media outlets (such as [Shurooq]), I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I respectfully request additional time to complete these improvements. Below are the links for your reference.

https://shurooq.gov.ae/portfolio/sharjah-sustainable-city

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/property/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-dh2-5-billion-in-sales

https://gulfnews.com/uae/watch-a-sustainable-city-rises-in-sharjah-with-smart-solar-homes-driverless-shuttle-1.86314388

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/dvef0-sharjah-sustainable-city-community-integrating

https://property.constructionweekonline.com/sharjah-sustainable-city-pioneering-eco-friendly-living-and-boosting-uae-real-estate/ 94.203.35.126 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

None of these sources are independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep unfortunately, the UAE does not have freedom of press, and there are hardly any newspapers, making coverage on topics that would appear to be notable by residents be limited. Gulf News and Khaleej Times are going to be your best bets for coverage on anything. This project is definitely notable regardless of the bias of the sources. Also, the place has won quite a few awards (see the article), which is a sure sign of notability. jolielover♥talk 19:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete – As pointed out by the nom, none of the sources are independent from the UAE government. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There are sources independent of the government, though.
+ many more. Like I said, there are no newspapers in the country 'independent' of the government due to a lack of freedom of press, but there are newspapers & magazines from outside the country covering the place, making the coverage significant & independent. jolielover♥talk 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

QSvn

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment - not to be confused with “Quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic soft sets”, sometimes abbreviated “QSVN”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete I haven't been able to find any non-primary sources.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Distributed Ruby

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete There are a couple of sources and how-to books available that go into some depth about programming in ruby for distributed computing. However, notability is still weak as this program does not appear to be widely used for teaching and remains fairly niche. From an encyclopedic standpoint, there is not much more to say than this is a thing for distributed computing in ruby. Additional commentary appears likely to veer into how-to territory or a too-detailed look at the underpinnings of distributed ruby and wikipedia aims to do neither of these things.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ddoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete No coverage found outside of primary sources specifically related to the D language. Sources are far too niche to be meet GNG standard. I would not recommend a redirect to D language in this case as the acronym DDOC has multiple meanings.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Epydoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete Old and now defunct software for generating documentation in python. Available sources are mostly primary (2004 presentation at Pycon, software website). Most detailed additional mention I can find is in a bachelor's thesis from 2019 which does not meet GNG/reliability guidelines. Other sources are passing mentions or brief descriptions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

EasyBeans

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete <10 academic sources from what I see with a quick search. Both scholarly sources and general sources appear to be primary. May have had some use in teaching, but widespread use does not seem common.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

DIIOP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete obscure behind the scenes software program to connect javascript to another obscure software program, in this case Lotus Domino. Fails notability, as per nom. Also, this article is two sentences, and this software fails WP:SIGCOV. -- AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sympitar

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

Musical instrument created by Fred Carlson and mentioned on his website, and mentioned in an interview by the person who commissioned him Carson to make Sympitar. The only independent source I could find on Sympitar with sparse-to-moderate coverage is this [4]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete unable to find coverage that is simultaneously independent and in-depth.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

FileMan

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Many hits on Google Books: Some of them significant coverage: Medical Informatics Europe 85, Computerizing Large Integrated Health Networks, VA Practitioner. The last one is not fully readable but it seems SIGCOV, so I'm leaning keep on this one. --Mika1h (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ELMAH

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete I have not found any in-depth sources regarding ELMAH or how it is notable. It gets a fair number of mentions in sources focused on programming with asp.net, but it seems to be just one of many options for logging in that ecosystem. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:32, April 26, 2025

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Even before addressing notability, Anonrfjwhuikdzz's vote recognizes that the page fails to even make a WP:credible claim of significance among many approaches to ASP.NET error logging. WP:NSOFT is merely advice applying WP:GNG. @Clenpr, per the advice you received on your talk page two days after this nom, please provide further justification when bringing software pages to AfD to clarify your research that the subject is non-notable, rather than simply establishing that the article is currently deficient (See WP:BEFORE). ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

OJ (programming tool)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:NSOFT 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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 00:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep Currently the only rationale is violating WP:NSOFT which is an essay not a guideline. The original conference paper for this programming tool[5] (when it was named openjava) has been cited 293 times according to google scholar. There are additional sources indicating this has been the topic of instruction in university courses. It appears to be subject of focus in some schools at least: [6]] which could mean it "passes" NSOFT despite the delete votes claiming otherwise. Given WP:PRESERVE and the lack of appropriate deletion rationale, this article should be kept until better research is done in favor of deletion at the very least.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Kaye Tuckerman

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

Non-notable. AI generated and at least some refs are fake. Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete and can we just find some way to speedy these. Btw Polygnotus thanks for the heads up re. ANI, although the guy was blocked by the time I got there :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as there is only one notable role with some reviews. Redirect to Mamma Mia! (musical)#productions. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Keep - Changing my !vote per WP:HEY and RebeccaGreen identifying the sources to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep There is a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers about her from her time in Mamma Mia from 2010-2012, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. She probably also meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE with her other performances and her nomination for the Africa Movie Academy Awards for design work on From a Whisper. I'll add sources to the article (and check out the existing ones). No, please let's not Speedy Delete articles like this - there is clear indication of notability in the text of this article; the refs could be improved, but that's the case with lots of WP articles, and is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen Are you basing your !vote on the fake information in the article? I looked at your contributions and the last 7 edits are keep votes for AfDs? It looks like you believe that the article is fine but the refs need to be improved, but in reality the refs are fake and fail verification. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. You could quibble about WP:NACTOR, but only because those standards are so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
No, I'm basing my Keep !vote on what I can see in digitised newspapers (which are also available to WP editors through the Wikipedia Library). If you have looked at my contributions, you will have seen that I put a kot of time and effort into improving articles at AfD, and as I said, I will add sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended WP:OFFTOPIC back and forth

@RebeccaGreen Hm, OK, it was just a bit weird to see 7 keep !votes in a row. I think I am more deletionist than you are. With BLPs I am always extra careful because a bad BLP can be far more harmful than a bad article about a Pokemon. I checked the Wikipedia Library (9 results for their name between doublequotes) and I don't see any sources that can be used (a name in a list is not WP:INDEPTH). Do you have access to the source I mentioned on the talkpage? Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
7 Keep !votes at 20-40 minute intervals - during which I searched for sources. I don't just !vote without checking, and if I don't find much or anything in theway of sources,I !vote delete, redirect or merge. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen You are at 71.2% keep and I am at 87.0% delete Probably because we use AfD for different purposes; I use it to get rid of the trash while you perhaps use it to find things worth saving. Both are valid. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus:, I don't think attempting to discredit someone's vote based on anything OTHER than the merit of their contention is appropriate. Their keep/delete ration or how fast they voted does not discount their !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Agreed, and I didn't. As I said, I just happened to notice it and it was remarkable enough to remark upon. In the future, please be more careful before writing something like that, because implying that someone did something they clearly did not is not appropriate, especially in the context of potential false allegations of bad intentions without evidence. Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I am very careful and I wrote exactly what I meant. While veiled, you asking if they based their vote on fake information was insinuating they lacked competence. You then proceeded to discuss their voting history instead of their contention. I do not agree with the !keep vote, but they are allowed to have it. You are free to address their contention, but saying things like "it's just weird" then sharing someone's AfD stats is about conduct, not content. If you have issue with my comment, please address at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have to run to ANI every time someone makes a mistake. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You just made a mistake. I can just point it out and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No mistake was made. I stand behind what I said 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That is allowed. I can explain something but I cannot understand it for you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The article was rewritten but many of the sources used do not support the claims made in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have edited the article, adding sources and info. I clipped the sources from Newspapers.com, so I hope they will be visible to editors who don't have a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment. In a 3-decade career, this person has done one national tour, one ensemble role on Broadway, and a few short-running local productions, mostly in smaller parts. Her film career is even less impressive (being nominated for one local design award for a foreign art film does not make someone notable as a designer). Even though she got some press over the decades in local newspapers, she is a pretty WP:MILL actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, she also played named roles in Summer: The Donna Summer Musical on Broadway, as well as playing roles in several other musicals around Australia and in Shanghai, and in cabaret in New York and Miami. I don't think a major role in a two-year tour of Mamma Mia! (musical) in the US and Canada is run-of-the-mill - it is in fact criterion 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep There is a lot of coverage. Rockycape (t • c •g) 03:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Grant Michaels (songwriter)

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

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

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

Keep

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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:[7]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

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

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Clenpr: An Internet Archive search yield more than a dozen mentions in computer magazines. Many of those should be good for a post-redirect mention. BD2412 T 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Of these, I suppose I would go with: Paul Ward, "Rebuttal #1 to Why the "CoCo 4" Will Fail", The OSK'er, Issue 5 (1991), p. 11.

You can't set up a multiuser system on a PC without spending about $2000 far a product that hacks up the operating system and brings out several serial ports. What about a compiled BASIC and an assembler? Print spooling software? That will coat extra on a PC (although OWBasic does come with PCs).

BD2412 T 16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

GWBasic (note G not O) came as a standard item with IBM-compatible PCs for a long time. Are we 100% sure this quote isn't a mistype? Elemimele (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Pocket Viewer, as Anonrfjwhuikdzz suggests - that article already has a brief description of OWBasic. I can't find any reliable, independent references that would support a separate article; the few hits are all OCR errors for GWBASIC, and/or predate the Pocket Viewer series (1999). Adam Sampson (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

EAccelerator

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete Lack of significant coverage in non-primary sources. Most sources are just passing mentions. It's a way to accelerate PHP. Nothing worth noting beyond that. Many sources are how-to style and would not be appropriate for establishing a longer wiki article.
Keep it is a notable topic of old class IT just like any theorem or experiment. Providing some sources including subject books mentioning it here, [8] [9][10][11][12], requires their addition only. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep It looks like to have notability (to some extent), but it should add further references to support it more. 110 and 135 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho

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

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep - I am not sure what the reason for deletion is? Is it the person the article that this article is about saw it, and now wants it deleted? Is it a bot that made this deletion request? I've never seen a nomination like this on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - without clear and convincing evidence of the subject's wishes, it's merely speculation. If this were a child or an associate professor, then I would go along with deletion. He's fairly notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Found some sigcov in this university press book [13], but it's entirely about how the newspaper got its name. There's also something here [14] 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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

2016–17 Młoda Liga

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

Fails to meet the requirements set forth by WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources and is being used as simply a database for standings and scores. WP:NOTSTATS. There is no indication of significant coverage of this topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Volleyball, Europe, and Poland. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Notaoffensivename (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Keep: I see the passes of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 2 Lead and significant roles in notable television shows (Mann Mast Malang and Zulm). Misopatam (talk | contribs) 06:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 16:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Not surprised. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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