Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 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 15	April 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Takis Sakellariou

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Ré union! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshena Campbell

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

Unelected candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. All sources currently pertain to her candidacy in the 2023 Aston by-election where she was unsuccessful. Sources relating to her local government role do not provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Melbourne is a big city. Its council members are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the Lord Mayor but other than that, no other local government members have inherit notability (in my opinion). GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laleshwar Singh

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one was marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. The provided sources do not establish notability. This is a directory listing. this is 2 short mentions. this appears dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and South America. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (musician)

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

No apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising. The majority of the page is unsourced solo work. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Oxman

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

I do not think this artist meets WP:ARTIST yet, lacking secondary source coverage or WP:GNG Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist who is at the beginning of her career. I'm holding off on !voting for now to do a deeper search, but all I'm finding is non-independent mentions of her from connected sources, and also finding social media posts and user submitted content. I am finding quite a few hits about her sister Neri due to a high-profile plagiarism case, but that is no reflection on this artist. Leaning towards delete unless enough independent reliable sources can be found to meet WP:NARTIST. I just ran it thru Earwigs and it's 90% copyright violation, WP:COPYVIO which I will remove from the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New York. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Switzer

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC; the two news articles relating to his death in a traffic accident aren't enough to demonstrate sustained coverage. Otherwise, it's referenced with primary sources of Switzer's own work. Klbrain (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary sources are enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC (. Three of them were single-author, invited scientific articles in the most renowned and widely read journals in their subspecialties (Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine for pathology, Circulation for cardiology, and The New England Journal of Medicine for the entire medical field), and had a substantial impact on the way medicine is practiced. Switzer was notable enough to have warranted inclusion even without his obituaries in newspapers, although those were the source of his personal information that was not available in the scientific articles. (Disclosure - I created the article.) Ira Leviton (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is for another person [1], that gets coverage... I don't see much for this Sam, we do have confirmation of his journal papers in Gscholar. I don't see that his work on the after effects in Hiroshima were notable, with only a blip when they were published (I suppose it's not a bad thing that we've never had to study it again), but I'm not showing notability. Appears to have had a low citation index, but it's been a while so studies on radiation after-effects likely don't get used much. I don't see that the awards won add much to notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Staff-written obituary in the New York Times is one of the gold standards of notability, particularly further back in time before we would expect citations of work to be digitized. As @Ira Leviton notes, he's a single-authored writer of a New England Journal of Medicine article, so clearly not getting his obits based just on a traffic accident. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExitMundi.nl

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

Apparently defunct website. After a prod almost twenty years ago, a bit of uncited and unsourced content was slapped on carelessly, with some evidence of COI or at least NPOV violation. I am inclined to say that notability was never established. Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat confused by this nomination: four reliable news sources are cited, even though one is a 404. That establishes clear notability by the GNG -- it is irrelevant whether the website is now defunct. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion, but I actually think it would be best if this would be part of an article about Maarten Keulemans (which is now a redirect). Maarten Keulemans has become sufficiently notable since the article about ExitMundi.nl was written. Dajasj (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as FRINGE failing the GNG. Maybe Maarten Keulemans passes the GNG. He had the stories of this website bundled into a book, regardless won a prize, and did other stuff. I can't say for sure until I see it. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, the text in sources 2 and 3 is about as long as the text of the nomination above, both brief. The other two don't open, so that's no help. The website is mentioned twice in trivial mentions in Gbooks, this for example [2]. We don't have anything extensive, I don't think these are enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the last snapshots was in 2023 from the Wayback Machine [3], I'm not even sure we'd consider it a reliable source RS for use here, not sure how that affects notability, but it would be classified as a blog today. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andreen McDonald

AfDs for this article:

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

Last discussion (three months ago) was no consensus. This is still not notable per WP:NEVENT, the coverage is not in depth or particularly sustained (it popped up again during the trial, but then fell off again after). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence for this one. I found a few local sources, which seem to have been covered in the previous discussion. The only other one I found was an article at A&E, but it's promotional for their TV show and of questionable reliability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per nomination "Yeah, it came up again during the trial but then faded out after that. I don’t think people need to keep talking about it forever for it to matter. The fact that both the incident and the trial got enough attention and were covered by reliable sources shows it’s definitely notable." Afro 📢Talk! 12:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter Not per the relevant notability guideline of WP:NEVENT. None of the sources are secondary as required for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What do you want? There were two Keeps and one Delete last time. FYI - there are 28 sources from the Atlanta Black Star, WOAI TV, Yahoo News, CBS News, San Antonio Express-News, KSAT news - etc. etc. Stuff happens, the media and public react, and then we all move on. These are legitimate sources. Maybe you could let us know where you think this needs more. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 For it to meet any aspect of WP:NEVENT? If we all move on it is not notable. All of the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS so none count for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Album Covers

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

No reliable sources cover this TV special, hence nom'ing under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check pulled up only forums discussing the list, and obviously we don't do WP:UGC. I would be in favor of retention if a few examples of in-depth discussion of the special in, say, some magazine or TV guide archive unknown to me, was found and qualified as a WP:RS. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm always intrigued when sporadically contributing accounts miss a BEFORE. IMDB notes its existence and agrees with the presenters listed here. While certainly not a RS itself, it suggests that this is real and not fabricated. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NTVLOCAL suggests that RS coverage should exist for this somewhere even if we cannot find it. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware the subject had an IMDB, and I left it out because it did not contribute to establishing baseline notability. In addition, I found contemporaneous newspaper sources that only include mention of the program in their TV guides (not sigcov). I don't think that this program, which is distinguished in this case by it being a short-lived, one-off program with minimal coverage available to us, attains notability by dint of being on national television. /over.throws/^✎ 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You saw IMDB in your BEFORE and didn't note that in your nomination statement, noting instead "only forums discussing the list" were found? Do you understand why that material misstatement might be a problem? Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll concede that I left out IMDB in the nom. /over.throws/^✎ 17:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not demonstrated. The only references are a couple of wallet reviews and technical mentions which may be insufficient per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ORGCRITE]. In particular, there is little to no coverage in mainstream media beyond routine crypto-sector coverage. Per [WP:NONCRYPTO], sources solely from cryptocurrency-focused outlets or passing mentions cannot establish notability Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the history of the article. The article already was nominated for deletion and after discussion it was agreed to keep it. Then someone simply removed almost everything from the article. This is an important software in the cryptocurrencies area. Stokito (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Electrum is widely used in the cryptocurrency community, but popularity alone does not establish notability on Wikipedia. As outlined in WP:GNG, notability requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. While the article was previously kept, the current content and references do not demonstrate the kind of in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion. If there are reliable, independent sources from the prior discussion that meet these standards, they should be reintroduced and clearly cited. Without such sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Pollia (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollia what is [WP:NONCRYPTO] supposed to represent here? There is no policy/essay/guideline under WP:NONCRYPTO and although there are some discussions about reliability of certain outlets there isn't PAG (to my knowledge) that says all cryptocurrency-focused outlets are not accepted for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was referring to WP:NONCRYPTO, which is an accepted guideline discussing how cryptocurrency-related articles should be held to the same notability standards as any other topic. It’s true there is no policy excluding all cryptocurrency-focused outlets, but the guideline emphasizes that they must meet WP:RS standards and demonstrate significant, independent coverage. If you feel the article’s sources meet these criteria, we should carefully examine them. However, at this time, the sources provided don’t seem to establish notability under these guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources already present in the article are sufficient to show notability, along with additional sources discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet. In-depth reviews in mainstream publications are not "routine coverage". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current sources demonstrate notability, could you identify which specific references meet WP:GNG by providing significant, independent coverage? The article presently relies heavily on niche or cryptocurrency-focused outlets that do not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. Without additional coverage in more widely recognized, independent publications, it’s difficult to argue that the topic is notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Techradar review and Money.com review are reliable, mainstream publications with in-depth coverage. Although not in the article, additional sources were highlighted at the last AfD, particularly SmartSE's comment. All of the sources in that comment except for Business Insider are generally reliable, and none of the sources are "crypto-focused" publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note It seems that the renaming of this article may have been an attempt to better align the title with Wikipedia’s guidelines on naming conventions. However, while the new title might reflect more common usage or improved clarity, it’s important to ensure that the content of the article and its sources meet Wikipedia’s core policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]