Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 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 24	April 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of B2B marketplaces

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

Random list of webpage links that was contested as a spam article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Critchley

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

Low quality billboard advert for a not important philosopher. jrabbit05 (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Critchley is clearly notable. The quality of the article content is not something to bring to this forum. "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided" (WP:SK). Charles Matthews (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cytherean

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

Per WP:NOTDICT, likely fails WP:GNG as well. A significant portion of the article's content is unsourced and likely WP:OR and is of minimal encyclopedic value; the remaining content could easily be merged into the primary Venus article as a brief section about nomenclature. Ark Hyena (they/any) 06:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JuiceCaster

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

Defunct website that doesn't seem to have sufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Was previously deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Ventures. Imcdc Contact 05:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and Websites. Imcdc Contact 05:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

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

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicket March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cirencester Town F.C. seasons

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

This is an article that is a list of seasons for an amateur team bouncing between the seventh and eighth levels of English football. No sources, tagged since 2015. Does not pass notability guidelines for sports as we don't make wikipedia pages for the season records of amateur teams.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and England. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin

AfDs for this article:

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

I expect this will be controversial, but I do think my argument is valid. This article was AfDed twice before, shortly after it happened, the first of which was delete and the second of which was keep. Nearly five years later, I believe we can address the article on its merits, and whether it results in keep or delete this will hopefully have led to some improvement in the state of things, whether through deletion or improving it to where it clearly has a scope outside of other articles.

Chauvin fails WP:CRIMINAL and WP:NOPAGE. The crime is notable, but as a person he is not, and even if he is notable this article contains virtually no biographical information besides legal cases and all encyclopedic information is already covered on other articles.

Firstly: he fails WP:CRIMINAL, which specifies a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Of course, there are outlined exceptions, and of the guideline's two perpetrator criteria, he fails the first (the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, e.g. politicians or celebrities (whether Floyd himself is notable is a different question that I will not weigh in on, but he was surely not notable prior to the crime happening so this does not apply) and also fails the second. The second prong is thus:

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

The problematic part for Chauvin's case is while the murder is clearly notable, his role as a person is not significantly discussed in sources that are not extremely close to the event. Almost all are WP:ROUTINE legal notice and they do not persist[...] beyond contemporaneous news coverage, they are right after the event happened. They are all on the wider societal effects - but not Chauvin or how his life relates to the event. Unlike other killers who may warrant an article, where there was wide discussion about motive and the personal background of the killer, and how it relates to the event, there is none of that here. There is basically no discussion of Chauvin as a person at all outside of breaking news sources and legal notice which do not help for WP:CRIMINAL

Secondly, WP:NOPAGE: even when someone technically fulfills one of our notability guidelines, it is worth considering whether we are best serving the information to the reader this way. Killers who are much more notable, and who clearly pass WP:CRIMINAL, have had their articles deleted because it was better covered or had too much overlap with the main event article, even when it clearly harmed the main event article, or when the main article was extremely lengthy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it gives us precedent to ask the question, would be beneficial to the reader if this information is presented another way? Yes, it would, for this case.

Almost all information in this article is basic legal proceedings, which overlap entirely with the Murder of George Floyd or the Trial of Derek Chauvin article. There are numerous citations to legal documents (which we are not supposed to use on a BLP ever), there is virtually no necessary information in this article that is not repeated in other articles, except that he was attacked in prison (not relevant to notability), and an enumerated and improperly formatted list of conduct complaints (sourced to breaking news).

What does the reader get from having this article, which is not a biography but a list of legal cases, which are already covered on other articles and covered better! If it is possible to write an article on Chauvin that does not duplicate other articles and clearly has a reason to exist besides it being for the sake of it, this is not it, and this article shows no evidence that it is capable of becoming that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Police. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chauvin has been reported on for a number of different crimes, with sources also devoting significant space to his earlier life and career. While Chauvin murdering Floyd no doubt initiated all of this, sourcing is, at this point, sufficient for a standalone article. Cortador (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not per WP:CRIMINAL, the relevant notability guideline. The content that isn't in other articles is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to any notability, and if kept shouldn't even be included in the article (with the exception of his early life, but that is sourced entirely to sparse mentions in articles from the month after the crime). The claim to notability is entirely based on the Floyd killing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Energy Drink

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

This description of an obscure energy drink doesn't pass notability guidelines. Its only indication of notability is association with Lil John. We don't make Wikipedia articles on subjects that are only "famous" because of their association with something or someone else, according to notability policies. Also, only one citation, from a business journal in 2007. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Talat Mahmud Rafy

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

Does not meet the minimum notability requirements in any way. Somajyoti ✉ 04:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 04:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See this article's history for past questionable speedy and prod tagging of the article as well as accusations of sockpuppetry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. What was done before—what difference does that make? This doesn't meet the minimum notability requirements. The article was created by one sockpuppet account, and another sockpuppet account of the same person opposed the speedy deletion. I think it should be checked whether it currently complies with Wikipedia policy. Somajyoti ✉ 05:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiben Solomon

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

This article clearly fails wikipedia notability guidelines for people. They were apparently convicted of a crime and then became wealthy. Can't verify sources, lacks inline citation. Cautiously, I state that this article may have some themes of antisemitism, particularly the trope of "criminal jew becomes wealthy" or "jew sees the light and becomes good." AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources about him are difficult to track down, particularly given all the hits for his much more prominent nephew Vaiben Louis Solomon. But the 1975 journal article in the Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal definitely qualifies, and I can verify his entry in this biographical dictionary of Australian Jews. The article needs major clean-up, but those two sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I also just don't really see the concerns about antisemitic tropes here — a large proportion of early Australian Jewish figures were former convicts who achieved success after being transported to Australia, and I think that's just part and parcel of Jewish history in Australia. (minor COI disclaimer: I had never heard of this guy until I saw this AfD, but after reading the article it turns out he is a very distant ancestor of mine). MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This article is a mess, but not TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gruenewald

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't reveal any significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New York, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghuraba training camp

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

War on terrorism WP:CRUFT by a now WP:CBANed editor. Egregious failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, which the community reached consensus to delete. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages that meet the same deletion criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Afghanistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, it is impossible to improve any of these articles to a satisfactory state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Montana

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary to the clubs Montana has played for and a search elsewhere revealed nothing but namedrops and unrelated people. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, South Carolina, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schmoll

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was 3 sentences of coverage at [[1]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Switzerland, England, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder scene

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

Firstly, this is not a discussion I am creating on the grounds of notability. I have no doubts that this subject is technically "notable". However, it is a clear violation of WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON, which I feel are two policies often forgotten about when creating a page (someone can make a page on something, but nobody asks if they should).

With that out of the way, I will say flat out that there is almost nothing to say about the ladder scene in MGS3 besides the fact that it exists. It can literally be summarized in a singular sentence on the lines of "At one point in the game, the player has to climb an extremely tall ladder for three minutes." Maybe give a few sentences in the reception section of the game article about how the scene was interpreted by critics or how it inspired other sections in other games, and boom. You've summarized the subject without leaving out any important information. Because no other information exists.

And to further reaffirm what I mean by that, I am the primary author of Snake Eater (song), as well as the user who got it to GA status. That song is most commonly associated with this scene. However, the song I believe warranted a spin-out because not only did it demonstrate notability, but there was information about its development and analysis of its lyrics. There is a complete article to be had there that covers all the bases that should be expected out of a spinout. Now go back to "That song is most commonly associated with this scene." As a result of that, I have basically checked every source that exists regarding this scene. For further reassurance, I also checked every source cited on this page (except the Metagaming book). Yet, there remains almost nothing to be said about the subject beyond a sentence or two and something that could easily be contained within a Reception and/or Legacy section within the article for MGS3. A proper, encyclopedic article on something like this cannot exist solely because of what critics thought of it. It needs context and reasoning as to why it should have a separate article. See WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON.

Basically, there is nothing to be said about this scene. It is "notable", but also fails WP:NOPAGE and MERGEREASON, with almost no development info or anything beyond the fact the scene exists and how journalists reacted to it. You could easily summarize this in the article for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater with little to no consequences towards its coverage. In-fact, covering the subject in an article that actually discusses it as part of the greater subject (and therefore, giving more context) would likely benefit coverage of the scene. I suggest either a merge or a redirect to Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Technically notable but better served in the parent article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:WRONGFORUM, the nominator admits this is not a deletion discussion and that the page is notable and passes WP:GNG with significant coverage. I understand AfDing a non-notable page when you have a potential merge target in mind, but AfDing a notable page makes no real sense. Furthermore, there are plenty of standalone pages on similar equally brief gameplay topics such as Cow level and The Goat Puzzle, so its brevity has no bearing on whether it needs to be merged and the rules don't state that "short things do not deserve their own article". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is part of notability, so this is still the right place. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE clearly states that it is meant to apply to stubs with almost no content. "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." The amount of information on this topic is far more than just a stub and there is absolutely enough content to justify a standalone page. It just does not seem like it is enough to head to AfD instead of a merge discussion (which is far more about opinions than policy violations). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it gives as examples large scale sections of presidential campaigns and whether other articles provide "needed context". Both apply here. With merge discussions, often no one will contribute besides the page creator or WikiProject members, so an AfD is better to get eyes on things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think AfD is more frequented does not mean it can be used for any random issue. The fact is that there is NO WP:DELREASON that this page violates, and it is not a content fork and was created whole cloth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DELREASON is that by failing WP:NOPAGE it becomes a notability problem. Because NOPAGE is part of notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Schlentz

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. The current sources in the article are primary to the clubs the subject played for and a search elsewhere didn't reveal anything that would help this subject meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]