Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

29 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< April 28 April 30 >

Purge server cache

Otello Capitani

[edit]
Otello Capitani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORT. FOARP (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Behm

[edit]
Charles Behm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Practically the archetypical LUGSTUB-a-like. A bare reference to Olympedia, and a list on a now-404 WP:SPS website, and that's it. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Dejaeghère

[edit]
Georges Dejaeghère (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament and the 1905 tournament (which were not world tournaments, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the French team. However, Dejaeghère does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Dejaeghère received individual "medals" at the 1903 and 1905 tournaments. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 or 1905 gymnastics tournaments - these weren't awarded until much later. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual mirrors. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

[edit]
Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Reconrabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Reconrabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Reconrabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's stated here that the journal Ceased publication in 2021, which seems to be accurate based on the fact that their website also has no new articles after December 2021. Nobody (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't often use the word "strong" before either keep or delete, but here I strongly feel that this discussion is going in the wrong direction. This journal was included in Scopus from 2001 to 2017. That alone we usually take as sufficient to establish notability. It was also included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 2002 to 2019. There was an expression of concern that the journal had been guilty of citation stacking in 2017, but apparently they cleaned up their act in the next year (current reference 5). Again, listing in the SCIE of almost the complete run of the journal (discontinued in 2021) is generally taken as sufficient evidence of notability. And then there is MEDLINE in which the complete run of the journal was "selectively included", as well as in its even more selective sub-database Index Medicus. Again, this alone we usually take as evidence of notability. Finally, notability is not temporary, so the fact that the journal was discontinued is immaterial. BTW, as an aside: our article states that the journal "was delisted from Web of Science in the 2019 index,[5] after having received an expression of concern a year earlier." In fact, the expression of concern explicitly states "The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology did not show evidence of anomalous patterns of citation in 2018 and will not be suppressed. Similar analysis of year-to-date 2019 indicated no continuation of the citation anomalies, so that the journals will not be removed from indexing in Web of Science at this time." --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't certain about the original nomination because of the implication that it was at some point in the past indexed by Index Medicus, but the lack of information on MIAR and the generally negative slant of the article, short as it is, placed me in the position of nominating this for deletion. That and endorsement by other editors. The evidence here is convincing of the "selectively indexed" criteria. I withdraw my personal reasoning for deletion, particularly with the scopus indexing I missed but as there are others that have recommended deletion this won't be a close. -- Reconrabbit 01:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the strong evidence presented by Randykitty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Burn the Fire

[edit]
Long Burn the Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and stores. The Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies review cited in the article only briefly mentions it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Information Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
No The author is a consultant for ISF Yes Yes ✘ No
No This book is published by the organization ~ ~ ✘ No
A WP:TRADES publication; independence for these sources is questionable Yes Yes ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Trivial mentions in tables on information security frameworks ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No Reprint of a press release from the subject (see here) ~ ~ ✘ No
No ISF's own website ~ ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I started looking into ISF, I hadn’t expected it to hold up quite so well internationally, but it appears to stand alongside some of the most widely recognized frameworks. I understand why the UK government report might have looked like a passing mention at first glance, but on closer review, it is more substantial. The 2013 BIS report compares 9 major cybersecurity standards including ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and Germany’s BSI and gives ISF 2 full pages of favourable and independent analysis (pp. 95–96), with strong marks in the comparison matrix on p. 20. Combined with the Carnegie Mellon SEI source, which is already accepted as a reliable reference, I believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Infosecurity Magazine and Security Magazine provide some lighter additional support. I’ve also trimmed promotional content that was a very valid concern earlier. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as a mention in a single line each in data matrix tables on pages 20, 51, 65 and 83. Those are definitionally trivial. It gets a full-page mention on page 95, but the material on that page is entirely quotes from ISF publications and thus not independent WP:SIGCOV. Finally, GNG is not the applicable guideline. WP:NORG is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Dclemens1971's comprehensive source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I appreciate the structured source assessment, but I interpret the 2013 BIS report differently. It includes a benchmarking study conducted by PwC for the UK government, comparing the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice to eight other major cybersecurity frameworks. These include ISO/IEC 27001 (international), PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry, US), Germany’s BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the Australian Government Information Security Manual. According to the matrix on page 20, the ISF framework received the highest scores across five security criteria. Pages 95 – 96 explain the rationale for these results in detail, based on a PwC-led gap analysis. This level of coverage is well beyond a trivial mention and qualifies as independent benchmarking.
A 2006 report from Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute also provides an overview of ISF’s structure and security practices, adding further independent coverage. Infosecurity Magazine, a long-standing publication in the cybersecurity sector, discusses ISF’s alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. These sources together offer substantial, independent, and reliable coverage that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Clout

[edit]
Big Clout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RELIABILITY. Also affiliated with article recreated third time following deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination rests on flawed reasoning and misapplied policies. Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

Coverage includes a contemporaneous album review from HotNewHipHop, a site consistently accepted in similar music AfDs. In addition, DailyLoud and RateYourMusic supporting reception and while not all these sites are perfect individually, collectively they contribute to WP:GNG by showing ongoing attention and critique of the album.

The deletion rationale claims "reliability" and "affiliation with a previously deleted article," but this doesn't hold. FBG Duck's article was not deleted, but kept after discussion, which invalidates arguments based solely on association. Even if it had been deleted, notability is not inherited but it's also not denied based on supposed guilt-by-association. That logic is unsound.

Finally, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the place for challenging article quality or formatting. If reliability or sourcing were truly the issue, the proper action would be tagging or improving, not deletion. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning merge to the artist. Someone is trying to flesh out his presence on Wikipedia with the navigation box, the article with the multiple sub-headers, a spun-out discography page and page about his death, etc. But the coverage is simply not that widespread. Here is another review from rapreviews, as well as further news about releases [4][5] but they are not significant. This could be a weak keep as well, but the page about the artist mostly has very short sections and should be expanded before spinouts. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodel Jayme

[edit]
Rodel Jayme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person representing in this article gained attention only due to the Bikoy videos. I cannot find other significant events related to this person outside the Bikoy videos which will make him notable to have an article. The sources in this article do not deep dive into who the person is, only his involvement to the controversy. Outside the controversy section of the article, other sections detailing his background are unsourced (I cannot even find reliable sources to support those info). Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE

[edit]
SPONGE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. 


InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Psychonaut 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND, was unable to find any form of significant for inclusion. They also seem to have been nominated and deleted previously, and judging from the nomination that time, there doesnt seem to much of an improvement this time around. No charting album, not on a notable label, no inclusion in any big publication. In fact most of their 'press' seems to just come from underground metal online tabloids like Metal Injection and MetalSucks, like many others of this bands size. Searching their name just brings up the usual for underground metal acts such as LastFM or Sputnikmusic mostly. Lil Happy Lil Sad :): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnal Depression

[edit]
Nocturnal Depression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page only has 6 sources, most of which seem to be unreliable and fail WP:RS, also the article contains almost no content besides just stating a deformity that the frontman has, which I dont see has to do with the band. Googling their name brings up nothing except just the usual stuff for an obscure band, such as their entries on sites like Metal Archives or Sputnikmusic and LastFM. Seems to be a total fail of WP:BAND Lil Happy Lil Sad :): 04:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 speedy delete‎ under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki4w

[edit]
Kaki4w (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up here as I'm not sure it qualifies for A7. There's nothing out there to suggest that this person is in any way notable; may qualify for return to draft space but sole contributor has had several rejections in the past and is likely to be the subject. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 04:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't anything that suggests otherwise. CycloneYoris talk! 06:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I already reported them at WP:AIV. CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jack Cade (scout)

[edit]
Jack Cade (scout) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict talk! 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J-P Conte

[edit]
J-P Conte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional and lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on it with you and make sure it's impartial...guy has some...interesting coverage and I think in the public interest. Lmk I want to get into editing and this looks cool. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/genstar-s-conte-to-back-takeover-of-lyon-football-teamhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12610833/Genstar-chairman-Jean-Pierre-Conte-sues-interior-designer-ex-girlfriend-Hillary-Thomas-defamation-claimed-attacked-Aspen-home-2022.html Socialio86 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J-P Conte - MediaKyle (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Socialio86 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. PhilKnight (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 O'Hare International Airport runway incursion

[edit]
2006 O'Hare International Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aviation incident with zero loss of life and no lasting coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chiwala

[edit]
Patrick Chiwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. All the sources are database or result listings. The only third party source is this book but searching Chiwala there are 5 small mentions and nothing indepth. not even a few lines about Chiwala. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please clarify meaning of navify; if it indicates redirect please also include a suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that what was meant was really Redirect, an outcome I would support. FOARP (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe the subject meets WP:SPORTSBASIC particiated at the 1978 All-Africa Games, the 1978 Commonwealth Games, and the 1980 Summer Olympics representing Zambia. He is also a subject of discussion in the book "Zambia Sporting Score: A Period of Hits and Misses" by Moses Sayela Walubita (iUniverse, 4 August 2011).Ekpin (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (artscene group)

[edit]
Fire (artscene group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article tagged as unsourced since 2014. While technically the external links and releases are source, I have not been able to find any other sources that might contribute to notability, including while searching for the founders name instead of the generic "Fire". Attempted to PROD, was removed on the grounds that a generic name and pre-internet subject deserves more attention, so taking this here. Rusalkii (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981)

[edit]
Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a single sentence. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG Mast303 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Ding Wen

[edit]
Lim Ding Wen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:1E 日期20220626 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are concentrated in 2009, and the same is true after searching on Google.--日期20220626 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"