Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T

11 August 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

< August 10	August 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kattalan

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

The subject is a future film with no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. As it has not yet been released and lacks demonstrated notability per WP:NFILM, it does not merit a standalone article at this time. The creator objected to draftification, so the matter is being taken to AFD. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Information Access Portal

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Portal (2nd nomination)

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

The CIAP lacks notability both generally, and within the Australian healthcare context. As it currently stands, it is a profoundly underwhelming article consisting of a single sentence and a few dot-points that link to other articles. The article does not, in any way, establish the CIAP's notability. In the previous 2011 AfD (previous name WP:Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Program; no consensus), the only 'sources' used to support its retention were seemingly promotional posters (now inaccessible), a passing mention in a comment to another unrelated journal article, a staff announcement in the NSW Health bulletin, and a 2002 conference paper. A Google Scholar search shows that it has only been the subject of one article (a simple article that said how many times it's been accessed by NSW Health staff in 15 years - [1]), or passing mentions in the methodology sections of other sources. It has no media coverage, is not publicly accessible, and the only Google web hits are the CIAP website itself and library guides on how to access CIAP. Tim (Talk) 02:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and since previous AfD we are stricter on orgs. Lacking third party SIGCOV to meet WP:ORG. For disclosure as previous AfD nominator I was notified of this AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Program) so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RaiSat Smash Girls

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

There is no citations on this article, failed WP:NTV WP:GNG. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Italy. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RaiSat. Just checked the article on Italian WP and it too lacks references, aside from one primary source, and one ref to an anime wiki, neither of which meet GNG. Nil🥝^Talk 02:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't care if someone deletes my page, i created the page because the raisat page linked to both raisat yoyo and raisat smash girls in the raisat ragazzi splitting section on 2006. Well, RaiSat YOYO redirected to the page its continuation, Rai Yoyo which is still airing, while RaiSat Smash Girls was discontinued before i created its page. So i think it's worth deleting. Your Local Italian (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but don't delete the italian page, that is the country where raisat originated Your Local Italian (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Merge or a straight Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kousar Shafeeq

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

Not notable, Fails GNG, Not in coverage, not at any significant position in politics, she is only District Vice Chairperson. Dolphish (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Asia, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Dolphish (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Burman (architect)

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

Not seeing any notability for this biography of a fairly obscure (but interesting!) church architect in California. The only source in the article on Burman is a paid obituary in the Glendale News-Press. The other sources are LA Conservancy articles on two of his buildings ([2], [3]). Nothing else qualifying for WP:GNG comes up on a BEFORE search. I don't see any awards that would lead to an WP:ANYBIO pass and I don't see any evidence that his body of work constitutes a pass of WP:NCREATIVE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown (Atari 7800)

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

Page only cites one reliable source. Would appear to fail GNG, and created by a user who clearly didn't understand notability policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design System

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

nn software businesss tagged since 2012 --Altenmann >talk 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HeeksCAD

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

nn piece of software --Altenmann >talk 04:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movchan's Group

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

Likely fails WP:NORG and appears mostly promotional. Amigao (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Kazakhstan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Danielle

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The references are laughable (Instagram, Facebook, passing mentions, ...). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found this in Uproxx [4], not sure that's a RS. Other sources don't seem to be and that's about the best one I found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly does have notability, and is also a major focus of the Disaster Artist film (not their character in The Room, but the actor in their own right). The previous AFD on this had 10 contributions and a unanimous consensus on Keep, and little has changed since then. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources show notability? None currently on the page, other than maybe the Washington Post article. The last AfD was in 2017, standards rise, and the reasoning exhibited there is questionable anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft - it seems from the discussion that there are sources that could meet notability criteria, but the article needs improved referencing before it is ready for the main space SDGB1217 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Reliable/neutral	Substantial	Verdict
Instagram post	No	No	No
History vs Hollywood	?	No	No
Praxis magazine	?	Interview	No
Facebook	No	No	No
Youtube film clip	No	No	No
Al.com	Yes	Interview	No
Danielle-run forum	No	No	No
IMDb	No	Yes	No
Instagram post	No	No	No
Facebook announcement	No	No	No
Instagram post	No	No	No
Los Angeles Times film review	Yes	No, single passing mention.	No
Racked	Yes?	A few mentions of her character's wardrobe choices	?
The Washington Post	Yes	Yes	Yes
W magazine	Yes	Maybe. The article is about another actress playing Danielle in a film about Danielle's film.	?
Youtube	No	No, passing mention only	No

Hmmm, a bit more borderline than I thought. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that of course most of those sources are not reliable - therefore the article needs a cleanup before going through a deletion process, and I have not had time to help with this yet and would welcome your assistance with this. A quick google search comes up with numerous sources that do however establish notability and I would encourage you to also look further to ensure this review process is as robust as possible. Let's examine the sources that are readily available on the internet:

Expanded source analysis
Source	Reliable/neutral	Substantial	link	Verdict
Uproxx	Yes	Yes, detailed coverage and interview with Senior Film Editor	Uproxx link	Yes
San Antonio Current	Yes	Yes - focus of article and interview	San Antonio Current article link	Yes
Racked	Yes	Not substantial, but more than just one passing mention	Racked link	Yes (weak)
The Sun	No	Extensive focus; aware the Sun is not considered reliable in a Wikipedia context but it is a major news source so leaving this here just for reference	The Sun article link	—
The Washington Post	Yes	Yes, key focus of article	WP link	Yes
Indie Outlook	Yes	Yes	Indie Outlook link	Partial - The site is run by a well established film critic (Matt Fagerholm), whether this is notable requires consensus
The Atlantic	Yes	Not substantial, but quoted and covered in her own right	Atlantic link	Yes (weak)

That is numerous reliable and independent sources that establish notability, meeting the WP:GNG. I would also add that the actor is a focus of a book and major film, The Disaster Artist.

I am also in the process of getting access to newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library and can see from initial searches that there are a lot of sources that have some level of coverage about her - I will share any findings when I have full access that should come through in the next few days hopefully. Greenleader(2) (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for feedback on newly-discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings by county in Michigan

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

Article relies entirely on a single source (Emporis, which is defunct) and is noted by the article itself to be an incomplete list. Michigan is the only state for which there is such an article. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this sort of table is unnecessary, and it is unlikely there is significant coverage on the tallest building in every county in Michigan. LivinAWestLife (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo ate my baby

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

A notable phrase, but we don't need a separate page for this. Let's redirect it to the main article, Death of Azaria Chamberlain, where the phrase can be covered in appropriate depth. Popcornfud (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝^Talk 01:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article as it stands relies of OR, not RS, to claim notability. Not to comment on the tastelessness of it, but redirecting provides important context to the phrase so would support deletion as WP:NOPAGE. Nil🥝^Talk 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, not so ironically. You say it's a notable phrase, but you gutted the article before you nominated it, which is kind of problematic. Granted, much of that probably need to be reformatted or removed, it just seems like poor timing to "improve" an article and they try to get it deleted. Regardless, it is notable, and there are tons of uses in culture and example sources, which means it passes WP:GNG. As far as being "tasteless", I would remind people that WP:Wikipedia isn't censored. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that material 2 weeks ago. It was an unencylopedic and almost entirely uncited list of trivial pop culture mentions, so I canned it per WP:POPCULTURE. For those curious, here's the diff. Popcornfud (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Key line here is Passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. Claims these pop culture references are notable would be WP:OR without the suitable secondary sources. Nil🥝^Talk 02:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. None of the content meets WP:IPCV. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG with significant use in reliable sources, including in larger mass media (the content that was removed included a number of examples used over the years showing that the phrase has an enduring quality). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate this phrase has achieved independent cultural significance beyond the original Chamberlain case, meeting WP:GNG. The "On the Media" podcast (WNYC Studios) explicitly analyzes the incident and phrase as separate topics, examining its transformation into a global catchphrase. An academic doctoral thesis (Western Sydney University) examines the phrase's adoption in Australian street art as a symbol of media misrepresentation, demonstrating scholarly recognition of its cultural significance. These sources analyze the phrase as a cultural phenomenon worthy of independent study, not merely as part of the Chamberlain case coverage. Per WP:SPINOUT, when a subtopic has sufficient independent coverage, it merits its own article. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a source assessment here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fences in Saint Petersburg

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

Entirely unreferenced list of fences in a city, I find it unlikely that this subject is deserving of its own page. If any cited info can be found on the individual fences, that information would probably be better suited for a more relevant article (Church of the Savior on Blood, Bridge of Four Lions, etc). ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Russia. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to be anything that suggests these are notable as a group per WP:NLIST. Agree that if the fences are notable, they are best covered within their relevant articles rather than a standalone list. Nil🥝^Talk 01:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of merge to List of buildings and structures in Saint Petersburg might be a possibility. desmay (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge for any entries that have a RS attached. As it stands, it's hard to say if the fences individually are notable (to meet WP:LISTCRIT) as none have citations. Nil🥝 01:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge proposal option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]