Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

10 May 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

< May 09	May 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sewerslvt

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as failing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Davis (Canadian actress)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that id does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production

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

Not finding enough sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. All of the sources listed in the article fail in significant coverage. Additionally, an internet search did not turn up anything else of note. Maybe a Canadian film editor knows of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Indian National Congress. --Altenmann >talk 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. I am also nominating the following related pages because [of same reason as above]:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation here yet which is even more important in a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Indian National Congress. --Altenmann >talk 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the 2025 papal conclave. Perhaps it would be best to merge the two articles because it would be most prudent for the future. M.VIPSANIUS.AGRIPPA (talk)
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T v x1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. The Savage Norwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Merging to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave is quite appropriate because it already has the same columns for country, position, and date created cardinal, allowing for a simpler presentation. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others' arguments. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: It makes more sense to have one detailed article about the subject than many undetailed articles. And why should this one have a papabili article when no other conclave has one? Hlsci (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. There is definitely some good sourced material worth keeping here, and it can be incorporated into the article on the conclave itself, but having a separate article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep: This is major news and people deserve to be reading about who may become the next pope so this should not be deleted under any circumstances. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.
Keep: There is enough sources to justify a stand alone article. Lightoil (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into 2025 papal conclave. If the table/list is based on published WP:RSes, then it should be considered encyclopedic, much like electoral polling is relevant to election articles, and odds are relevant to sporting event articles. The existence and coverage of public speculation is factual; that's different than the speculations being themselves facts. (We have articles on God, not because there is consensus that God is true, but that there is consensus that people believe in God.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable sources, but they are all WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. In order to have any sort of proper, Wikipedia page on the topic, we would need articles reporting on who articles are calling papabili - not the articles calling people papabili themselves. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely speculative with no concrete definition of who is considered papabili. Baseless media speculation should not be an article, just as we don't have people considered likely to win the 2028 United States Presidential Election. At most a merge to main article if there is anything of substance here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deleting this article, but to be fair, we do have articles about primary elections and the vice presidential shortlists. Flangalanger (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others; article contains information useful in the 2025 Papal Conclave page (or the cardinal electors page) for popular speculation on who we all thought the next pope would be, but we are not the news nor are we a speculation site. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE (the information is already in the prose at 2025 papal conclave). We use editorial judgement whether a stand-alone page should be created or whether the information is best incorporated into another page. In this case, the nom is correct, the list was highly speculative and would not pass WP:10Y. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here and I think arguments might change now that the decision has been made and made quickly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 papal conclave#Papabili. These cardinals weren't declared candidates in a political election and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes them look as though they were. Rather, they were the subject of media speculation as potential contenders to be elected, which is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate article but not a reasonable selection for an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artforum Culture Foundation

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

Has not had any references added for at least eight years. References section is empty, with only three external links. Carlinal (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samba Fall

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

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hygien-Nicaise Lombocko

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

Declined prod. The only non database/results source is this which is a small mention in a very large document and not SIGCOV. There is insufficient indepth sources to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Invoking NEXIST does not a give free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ati

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are all primary to the clubs the subject has played or coached for, and I couldn't find anything to indicate notability elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiempo Sin Verte

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

No notability, fails WP:NSONG. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it not a notable song with much coverage aside from promotions. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Patrol. Lack of interest would suggest no consensus, but the arguments raised are both convincing and policy-compliant. Recommend closure over relisting. Spartathenian (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's with these AFD Patrol comments? Let's leave the closing decisions to the closers, and keep the discussion on track. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sirfurboy. Please see WP:AfD Patrol. The object of patrolling is to ensure discussions are "on track" via policy compliance. Furthermore, any editor can make a closure recommendation, and the point of my "closure over relisting" comment was that this case, having just reached its seven-day cut-off, might have been relisted without due consideration of the two arguments raised. Relisting should be avoided, if possible, because of the weight it adds to current day nomination pages. Since my recommendation, case status was significantly altered by Ingratis, whose argument is valid, and so Explicit had to relist, correctly in my view. Spartathenian (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. That project is long inactive, but the "what to do" section is all good practice and to be encouraged. When I do those things, I just bold the word comment, because that is what I am doing. However, note that none of the six suggestions involve providing a recommendation to the closer. We generally let closers arrive at their own independent assessment based on the discussion. Closers usually have a lot of experience at AFD they can rely on, but if you want to steer them at all, just bold a !vote and explain why you lean that way. Nevertheless, by all means do comment to try to keep discussions focussed on policy and guidance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've taken that on board, and am using comment now. I didn't know the patrol is inactive, though. Thanks and best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references given, but if adjudged non-notable then Redirect to album per WP:NSONG. Ingratis (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NSONG requires that the song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The article has over 20 of those as references and more can still be easily be found on Google search. 1arch (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran. The song is not independently notable, although the Album appears to be. GNG requires significant coverage of the song in secondary and independent reliable sources. We do not have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of refs in independent sources dealing specifically with the song rather than with the whole album, which suggests SIGCOV, but as said I'd not be unhappy with a redirect to the album. Ingratis (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the article has anything that couldn't be worked into the album article. Wish it would have at least some chart performance to make it more relevant. Kirtap92 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting on request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep significnt independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atibala

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Most of the detail is unsourced and possibly WP:OR (e.g. "He had been created by Ravana as a test-tube baby."). Only sourced detail "Atibala was a servant of Lanka king Ravana." can be added on Ravana page if it can be verified, but the current detail fails verification from the source - source says Atibala was Yama in form of a sannyasin. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Afzal Abbas

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

Biography of an Indianpolitical operative; fails WP:NPOL since he appears to have held only party offices, not public offices. Fails WP:GNG since there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent, reliable sources. This article is exclusively sourced to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (government documents, file photos, Twitter posts, etc.) and thus violates WP:NOR. Has been in and out of draftspace and had a PROD contested, so here were at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matěj Havran

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

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Heart Productions

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

This film production company fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all the organization's own website(s) (not independent), IMDb (WP:USERGENERATED), or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. In this article, and in my WP:BEFORE search, I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Dube

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

As a city councilor in a midsize Zimbabwean city, this subject does not qualify under WP:NPOL. I do not believe he qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either, since the only substantial news coverage he received during his life (see VOA from my BEFORE search) is related to his 2013 assault, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE brief mentions in the context of his local elected office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Zimbabwe. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Benton

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, either in the article or through a search elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To-Fu: The Trials of Chi

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

Lack of demonstrated notability; only reliable sources found are reviews, with minimal significant coverage of note. Zero content in article outside of release info and review scores. Was last deleted as a draft in 2021 and revived in 2024 without being added into the WikiProject, with all edits being by the page creator. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Siy

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. References to the subject of the article are fairly minor, mostly press releases and the like. Noleander (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Won't contest this one. I just came across the article and expanded it as I happened to know his work to a degree, but even I would agree that there is a lack of sources that ascertains the subject as notable for WP. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Sanderson

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

Non notable politician. No sigcov found. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United Kingdom. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

Aristotle contrasts chresmatistics, which is the art of money-making, with economics, which is the art of household management in the Politics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. (Aristotle used the word 'techne' where I use the word 'art'.)

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biotic ethics

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

This article is a grab bag of topics only loosely related to one another, namely the ethics of space colonization, biocentrism in environmental ethics, and consequentialism. Each of these claims is entirely separable from the other two. An article on Bioethics already exists, making this an undesirable content fork. We should turn our attention to the Bioethics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverBetter (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countryhumans

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has already been deleted once and coverage has not improved since then. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a very small internet subculture without notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another semi-random internet fandom, no evidence of passing WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this page as a redirect to personification, if we can't find much reliable sources, we should make make it a redirect again. Also, the russian wikipedia article for Countryhumans has sources we could use--Thegoofhere (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are scholary notes on Countryhumans in Russian. I don't speak Russian and I doubt you guys do. If we could get a Russo, that would be great Thegoofhere (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RTP payload formats

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Argentina road accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Just a random news story that fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a passing mention in an article about a different crash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Argentina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]