Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 22	April 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Abdul Majeed Al-Mosawi

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are database/results listing. The other source merely confirms he authored a study and is not SIGCOV about Al-Mosawi. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth sourcing and not just wave NEXIST. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Nichols

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

Declined prod. No coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prajal Regmi

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

Regardless of how this turns out, thank you Flyingphoenixchips for the reminder about WP:ATD-T. For reference, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people). I think the only sources for this biography that have significant coverage (Honei, Vanguards of Wesea, SEED Cell, and iU) are either not independent or not reliable. Honei could be independent. I consider them to be basically human interest reporting, which is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and I don't see evidence of reliability (like editorial oversight) to refute that generalization. Vanguards of Wesea is – per its website – an initiative of the Wesean High School Students Forum. It looks like its stories are produced from nominations that are then assessed according to that website's definition of notability. Despite the nominations being reviewed by editors, I am skeptical of that source's independence from the subject. SEED Cell and the iU interview don't seem independent. In my search for sources, I only found newsheads.in. That source ended up on the spam blacklist, so I won't spend too much time evaluating it. Overall, I don't see evidence of notability. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, deletion discussion would be the best course of action to get a consensus on notability! :) For now I have added the additional references! I am kinda on the grey area on whether the subject is fully notable or not either. However would appreciate input from other editors here. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not like to support a keep or a delete for this article, as I do agree with most of what PrinceTortoise had to say. https://www.iuemag.com/u20/is/an-inspiring-young-entrepreneur-from-the-northeast-india-Prajal-Regmi IU] is definitely not a reliable source. As for SEED Cell it seems reliable to me, because the article itself only reports of the person winning an award, and I do think this might be independent of the subject and is only reporting news about entrepreneurship from the state. As for Honei I defnitely am on the edge. Yes, it is definitely a case of human interest reporting. As for Vanguards of Wesea I do feel the subject is definitely independent from the article. There is a named author for each article, and from their website they state that "Vanguards of Wesea is strictly an encyclopedia... All nominations undergo thorough verification, and our editors ensure each person's notability through third-party sources and confirm that their achievements are legitimate." I do not see anything there that might show tht the subject is not independent from them. But again, yes, the editors listed all seems to be minors so the quality of journalism might be questioned. Not to seem ageist, but I would like to see what others have to say for the same. But yes, I myself have not been able to find any other sources apart from this. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dubioure (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blaire Fleming

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

Does not meet any of the five criteria in WP:NCOLLATH; notability is based primarily on being "outed" rather than actual athletic achievements. Furthermore, there are only two secondary sources cited, one article by ESPN in Nov. 2024 and New York Times Magazine in Apr. 2025. Thus, there isn't sufficient notability per WP:BASIC due to the person being notable for one event. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball per WP:BLP1E. (Me and @Yngvadottir: actually discussed Slusser at User talk:Launchballer/archive/2025/1401-1500#BLP / source concern.)--Laun chba ller 03:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Brooke Slusser would also now likely survive AfD on the strength and depth of the recent NYT article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) Way more sources are available than the two cited - this was a widely covered story: besides the (very strong) NYT article, there are CNN, AP, SF Chronicle, etc. I would still point to the NYT and ESPN stories as the strongest sources, which should be enough for BASIC. (WP:BLP1E does not apply as her role was substantial - and also there is no separate article for the event; that is a reasonable separate discussion to have.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the CNN and AP sources do not name Fleming. Including the would be potentially original research. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Model Context Protocol

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

This article consists of mostly machine-generated text, was not disclosed as being machine-generated when published by the page creator and there are multiple drafts for the same subject (Model Context Protocol, Model Context Protocol 1, Model Context Protocol (MCP)). LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the review. It's not perfect, but still the most in-depth version compared to the competing drafts and even more comprehensive than the Chinese counterpart of the same Wikipedia article on the Model Context Protocol: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E4%B8%8A%E4%B8%8B%E6%96%87%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE

It has reached a critical point of notability with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google DeepMind's Gemini supporting it. Feel free to edit it to improve it! Canp (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe parts to rework or to delete, but please keep the article, since relevant and MCP has some momentum, see e.g. InfoQ (Professional Software Development) article https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/04/fastapi-mcp/. Mywikie (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that Wikipedia has a page for MCP since loads of people, including me, will be searching for info and LLMs aren't trained with data new enough. 80.221.185.118 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with revisions) per Canp. The coverage/adoption in the past month ([1], [2]) is enough for this to be on Wikipedia somewhere; I can't think of a redirect target. Neutral or possibly supportive of a full swap with Draft:Model Context Protocol, which is less LLM-generated. 65.144.53.2 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry I am not logged in. I am an old Wikipedia editor ( but on my phone). I came to Wikipedia specifically for an article about this topic which I am glad to read! This should not be merged with another article... This is a topic on its own !

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for deletion beyond nominator, but without P&G-based !votes this discussion thus far it would be good to hear from some AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States Senate election in Ohio

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

feels WP:TOOSOON since Vance was actually elected as VP, so all sources are basically about the 2026 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States Senate elections#Ohio. Far to soon to have an article for this election especially when we don't even know who the incumbent will be. Sources also just don't really exist for this election yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of polyhedron dihedral angles

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

Even though many sources support the angle of each polyhedron, I still have no clue what's the point of its existence. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:11, 23 April 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 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

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

This is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Balloon Publishing

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

Does not seem notable under organization guidelines WP:ORG 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Elizabeth Koch - the company has a lot of mentions (usually in parantheses, in book reviews and the like) but this[3] is the closest to I can find to WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any WP:GNG to suggest the company is notable independent of founder. Zzz plant (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Barnes

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is primary and a BEFORE search only came up with coverage for an unrelated abductor with nothing significant about this subject available. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Football, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EN 13445

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

Fails WP:GNG, little evidence of notability. Created in 2008 and barely touched since. GoldRomean (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryosuke Nemoto

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

No significant coverage per WP:NATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlands Pier

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

I can't find any proof that this pier was actually built, much less that it meets GNG. As of this version:

Sources 1 and 2 establish that Flemm applied to build the pier, but not that it was actually built. (The claim in the article that the Army Corps built the pier is a misinterpretation of these sources.)
Source 3 is about a completely different pier over a mile away from the location described in sources 1 and 2
Source 4 is a municipal code listing that does not mention this specific pier at all.
Sources 5 and 6 are general tourist information sites that do not mention this specific pier at all.

Even if the pier was built, it seems unlikely that it would pass GNG. There are dozens of similar piers on this river. A BEFORE search fails to find any significant coverage - or indeed any coverage but sources 1 and 2 - about this pier. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some old ferry advertisements mentioning an "Atlantic Highlands Pier" in NJ but it seems like it's referring to a pier that existed by the 1920s[4](p.140) so that doesn't even match up with the building date in the article. Zzz plant (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: I'm apprehensive as to the reliability of "Money.com" (Yes, it's owned by Time, but News Corp owns both Wall Street Journal and Fox News), but the previous discussions's sources convinced me. There are peer-reviewed academic reviews on the security of the subject. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Spectrum

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

Article about an American station group that is more of a shell game using the public broadcast spectrum for some unknown purpose than as a functioning broadcaster; most of their existence seems to be acquiring low-power television licenses then doing very little with them (allegedly to be ready for the ATSC 3.0 standard, though I've seen this company pull the same racket since 2019).

Although they do have stations on the air, most of them with religious networks or the lowest-tier shopping and entertainment subchannel networks to technically exist, they have many more stations that are only licensed and seem to be in a permanent state of tolling/power modifications at the FCC where they do just enough to not lose said licenses or actually have to build a tower or transmitter.

Very few sources for this company exist outside of FCC notes (and a fine for not renewing licenses in time), along with broadcasting blogs running down endless 'Edge Spectrum (calls of stations) has submitted a new tolling request/power reduction' line items to the point that it's a shock when they do put a station on the air.

The group's template was recently deleted (it was mostly redlinks for stations which have never come to the air which looked even more absurd earlier this month; a template for nothing), and this article should meet the same fate as this company has no designs on actually broadcasting or elaborating on their business model. Nathannah • 📮 00:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]