Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 March 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

< March 15	March 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jessica Sarah Flaum

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

Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. A search for citations only reveals only social media pages and blogs. desmay (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/25/the-tale-a-wrenching-and-wise-story-about-sexual-abuse allows to verify the role/contribution to a notable production is significant; as do https://filmthreat.com/reviews/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

Also see https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/24/abortion-add-to-cart-documentary-film-abortion-pills/ -Mushy Yank. 18:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations:

https://movieweb.com/lets-scare-julie-review/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/jade-pettyjohn-jojo-siwa-all-my-friends-are-dead-1235495409/

https://movieweb.com/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead-marcus-dunstan-horror-movie/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/tale-review-1076440/

https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel/documentary-explores-post-roe-v-wade-abortion-access/

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/the-tale-review-laura-dern-1202670927/ jaguar (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with 2-3 significant roles in notable productions; also probably meets WP:CREATIVE for her work on AMFAD. -Mushy Yank. 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Suzuki

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

Stub with no evidence of notability. Player has made 4 substitute appearances at J3 League level. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rural BC Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Weak coverage in secondary sources consisting entirely of pre-election speculation from local papers and routine governmental records. Accordingly, most of the existing content consists merely of the party leadership's intentions, which they did not follow through on. The party fielded one candidate in one election and received only 0.04% of the popular vote (754 votes). There is no claim of long lasting notability. Yue🌙 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BC Refederation Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or one percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Of the three sources currently present in the article, one is an article that mentions a candidate in passing, one is a governmental list of registered parties that does not establish notability, and the other is a party press release published in a now defunct self-published news site. Yue🌙 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Solana

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

Fails GNG. This podcaster has gained some attention due to his friendship with Elon Musk, but I don't see him being notable.

[1] the sole RS in the article
[2] WP:BUSINESSINSIDER (this is BI tech, not the generally reliable BI culture)
[3] The information in this source is not independent from the subject, 90% of its content is just Solana talking about his own opinions and experiences (that is basically the definition of a WP:PRIMARY source).
[4][5] These sources only discuss the opinions Jack Dorsey voiced on Solana's podcast, they present no WP:SIGCOV of or say anything about Solana.
[6][7] Only brief mentions of Solana. Badbluebus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete First, I've seen no evidence in this article or anywhere else that this person has ever met Elon Musk, let alone has a "friendship" with him except, I suppose, in an abstract way in which everyone from Silicon Valley is friends with everyone else? In any case, to evaluate notability:

→ The Atlantic: 27 paragraph biographical profile on the person that is the subject of this article from a generally reliable outlet [8]

→ Reason: 5 paragraph biographical profile on the person that is the subject of this article from a generally reliable outlet (these 5 paragraphs, in the publication's voice, appears prior to a longer, Q&A style interview)

→Business Insider: Mentioned by name 23 separate times from a no consensus outlet, with significant biographical information included, albeit not a "profile" in the form of the above two

→ Brief (1-2 sentence) mentions in the Los Angeles Times, Engadget, and Inc. inclusive of biographical tidbits (i.e. more than a drop quote)

This is basically like one mildly substantial piece of coverage away from tipping into being unambiguously notable. That said, if there's even the slightest moment of hesitation on a BLP we should, in my opinion, delete first and ask questions later. This may be a rare case of a person who is obviously a public figure -- someone who, to quote Lewis F. Powell Jr., has "thrust himself into the forefront of public controversies" -- but isn't notable for our purposes. Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Came to Wikipedia to find information about Mr. Solana when he was quoted in a meme, and I did not recognize his name. If his article had not existed, Wikipedia would have failed to fulfill its purpose for me as an encyclopedia. KVWS 1640 EST, 1 March 2025. — Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... despite that you've had a Wikipedia account for eighteen years? In any event, would you care to proffer a valid rationale under the notability guidelines to keep? Ravenswing 07:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came to Wikipedia to learn about the owner of Pirate Wires. As the above stated, "If his article had not existed, Wikipedia would have failed to fulfill its purpose for me as an encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4781:FF5:7C08:30AF:2B78:B8D1 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a remotely valid argument to keep this article. Badbluebus (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no basis for the Keep arguments but the Delete is Weak so I'm relisting this discussion for more consideration. If you are arguing to Keep this article, focus on reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would recommend deleting. I tried adding some more context, but at the end of the day I believe this page isn't warranted as the individual is quite insignificant. Ketlag (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a CMO is just a fancy title for an employee that can be put on paperwork - knowing Elon Musk isnalso worthless as far as notability and i see absolutely jack about this person that would even meet the bare minimum standards for any guideline. CUPIDICAE❤️ 20:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Creek (Missouri)

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

Seems like a small and unimportant stream. Refs appear to be minor features on a map. Nothing to suggest that the notability standards for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of thinking that creeks are small and unimportant. Some can turn out to be overwhelmingly notable, with reams of documentation from county histories to water-supply papers. Never idly go by what it "seems like". Do the research.
In this case the research reveals that the totality of what is known about this creek comes, via Bernice Eugenia Johnson's 1933 thesis (hdl:10355/64422 doi:10.32469/10355/64422) and the Robert L. Ramsey Place Names Collection (which then went into the GNIS, which here is cited as though it is an independent source), from 1 sentence in the Bates county history (The History of Cass and Bates counties, Missouri at the HathiTrust Digital Library) and Johnson's primary research that added a detail.
The Atkeson county history has stuff that when read in full turns out to be about Mingo Township.
I have a modicum of experience doing creeks, and this creek I'd list as a tributary in South Grand River, which is an GNIS mess article that could do so much better given what sources are available.
Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you be clearer? Is that a !keep !delete or !merge? JMWt (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Grand River with the possibility of merging some verifiable information. The sources found by Uncle G are clearly enough to support a redirect, but probably not enough to justify a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apar Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like stock prices, establishing subsidiaries, lubricant product launches, actor endorsement deals, etc., are merely routine coverage, regardless of where they are published WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly passes WP:NCORP. The sources I found through a Google search [9], [10] and [11] provides significant coverage on the subject not just brief mentions or routine announcements. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Fortune 500 and NIFTY 500 company and highly likely to have coverage in secondary independent sources. In addition to the in-depth sources provided by the above editor, my searches yield analyst commentary[12], independent reporting[13][14][15], and critical reports by independent analysts[16][17]. These sources are more than enough to establish notability under WP:NCORP.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the same error in evaluating a company solely based on analyst reports at Senco Gold's AFD.

In this 2, although the research analyst has no financial stake in the company, Apar Industries is part of Capitalmind's Premium Portfolios, as disclosed at the bottom of the article, which funded the report. Therefore, it cannot be considered entirely independent. In the other analyst report 3 & 9 - both points to same link, it is explicitly stated on the last page, in the third paragraph from the bottom, that IDBI Capital (the entity that commissioned the report) or its associates may have received compensation from the company in the past 12 months. Also, they may have managed or co-managed a public offering for the company within the same period. These disclosures indicate potential conflicts of interest, making the report as an invalid source. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other references are simply movements in stock prices and their coverages by brokers. 4, 5, 6 & 7 - both points to same link, and 8 Charlie (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the sources provided by fellow editors, this is a major manufacturing company and definitely meets NCORP criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now, I agree with the nominator on the deletion unless better sources are provided that cover the company in-depth and independently, ideally meeting the WP:HEYMANN standard if possible. The references currently on the page, as well as those shared in this AFD, do not fully meet the guidelines. Charlie (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donya Dadrasan

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

Procedural nomination. This was tagged for prod, but because the tagger formatted the template incorrectly (they added the tag manually and thus didn't date it) it got left out of the prod queue and not deleted even after the seven-day prod period expired, but then somebody else came along later and backdated the prod template to the time of its original addition, thus generating a redlinked dated-maintenance category that no longer exists because everything else in it had already been deleted.
So, since the process mistakes left the page unaddressed, but I'm obviously not going to recreate an already-deleted dated-maintenance category just for this, it needs to come to a wider discussion.
The prod tagger's stated rationale, for the record, was "This article does not meet the guidelines for notability", and the article does seem to be staking her claim to notability on YouTube views and internet radio airplay rather than WP:NMUSIC criteria, but I leave it to consensus to decide, and have no opinion other than fixing a process error. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on touring, at least, Australia and Los Angeles, meeting factor 4 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour...." Bearian (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet the criteria for notableness. The mere existence of a few authoritative articles is not a reason for an article to be on Wikipedia, because this person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notableness and this article was created for promotional purposes. Araghsagi (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Merely having a few articles in a few reputable news outlets is not a criterion for retention! This article does not meet the criteria for being noteworthy as a reader and was previously marked for deletion. Please remove it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being notable. Araghsagi (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: I have a close relationship with this reader and I am aware that he paid someone to write this article for him. This article is for promotional purposes. Ali282872 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK and will pass notability guidelines. In particular the articles in WSJ, WSJ and Forbes India are the best ones. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TaraSpan

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article has been deleted multiple times here. Creator is a WP:SPA and we have had a lot of promotional edits where even the company itself tried to edit this page. Even now the article looks like a promotional piece. I see there a quite a few pieces from Ottawa Citizens which are basically PR pieces that are largely interviews with the founders and little independent in-depth content that would pass the WP:SIRS criteria. Imcdc Contact 08:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Computing, and Canada. Imcdc Contact 08:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure the COI or previously deletion is relevant as those were six and 10 years ago respectively. However, the page clearly fails WP:NCORP. The few sources I did find are mainly about the founder and only mention the company so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing out there I can find that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. Forgot to sign my original. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Globe and Mail article HERE but it's behind a paywall. The Google blurb says "Opinion: UNLOCKING INDIA'S PROMISE ...He and his partner Mike Manson have helped arrange several deals through their Taraspan Group, which is part of IT entrepreneur Terence Matthews ...". Maybe someone with a subscription could check it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was not originally written from a neutral point of view, it was sent to WP:AFC and went through the vetting process there, so it should be judged by its own merits and not because of its initial unacceptable state. The Ottawa Citizen is a respected daily newspaper, publishing since at least 1851. I tried to look at those news articles, but only one of the links still works. I found a second one in a paywalled archive. I'm the one who added them as references, and although I don't remember what they said, I assure you that I wouldn't have included them unless each one was (1) written by a reporter, and (2) contained some information in the words of that reporter, that supported facts in the Wikipedia article. Imcdc, if you were able to read the other three articles, can you please link to where you found the text?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will post the archive and working links for viewers to see and decide if WP:NCORP is supported.
Globe and Mail (1 and 2) Both are mainly about Raj Narula first and have a significant portions quoting him which hurts independence. Removing these there is not much in-depth about Taraspan itself. Seems like a PR piece.
Ottawa Citizen (1 and 2) Focus is on co-founders. Also again there are independence concerns. (3 and 4) Brief mention of company - Imcdc Contact 13:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Container Bob

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

Looks like a WP:BLP1E fail to me; this was a fairly short news story in 2001, which is made mildly more interesting by some post-9/11 hysteria but still doesn't get any lasting or other notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Egypt, Italy, and Canada. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:BLP1E C1-2 are clearly met, but I'm concerned about C3 as it seems like his role in the incident was substantial and well-documented. There was some additional coverage in 2002[18][19] and 2006[20]. He's also mentioned in some government reports (both US and Canada) and scholarly articles[21] about maritime / shipping container security, and in an article (not in-depth coverage of him) in 2014.[22] Zzz plant (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the sourcing says container boy. This seems to be maybe notable (maybe convert into an event article?) is there a reason we're calling this Bob or is this a 13 year uncorrected typo? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Maybe that's what made source searching difficult, but I'm still not convinced by the sources above to meet the even higher NEVENT bar. The first three are opinion columns, government reports usually don't confer notability, a mention might but i don't see any new facts, and shallow coverage doesn't confer notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, if this is "substantial and well-documented" coverage, most flash-in-the-pan news stories would pass BLP1E. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I did not vote as I didn't check myself for notability. Just saying "maybe". Just noting the typo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, you speak French to a certain extent, right? Because of the Canadian connection I've found vague references to a few French-language sources. I've only been able to get to two so far, because my computer is going through a bit of an anglophone phase, but do you reckon there's anything usable in these? [23][24] The second one is about a novel by Nicolas Dickner, so obviously unusable for facts, but might point to the event still being referenced by popular media over ten years later. Depending on what it says, of course.

Also sorry, theleekycauldron, but I've added some more modern/academic sources that I think are okay, so I'm making you do the source analysis all over again. I'm kind of with you that I'm not completely convinced this should be a standalone article, but given all the passing mentions over ten years on, the lack of a good merge target, and the fact that this information does seem useful to have somewhere... I'm torn. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Rat Bastard

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

This article has basically been ghostwritten by a person representing Yellow Rat Bastard. The business is not very notable (very few people know of its existence, even for the people who walk by Broadway every day) and from the image, it seems like a local mom and pop shop, which is clearly not notable. The creator of the page is a user account User:Shadowlurker112 which has made 3 edits, and all of them to this article. Clearly a promotional account. In recent times, an editor User:YRBNewYork has also edited the article and was blocked because of failing to disclose COI and their username was promotional. I fail to see how this is notable in anyway, plus on top of the fact that promotional accounts have ghostwritten the entire article leads me to nominating this for deletion. DotesConks (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. DotesConks (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]