Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 11	June 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Shah Jalal

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?? Why'd you revert my redirect to take this to AFD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Malice, perhaps. Libstar gets away with a lot of stuff. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in edit summary, "redirected to Olympics he didn't even compete". I can't support an article being redirected to an Olympics he didn't even compete in. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except, he did participate at that Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then this is an issue of competing at 2 different Olympics, should we support 1 redirect target over another? LibStar (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since that's better than deleting the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you support redirect, you should state that here in bold. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, please correct me if I am wrong, but based on the above conversation, it seems like this AfD was created in error because you thought that Jalal did not participate in the 1992 Olympics while he actually did. Would you be willing to withdraw it in favor of a redirect if the other !voters are on board? --Habst (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the official page for the olympics not show the 1992 one? Moritoriko (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that page is about a different athlete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing that out, I just saw the flag and assumed. Moritoriko (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to preserve the article's content for when SIGCOV is found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this and this seem to have details.

Delete whoops, wrong guy. Thanks Beanie for pointing it out Moritoriko (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion here and not at RFD? Anyway, I oppose redirects being used purely as a back-door “save function” for articles that should be deleted, not least because that’s not what they’re designed for. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a database of non-notable topics.

If we had wanted to allow the existence of permanent draft articles, then no time limit would be applied to drafts.

It is a common position of everyone who has contributed at this AFD so far that this lacks notability, so keeping it is not an option. As stated above there are multiple potential target pages, all equally valid. Someone searching this person’s name should be served all of the hits, not just one of them. For that reason there is no clear redirect target, so Delete. FOARP (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a common position of everyone who has contributed at this AFD so far that this lacks notability" – I am contributing at this AfD, and I disagree that this subject lacks notability because he is a two-time Olympian who finished 6th of 8 in his heat from a country where none of us have access to news media from his era. I don't think that BeanieFan11 would agree with this and they had commented even before your !vote.

To equally serve the person searching Jalal's name, a single redirect target should be chosen and all of his associations should be listed under an anchor at that redirect target. The issue with removing a redirect is that (a) it removes useful categories on the redirect, and (b) doing a full-text search for any name will yield namesakes while redirects can be disambiguated and can be semantically attached to one identity (in this case the athlete), as described at the redirect target. --Habst (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...from a country where none of us have access to news media from his era." – This position is weaker when we look at the article of Mohamed Shah Alam who is from the same era, in fact they raced on the same relay team, but this other guy was faster and broke national records and so we have sources about him but not this guy. Moritoriko (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have two sources about the other because of his tragic death at a young age (published in modern times). Here, Habst is correct that we have absolutely zero access to sources of his era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst - If you think this person is notable, then you should !vote keep. But you're not !voting, because you know that within the PAGs we have, the subject of this article is not notable.

Intentionally arguing without making a !vote would be gaming AFD statistics. I'm not sure how other people would see this, but I think that carried to extremes across a large number of AFD discussions it could be disruptive. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, there's a difference between being notable (i.e. SIGCOV existing somewhere) and actually having that SIGCOV cited in the article.

AfDs are never votes, so the comments about voting and the concept of "gaming AfD statistics" shows some fundamental misunderstanding of how AfDs work. Please see Wikipedia:AfD stats don't measure what you think (I've never actually checked my stats but I think my match rate would be an under-representation if anything because in many cases, I improve articles without even commenting at AfDs as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim Bok-seok...) --Habst (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to be 100% clear, I have never made an action at an AfD in order to manipulate computer-generated AfD statistics even though I think that the concept of using a computer to count how many times your !vote agreed with an AfD outcome is conceptually flawed. --Habst (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing of the slightest value to preserve. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV and the absence of a clear redirection target. Svartner (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner. I see no viable ATD here. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 22:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Thomas Merton. If anyone feels particularly strongly that this should redirect somewhere else, feel free to propose at Talk:Thomas Merton. asilvering (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Merton Society of Great Britain and Ireland

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor. Uncited for 18 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Ireland, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Merton, which already contains a sentence on this organization and its journal. Absence of significant coverage in independent sources to support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or redirect to Thomas Merton#In popular culture. Where the subject org has a brief mention. As an WP:ATD. As noted, there is no indication that this (small? paid-membership? limited scope?) org meets WP:NGO or WP:ORGDEPTH (to the extent that a standalone title is warranted). Guliolopez (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Thomas Merton Society as suggested in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be simply redirecting a low-quality page to an almost identical low quality page. Both pages were created within 2 weeks of each other 18 years ago, have not grown or become referenced in that time, nor meet WP:ORG. Deleting this page seems more practical than redirecting to International Thomas Merton Society, which is hardly a notable redirect target. Thomas Merton seems like a much better option for redirecting/merging. The Troutinator - Slap me | 09:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland County recount

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

This article is based on misinformation that's trending on social media; it relies on a bunch of sketchy sources published in the past few days that uncritically repeat false claims of election fraud. (The "zero votes" thing is a result of Orthodox Jewish bloc voting. [1]) I could find one okay source, which is Snopes examining the claims [2], but one source is not enough to justify an article, especially since Snopes devotes a lot of coverage to ongoing viral claims that have no enduring notability. It might be possible to keep the article if more good sources emerge that properly characterize the lawsuit and/or the social media trend, but it would still need WP:TNT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, per nom. Even if the sources were reliable, the topic does not merit its own article. Maybe a small subsection under the 2024 elections page, if anything. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The call to delete is clearly an attempt to suppress free speech. The report is true - the court is allowing the case to proceed - no decision yet 51.6.132.118 (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created to advocate for a conspiracy theory("As a result of this irregularity", framing of significance of discovering proceeding) and even if that conspiracy theory were true(which nothing seems to suggest) it would likely not warrant it's own page. Originalcola (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A judge has examined the evidence and concluded that the investigation should move forward. To delete this would suggest the so called conspiracy is most likely true, so do not delete article! How many suits and recounts did Trump get in 2016? Why would he be worried about this one? 2600:1700:EE56:1190:ACE1:3A77:2387:86A7 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite misleading to state that a judge has concluded that discovery should move forward as proof of the legitimacy of the claims made or to claim it as endorsing an investigation. At the time of writing it doesn't seem that there even is any publicly available evidence to suggest that discovery is occurring.^[1] I'm not sure how deleting this article would suggest the claims made are true, and articles can still delete even if they are factually accurate if the subject isn't notable(this is literally just a recount of a few hundred votes that hasn't received much coverage for reliable sources and will not change the results for that county). I'm not sure what your point is about 2016 but there is only one recount page for that presidential race. Even statewide recounts for that election don't have their own pages, let alone county. Originalcola (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

Delete - we are not X nor Bluesky nor Threads and the sourcing is a grab-bag of every deprecated source available: Newsweek, NewsWire, Indian media, local newspapers from another state, you name it. The only reliable source is Snopes, and it's still investigating the matter. The standard for New York law to allow discovery is extremely low; it's almost meaningless. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rockland County is not conducting, or preparing to conduct, or has appeared to even publicly consider conducting, a recount. The article framing only legitimizes the validity of the plaintiff's desired outcome from the lawsuit, while promoting the lawsuit itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising or PR firm. CryptoStorm (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Bearian hit the nail on the head here, and I would suggest that the original author read WP:TRUMPRS and WP:RSP. There is minimal sourcing to even suggest a mention in a section on the 2024 election page. Lawsuits on serious issues do not automatically confer notability, only when the subject has garnered significant coverage from reliable sources—clearly not present here—and when the subject has an impact; even if Musk had, by some novel attack vector, altered votes of hundreds of Orthodox Jews in Ramapo, Kamala Harris still would have won New York. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing issues / notability / CRYSTAL Andre🚐 19:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, It looks like there is significant and recent discussion of this case in Economic Times (India), Newsweek, Global Law and Rockland Daily. Notability seems seems reasonable, and the AFD was, to me, surprising. If there are issues with the content of the article, e.g. if it is considered WP:FRINGE necessitating {{fringe}}, then those should be addressed in the article. It might be sensible to rename the article to something like Rockland County 2024 election lawsuit or similar.

Newsweek and Economic Times are listed as unreliable at WP:TRUMPRS, Global Law Today allows anyone to submit articles and the Rockland Daily piece is a routine local news item. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we should not be allowing BlueAnon conspiracy theorists to utilize WP as their soapbox. Also, all of the sources covering this in positive terms are either press releases or considered unreliable. wizzito | say hello! 14:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while this event may exist, it simply doesn't meet the WP:EVENT criteria for notability. Localised, generally insignificant, and routinely covered: exactly what WP:EVENT states as not notable. It simply doesn't affect the world enough in order to be included as a mainspace article. The Troutinator - Slap me | 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Consensus is against retention Star Mississippi 16:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chavez

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

Delete. This article was created by a paid editor (User:CJ for superset) and later defended by another paid editor (User:Lauren at L Strategies), who disclosed being compensated by Laurel Strategies to represent Tom Chavez (see disclosure).

The article fails WP:GNG — there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. References such as TechCrunch and Business Insider are not independent coverage but rather pay-to-play or brief startup mentions that fail to demonstrate notability. There are no profiles, features, or critical discussions of the subject that meet Wikipedia’s standards.

This article has seen no neutral editorial participation and reads like a press release. The promotional tone and sourcing violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO, and the COI history undermines the integrity of the content. Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a mess of paid-editor churnalism. Obvious WP:PROMO material. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article was created as a draft and published to mainspace after review by an apparently neutral editor.

The "defence" complained of consists solely of removing the nom's PROD template—an acceptable action, CoI having been previously declared.

I have just outlined in depth in response to the nom's WP:COIN ticket on this article why "the COI history undermines the integrity of the content" is badly over-egging the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. I raised the COI point only because all substantive text was written by the paid drafter, with only cosmetic tweaks since, and the PROD tag was removed by another COI editor. I wanted to deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments so the wider community can decide.

Putting COI aside, the sourcing remains thin: one 2001 Los Angeles Times feature that profiles the Chavez family rather than Tom specifically, plus routine deal coverage in TechCrunch, Business Insider, a brief WSJ item, and several self-published or op-ed pieces. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of Chavez himself, so the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. — Cumulus-wizard-1850 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is designed to "deter a Delete discussion dominated solely by COI arguments", what would your attempt to ensure one look like? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I find that is a reliable source and independent and significantly about him is the SF Examiner article, and that is not enough for GNG. I see mentions, some nice articles about his parents, and reporting on companies that his companies funded. He is undoubtedly successful but the sourcing just isn't there. I will keep an eye on this in case someone finds better sources. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks everyone for weighing in here. As mentioned above by Pigsonthewing, the subject was deemed notable and published by a neutral editor, Megalibrarygirl, after review. This was published after the article was created as well, and I believe it would be considered in-depth coverage. Lastly, I'll point out that this nomination curiously appears to have come from a WP:SPA; as a disclosed COI editor myself, I hope we are all operating in good faith. Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Fastcompany article, and although it is long it is more anecdotal than informational, more informal than analytical. I'm confident it could be used to support certain facts, but it is low on detail. His entire career from 1998 to 2016 is covered in a single paragraph, one sentence per startup, with statements so vague I have no idea what their business really was. I also want to mention that sources 7, 8, & 9 are not independent, and better sources are needed for their content. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft to provide an opportunity for the issues raised by delete voters to be addressed. BD2412 T 03:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lamona's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilberforce College

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

Unreferenced article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little online to form a claim for notability. I did notice that it is apparently built on the site of an iron age settlement but that's about all. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is effectively barren, with nothing more than an infobox worth looking at. A simple Google search for their official website will provide a lot more information than one line of Wikipedia text. The Troutinator - Slap me | 09:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sid'Ahmed Ould Mohamedou

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current references are all primary, and a check for sources at the Eastmain MENA database came up empty. PROD was already declined so AfD it is. Let'srun (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Sport of athletics. Let'srun (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only database sources provided. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No IRS SIGCOV found. Let me also say that six different aliases being listed in the article should raise some major alarm-bells about whether the data is correct here. FOARP (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV and the absence of a clear redirection target. Svartner (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Weakly. asilvering (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Bushranger: Really it isn't, but the AfD on it closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 14:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed non-notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Qflib: from WP:NPROF "The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" -- generally speaking, receiving tenure and esp. full professorship at an Ivy League institution happens because someone is clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average researcher in a field. Maybe you don't like this argument, but it is a commonly used criterion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t convince me, but since the subject is borderline on C1 I won’t oppose keeping the article. Qflib (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has made it into the article. BD2412 T 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Now that it's been pointed out someone can add it. But it's often not worth it to add things to the article when it's being considered for deletion, because then the work gets deleted if it gets deleted. Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that to the casual reader of this article, nothing indicates the encyclopedic importance of this subject beyond that of the average professor with a book under their belt. BD2412 T 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a problem with the article as written, not with the notability of the subject. Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his philosophical monograph has a couple hundred citations in google scholar, and also three book reviews, which are both *technically* qualifying for the bare minimum of WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't personally nominate something like this for AfD, but I also don't think the project would be any worse off if we didn't have this page or the probably 3000 other alive-during-wikipedia philosophy professors of roughly equal notability. Psychastes (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. "Keep but I really wish we had a broader discussion as a community about how we're running a vanity service for middling academics" Psychastes (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would love to see a discussion to clarify NPROF since we seem to be all over the map. In the end I fear we are introducing prejudice to this category of articles. Lamona (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay

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

Copied to Wikisource by me - s:Last will and testament of Herbert Macaulay, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no reason to keep here. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

del no encyclopedic content. --Altenmann >talk 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's no evidence that this needs its own article. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - short of a highly contested Will, they are never notable. I can only think of perhaps Elvis' or Howard Hughes' as being notable. This one isn't. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Procedural deletion with no real content or reason to keep. The Troutinator - Slap me | 09:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Marksmen Quartet

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their music -- but this is completely unreferenced, the only attempts at "referencing" that have ever previously been in the article at all are primary sources (like their own website, YouTube and Spotify) which aren't support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about them that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

del no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one was close, I found this and that but I don't think these are enough for GNG and there is nothing to show a pass for NMUSIC. Moritoriko (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to have reliable source. Allblessed (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope, Arizona

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. I went ahead and did a WP:BEFORE search, and came up with GNIS mentions, and a brief mention about birds nesting outside of the community. As for the supposed community, it isn't more than a non-notable church, and a RV camp. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - Okay, when I was doing my searching, I had no idea that this town was originally called "Johannesberg". My searches did not mention the town's former name, or were treating Johannesberg and Hope as different communities. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would strongly recommend doing Google Books searches in this format: "NameOfTown"+"NameOfCounty". That is because historic documents (ones prior to the 1950s) typically don't list communities by the state ("NameOfTown, NameOfState"). If you perform a search using "NameOfTown, NameOfState", you are likely only to get a few results about birds nesting around an area, just as you did. That said, there were several Google Books that should have pulled up in any search you performed. The official Arizona State Historian, Marshall Trimble, has written about Hope extensively in at least two books. Still, no harm occurred to the article, and it has been improved. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage of this community, between its founding in 1909 and today, in both books and newspaper articles. This was easily expanded and work will continue. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist. Here are a few examples: [3], [4]. Seems well referenced. Netherzone (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to add that the article should be kept per the Heyman Standard of improvement WP:HEY per the work of @Firsfron on the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Netherzone; and thanks for providing the image of the Hope Highway. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lists of philosophers. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers (R–Z)

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

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

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

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

These long alphabetically ordered lists are basically unmaintainable, and the majority of them have already been redirected or deleted. See here, here, and here for precedent. Psychastes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how much of a precedent those are. The country articles are *much* bigger topic domains than this one. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of magnitude, there are about 12600 people under Category:Philosophers; and in my own review of philosophy pages, I generally encounter far more articles that lack any appropriate philosopher category than the other way around, so even allowing for a few miscategorizations that's probably a lower bound. Comparatively, WikiProject Myanmar seems to have about 10000 mainspace articles. Psychastes (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Lists of philosophers. Lists that big are basically worthless and they also duplicate categories. They are not actually useful for informational or navigational purposes when they combine thousands of people with various characteristics and levels of notability. The lists that break the topic down by field, nationality, or time period are more accessible and there's no good reason to keep an unmaintained master list. But geez, a lot of those are crappy bullet-point-only lists too... Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: an alphabetical list is effectively worthless when more nuanced subclasses exist for the same container. No information is being lost by doing this redirect: the content being reproduced elsewhere is enough to remove this list. The Troutinator - Slap me | 09:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These were originally separate but later bundled. The other AFD pages are now just redirects to this one; I'm not sure if that would cause any problems or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Lists of philosophers per nom. I don't see how this unnavigable mess helps readers, especially when there's already a corresponding category. Toadspike [Talk] 07:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Mathisen

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

Mostly based on a personal website and a database, lacks reliable indepth sources to establish notability. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Norway. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate as to what parts need more referances? I have found more sources for his service, but naturally his early and late life is not much covered by other sources than helgemathisen.com LillaRis87 (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. We need independent, non-database reliable sources which give significant coverage to him. Some newspaper articles about him, a chapter or some pages in a book, ... It doesn't need to cover his whole life, though it should be about more than one event normally (see WP:BIO1E, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here). Fram (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will look, and I'll understand the deletion if I fail in finding anything. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources the site helgemathisen.com use be valid? They are from an independent newspaper. I apologise if I'm posting too often on this discussion, but I want to do this properly. (As I've never been through this proccess before.) LillaRis87 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some examples? Fram (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.helgemathisen.com/kilder is the page where helgemathisen.com lists it's sources. They are independent newspapers like "Tromsø Avis", a newspaper based in Tromsø and a few other sources. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps. First one seems to be about him, so looks like a good source to establish notability. As far as I understand them (but feel free to correct me), second and third are more about the regiment in general, with some attention to him but a lot about others? The fourth one doesn't count for notability, it's the family posting an obituary (again, if I see it correctly).

Perhaps merging this article to No. 331 Squadron RNoAF or starting an article specifically on the squadron during WWII, with some info on Mathisen included, may be a good solution? In any case thank you for helping to think about this and to get all available info in here. Fram (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is about Helge, the second is about the boat Helge took to England, the third is pretty 50/50 about him and the 331 Squadron, and the fourth is an obituary by his family, yes. I'm not sure if I should maybe remove the parts with limited sources/evidence, and add the new sources, or if I should merge it. I'm new to wikipedia, and I'd like you to make the choice. LillaRis87 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if I have to delete the sources listed under the sites not good enough, if so, I'll be happy to do so. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have consolidated the references somewhat, and added author names to some. It seems that so far, we have two independent sources - the Nordlands Fremtid article from 1965, and the Tromsø Avis article from 2005. Both are in the article as scans of the original articles. I think they're independent, secondary sources, although I don't know Norwegian, so I'm not sure - the 1965 article may be Mathisen's story in his own words, so not independent or secondary. The warhistoryonline source is based on family information, so isn't independent either. Unless there are more independent, secondary sources, it's not looking like there's enough for a stand-alone article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles listed in the sources page for helgemathisen.com are all fully independent except for the last one, which is not independent whatsoever. (Of the four articles, all the other sources are lost.) LillaRis87 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I not remove the parts only covered by personal sources and keep what's also covered by independent ones? LillaRis87 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete reluctantly, as it's really hard to tell whether he is notable, but based on the sources which are available I don't think we're quite there yet. The articles are all from his hometown. There may be good coverage in the books, but the website also tells exactly where he's mentioned and without access I'm not sure we can assume? The other thing though is this is nowhere near a firm delete - we could easily keep this on the assumption the book sources are good enough to pass GNG, especially the second book on that website where he has 13 pages of coverage, so the closer should treat this !vote lightly if others advocate for it to be kept or if new sources are found. This is actually an odd instance where the fact he has a web site dedicated to him hurts as that's all that comes up in my search results and the sources there don't clearly clear the GNG bar... SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? LillaRis87 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find any additional sources on him? They need to be secondary and independent, since we need to be able to write a reliable article on him. (I'm not saying it's currently unreliable, just that we need to be able to prove it.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources about Mathisen for a Wikipedia biography. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand, I apologise for having started this whole ordeal. LillaRis87 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't apologize, you did a good job about a person who turns out to be just on the wrong side of our guidelines. Don't feel discouraged and please feel welcome to contribute to other articles that may interest you or which are underdeveloped. Fram (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My searches in the Norwegian newspaper archives have not turned up any coverage of this person. [5][6] Perhaps this passing mention is him? [7]. Other than that I haven't found much, though I've by no means gone through all of the search results. Turns out this name is fairly common, resulting in many false positives. Toadspike [Talk] 15:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophy anniversaries

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

a list of when every philosopher was born and died is not remotely helpful, and impossible in practice to maintain, this is WP:LISTCRUFT Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure: I was the original creator of this page) The grounds for deletion are a misinterpretation of intent. This isn't a celebration of exclusively philosphers' deaths, but anniversaries in general, in the spirit of Wikipedia On This Day. This has precedent in many other Wikipedia pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:On_this_day/Today https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Portal:History_of_science/Selected_anniversaries https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/All https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Category:Lists_of_musicians_by_birthday https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/November
FranksValli (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from article space. Do you see something common for your "precedent" pages? They are in other namespaces. Move or delete from mainspace. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for this nonsense, I'm removing my vote. Do whatever you want FranksValli (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Somebody who is currently counting the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin may someday get around to listing philosophers by birth and death dates (which aren't "anniversaries" anyway). Until then, naah. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cui Songwang

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

Broadly unsourced biography. ~~Subject is only notable for his coverage of the 2007 Chinese slave scandal, and the article is almost entirely just a fork of the article we have on the topic.~~ The only biographical paragraph is completely unsourced. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and China. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to be about the event per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject covered the 2011 Chinese slave scandal, not the 2007 Chinese slave scandal. There is enough information about the 2011 slave scandal to support a separate standalone article rather than merging this topic to the 2007 slave scandal article.
1. Wan, Meng 万萌; Liu, Ying 刘颖 (2016-03-10). "暗访黑煤窑曝光"智障奴工"交易" [Undercover investigation of illegal coal mines exposes the trade of "mentally disabled slave laborers"]. Central China Normal University. Archived from the original on 2023-01-26. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "2011年9月4日晚，河南电视台都市频道报道了一条智障奴工的交易黑链。这条电视新闻报道的关键是该频道最年轻的首席记者崔松旺假扮智障人卧底黑砖窑，混进河南登封一家黑砖窑进行偷拍暗访获取的重要信息。经过他的暗访及报道，在驻马店和郑州等地发现多处黑窑厂，以暴力强迫智障者无偿劳动。随后，河南省原阳县、登封市、西平县及驻马店市四地警方分别出击，并在砖窑解救出近30名智障奴工，并抓获多名涉案包工头。"
  From Google Translate: "On the evening of 4 September 2011, the Urban Channel of Henan TV reported a black chain of slave labor involving mentally disabled people. The key to this TV news report was that Cui Songwang, the youngest chief reporter of the channel, pretended to be a mentally disabled person and went undercover in a black brick kiln in Dengfeng, Henan Province to secretly film and secretly investigate and obtain important information. Through his secret investigation and reporting, he discovered many black kiln factories in Zhumadian and Zhengzhou, which used violence to force mentally disabled people to work for free. Subsequently, the police in Yuanyang County, Dengfeng City, Xiping County and Zhumadian City in Henan Province took action respectively, and rescued nearly 30 mentally disabled slave workers from the brick kiln, and arrested several contractors involved in the case."
2. Demick, Barbara (2011-09-07). "Chinese police rescue 30 disabled men in brick factory raids". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "The unusually public raids Monday were prompted by a report on Henan provincial television by a journalist who had gone undercover posing as a disabled man at a train station, where he was grabbed by a recruiter and says he was sold to a brick factory. The case is an embarrassment for Chinese authorities, who have promised to stamp out slavery and the abuse of the disabled. In a 2007 scandal that shocked the nation, hundreds of people, including many teenagers, were rescued from brick factories and coal mines where they’d been held captive, tortured and poorly fed. In the latest case, some of the slave laborers were reported to be blind. They had been held as long as seven years, working without pay. They had been beaten with belts on the back and the groin, according to the television report."
3. Liu, Xiangrui (2011-09-06). "Brick kilns enslaving disabled workers". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "A number of illegal brick kilns in Central China's Henan province have enslaved and abused mentally disabled workers, local media reported on Sunday. Meanwhile, the practice of smuggling such workers has developed into a local business. Public security departments in four involved counties and cities rescued about 30 enslaved workers on Monday and detained some of the kiln bosses and managers, said Cui Songwang, a reporter with the TV channel of City Report in Zhengzhou who exposed the scandal. Cui disguised as a mentally disabled person near the Zhumadian train station and was sold to Wan Chengqun, a kiln operator in Zhumadian, for 500 yuan ($78) after he was taken on Aug 17 by two unknown men."
4. Franceschini, Ivan (2017-06-14). "Slaving Away: The 'Black Brick Kilns Scandal' Ten Years On". Made in China Journal. ANU Press. JSTOR j.ctvgd1hr.31. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "In another remarkable story, in September 2011 Cui Songwang, a reporter for a Zhengzhou television station, hung around a train station posing as a disabled man for two days, until he was kidnapped and sold to a kiln manager for five hundred yuan. Cui said he was forced to work for three hours, beaten and deprived of water before he managed to escape and report the case to police."
5. Ramzy, Austin (2011-09-08). "Another Slavery Scandal Uncovered in Central China". Time. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Four years after China’s last major slave labor scandal, a group of disabled men has been freed from a brick kiln in the central province of Henan after an investigation by an undercover television reporter. Some of the men had been forced to work for years without pay, enduring beatings and poor food and living conditions, the state-run China Daily reported. The abuses were uncovered by Cui Songwang, a reporter for a Zhengzhou television station, who hung around a train station posing as a disabled man for two days until he was kidnapped and sold to a kiln manager for 500 yuan (about $75). Cui said he was forced to work for three hours, beaten and deprived of water before he managed to escape and report the case to police."
6. "Survivors tell horror stories in slave factories". Xinhua News Agency. 2011-09-08. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "In order to uncover more details, Cui Songwang, a reporter from Henan Television, disguised himself as mentally disabled and roamed around the city's railway station, trying to mislead human traffickers. After days of smoking discarded cigarette butts and eating leftovers at snack stands, Cui was thrust into a taxi by two human traffickers who sold him to a kiln called "Hengtai" for 500 yuan (78 U.S. dollars)."
7. An, Baijie (2011-09-07). "Rescuers struggle to ID disabled kiln slaves". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Most of the 30 enslaved and abused workers rescued from illegal brick kilns in Central China's Henan province have been unable to give their personal details to police due to their mental illness, public security officials said on Tuesday. Henan police liberated the victims, some of who have worked without pay for more than seven years, in four counties and cities on Sunday."
8. "Four convicted for forced labor: report". China Daily. 2012-12-17. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Four people received jail sentences after they were found guilty of forcing people with learning disabilities to work in a factory in Henan province, local newspaper Orient Today reported on Monday. Wan Chengqun, general manager of a brick factory in Henan province's Xiping county, was sentenced to three and a half years in jail with a fine of 10,000 yuan ($1,600), the Xiping county people's court said on Sunday. ... The case was initially exposed in August 2011 by a local TV program. A journalist pretended to be a person with learning disabilities at railway station in Zhengzhou."
9. Wang, Shiyu 王世宇; Cao, Bei 曹蓓 (2011-09-06). "河南解救近30名智障奴工" [Nearly 30 Mentally Disabled Slave Laborers Rescued in Henan]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "河南智障奴工产业链浮出水面后(昨日本报A16版曾作报道)，河南省原阳县、登封市、西平县及驻马店市四地警方分别出击，并在砖窑解救出近30名智障奴工，并抓获多名涉案包工头。"
  From Google Translate: "After the Henan mentally retarded slave labor industry chain surfaced (reported on page A16 of this newspaper yesterday), the police in Yuanyang County, Dengfeng City, Xiping County and Zhumadian City, Henan Province, respectively, rescued nearly 30 mentally retarded slave laborers from brick kilns, and arrested several contractors involved in the case."
10. Jiang, Xinze 江欣泽 (2020-11-21). Ye, Chenxin 叶琛欣 (ed.). "多打捞工人们原汁原味的声音" [Give Greater Voice to Workers' Authentic Stories]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "九年前，河南电视台记者崔松旺连续多日在火车站假扮智障人，捡烟头、抢食地摊上吃剩的凉皮，最终“如愿”以500元的价格被卖进黑窑厂干活，卧底期间多次被打，后协助警方控制了8名黑窑厂老板和招募人，解救智障奴工30名……崔松旺们真实地体验并记录着基层人民的生活，与他们同呼吸共命运。"
  From Google Translate: "Nine years ago, Cui Songwang, a reporter from Henan TV, pretended to be a mentally retarded person at the train station for many consecutive days, picking up cigarette butts and snatching leftover cold noodles from the stalls. In the end, he was "as he wished" to be sold to a black kiln factory for 500 yuan to work. He was beaten many times during his undercover work. Later, he assisted the police in controlling 8 black kiln factory bosses and recruiters, and rescued 30 mentally retarded slave workers... Cui Songwang and others truly experience and record the lives of grassroots people, and share the same fate with them."
11. "卧底记者崔松旺：挨打冒险只为揭示真相" [Undercover Journalist Cui Songwang: Beaten and at Risk, All to Uncover the Truth]. Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). 2011-11-16. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15 – via Sohu.
  Thea rticle notes: "今年9月4日之前，除了同事，知他者不多。9月4日之后，国内媒体记者不知道他的已很少。他叫崔松旺，河南电视台都市频道首席记者。他干了件不成名都难的事：装成智残，让人贩子卖进黑砖窑，完成了智残人士被奴役全过程证据的采集。他的《智障奴工》系列报道让8名黑砖窑老板和招募人被抓获，30名智残者被解救。其间，他吃别人吃剩的凉皮，挨黑砖窑监工耳光和皮带抽，深夜里在齐腰深的水里摸索逃命。"
  From Google Translate: "Before 4 September this year, few people knew him except his colleagues. After 4 September, few domestic media reporters did not know him. His name is Cui Songwang, the chief reporter of the Urban Channel of Henan TV. He did something that was hard to be famous: pretending to be mentally retarded, being sold into a black brick kiln by human traffickers, and collecting evidence of the whole process of mentally retarded people being enslaved. His series of reports on "Mentally Retarded Slave Laborers" led to the arrest of 8 black brick kiln bosses and recruiters, and the rescue of 30 mentally retarded people. During this period, he ate the leftover cold noodles of others, was slapped and whipped by the black brick kiln supervisor, and groped for his life in waist-deep water in the middle of the night."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support your analysis; however, I have two outstanding questions. Is there really a separate 2011 event, or is this just an ongoing extension of the 2007 scandal? If the latter, we could merge everything to Slavery in Chinese brickyards or similar. Secondly, if we split into two articles (2007 and 2011) what should the jounalist's name redirect to? A disambiguation page? I misunderstood and now see your claim that our article on the 2007 scandal is incorrect in claiming Songwang's involvement. The author of the Cui Songwang article, Hhqrhh, appears to have added the claim which I have now reverted. I support the keep and rename proposal. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Abbott

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

Non-notable person, article is rife with unsubstantiated claims. Being inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame seems impressive; however, hundreds of people have been inducted into it. Yuchitown (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. Yuchitown (talk) 01:35, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The subject has recieved a well-known and signficiant honor thus is suitable under WP:ANYBIO thus fullfilling WP:GNG. Contrary to nominator's assertion that the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame includes "hundreds of people", nominataor's claim is incorrect. The institution adds less than five honorees per year since inception in 1985. For 2025, only four women were included, including Abbott. The Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honors Maryland women who have "made unique and lasting contributions to the economic, political, cultural, and social life of the state and to provide visible models of achievement for tomorrow's female leaders" and all fullfill WP:GNG.

Yuchitown, can you please give specific examples of your contention that the "article is rife with unsubstantiated claims"? All sources used and cited in the article are from reliable sources independent of the subject -- daily newspapers, magazines and otherwise.

It appears the objection by the nominator stems from the fact that this woman's "tribal affiliation" is self-identified (given Yuchitown's editing of the article). This is irrelevant for the notability discussion - as the individual fulfills WP:ANYBIO and there are reliable and independent sources substantiating them with coverage. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question: does every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? That is her primary claim to fame. Her organization is not even state-recognized as a tribe by Maryland, so that doesn't contribution. The organization itself would have a difficult time establishing notability in Wikipedia, so being the first woman lead of it wouldn't automatically be considered notable. Yuchitown (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, is every every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? Yuchitown (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her inclusion in the Hall of Fame is not because of her role in the organization. It is in recognition of her work to share tribal history of the Eastern Shore in schools and promote it in the community. As well as her work on environmental issues. There are plenty of other Self Identified tribes on Wikipedia so I don't understand your justification of why it would not be notable enough for the encyclopedia.

Maryland did not have a process for formally recognizing tribes until 2012. The state identified and serves this "Tribe" in the Department of Indian Affairs and has done so since the 1980s. You will understand that because of the history of the US many native peoples of the Eastern shore have not been able to maintain continuity in the ways that Western tribes have done so. The reason why they are not "formally recognized" is due to the lack of continuity. But the state does recognize them and they are included as with other self identified tribes in legislation and elsewhere.

And yes, inclusion in a state women's hall of fame does qualify as notable under WP:GNG as it is a specific and rather limited honor. Nayyn (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Donna Abbott hinges on *her* actions and significant individual recognition in published sources. Not every leader of every organization is automatically notable. Any Wikipedia policy affirming that inclusion in a state women's hall of fame automatically qualifying an individual would be helpful. Yuchitown (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separare comment, since this is a separate conversation: The notability of Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians could take place if that article were created. It's OR to state that the Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians is a "tribe." Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes run the gamut from large organizations with long histories and notability established from their activities being written about extensively in books and the press to organizations that barely have any published mentions at all; so some are notable as organizations; others not. I'm fairly well-versed on Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands and their histories, including coastal tribes. The Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs is comprised on people from unrecognized organizations and works with these organizations but that is not the same as state-recognition. Maryland is clear about who their three state-recognized tribes are. Yuchitown (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I think the article makes it clear that this "Band" is not a state recognized tribe. It doesn't hide that. I know there are many different arguments about self identification and I don't deny your extensive experience on this fact. But as you say it is a separate discussion and would be relevant for a discussion of the organization, not the person. This AfD is on the person Nayyn (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abbott meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news and recognition at the state-wide level in Maryland. There are reliable sources supporting aspects of her work as chief, though I note that the article could use some tidying up (but that is *not* a criteria for deletion).DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't want to wade into this too much, but being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable. Native American sovereignty is important, but only having that a reason for your article here seems non-notable. There isn't a ton of sourcing anyway, so nothing helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's described as a non-profit/charity as well, so this person is the "boss" of a barely recognized non-profit group... You'll need a ton of sourcing to show notability, I don't see that. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- your "delete" is wading into the conversation. An important distinction-- Abbott is not "notable" for being the chief. She is notable for the work that she has done in the community towards raising awareness of the tribal history of Maryland's Eastern Shore tribes that has been largely lost, and for her environmental advocacy. This is why she was awarded the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honor. So your argument that "being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable" doesn't really apply here. Nayyn (talk) 19:51, 31 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!} 02:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few years ago, WikiProject Women in Red did a "Halls of Fame" editing drive to turn redlinks blue of women in Halls of Fame. The guidelines there stated that entries listed of women without articles may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources. I think it may be useful to this discussion to analyze the sources per WP:POL, the guideline for notable politicians, which states that there needs to be significant press coverage for major local political figures (she is not a state political figure, but a local figure), and it does not seem that she is a "major" figure either. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, I saw the red link, and I saw that this person had more than ten years of coverage in independent news sources, including interviews in national publications (USA Today) about their educational advocacy and environmental activities (not centering on their tribal affiliation, the crux of the nomination's argument for sending here) and felt I could do a decent article with the material. Yes she is a local/ state level person who runs a charity, but the coverage I felt more than covered the requirements for WP:BIO as it is enduring, independent, etc. and focused on her, unlike some of the arguments made for coverage of local/state politicians whose coverage is usually contained to election resultsNayyn (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Javier Ponce Herrera

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

Non-notable biography. The article is currently a brief puffery about the subject's work in spiritual/self-healing, sourced to one newspaper advertisement for his trademarked version of spiritual healing. However, when trying to find if sources exist for Ponce, I found quite a bit of coverage; however, it's almost all WP:BLPCRIME so might not establish notability for the encyclopedia: a tabloid(?) article about a 2021 allegation of Ponce leading a cult masked by his healing work^[1] followed by quite a bit of coverage in what appears to be reliable sources of the government taking the allegations seriously and conducting an investigation^[2]^[3] including in some American media^[4] followed by coverage of Ponce's denial of the allegations in Mexican^[5] and American^[6] media. However, I can't tell if there's lasting coverage of this allegation: the most recent information, a 2025 tabloid(?) article, describes por supuestos antecedentes penales de Ricardo Ponce,^[7] translating to "Ricardo Ponce's alleged criminal record". Without a conviction, including any of this would probably run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME although a case could be made that the spread to international news might make it notable nonetheless. I'd welcome an editor with better knowledge of Spanish to chime in on the sourcing here. Also worth noting that an article on Ponce has been repeatedly deleted for notability from the Spanish Wikipedia.

References

^ "La youtuber Maire Wink acusó a Ricardo Ponce de crear una secta y abusar sexualmente de mujeres". Infobae (in Spanish). 2021-05-29. Archived from the original on 2021-05-30.
^ Martinez, Rafael (2021-06-03). "Catean hotel en Bacalar tras denuncias de abuso sexual en contra de Ricardo Ponce". El Sol de México (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.
^ "Indagan denuncias de abuso contra gurú Ricardo Ponce en Quintana Roo". El Siglo de Torreón (in Spanish). 2021-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-04.
^ Pérez, Jazive (2021-06-03). "Del paraíso al infierno del abuso sexual: Revelaciones en un grupo de autosanación en México" (in Spanish). KVEA. Archived from the original on 2021-06-04.
^ Omar Fierro, Juan (2021-06-14). "Ricardo Ponce, el 'gurú de la autosanación', pide no ser crucificado tras denuncia de abuso sexual". Proceso (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-14.
^
- "Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.
- "Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.
^ Chávez M, Javier (2025-02-05). "Marianne Gonzaga: ¿Quién es la influencer que fue detenida por apuñalar a la novia de su ex pareja?". Milenio (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-02-06.

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Crime, Spirituality, Medicine, and Mexico. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know little of Afd, but the sole reference ("First human being to scientifically prove the ability to self-heal", indeed -- same article twice, and the second iteration is 404) reeks of a paid newspaper insert. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources included in this AFD are reliable sources. The sources in the article appear to be sponsored content as they were written (even one has a "branded content" caption): "La Hekalogía®, "ciencia del poder sanador interior"..." Why would a newspaper add a registered trademark symbol if it weren't being paid by the trademark owner? El Heraldo is archived here. Both shouldn't be considered as reliable here because of that as they fail WP:RSMED as they make the questionable assertion that Hekalogía "demonstrated 'progressive chakra alignment, improved coherence in brain waves, and an increase in the body’s energy field'", in a study that have not been published or peer reviewed. Regarding the sexual abuse accusations, he won his case, so the sources will unduly focus on something that didn't happen. If es.wiki didn't accept this 5 times, and they have a lot of trash, then, why would we? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or advertising. See WP:NOTPROMO. Both citations, one of which is now dead, are promoting a 22 June "presentation" in Mexico City for "Hekalogica". One article mentions research conducted by University of Zulia being published, but this is not cited. If academic works about this person exist, then those sources should be cited directly, not mentioned in passing in an advertisement that passes itself off as news. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is promo. I see very little substance here in terms of notability. Maybe in future.BabbaQ (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Asur

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

Language problems may be why I can’t identify sources, but I’ve never before seen an article with entries in multiple language Wikipedias none of which are sourced, and I also note a number of self-published books. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should definitely not have been created directly in mainspace in this condition; it's completely unsourced, and I can't find any third-party sources on Google either. Needs to be either deleted or moved to draft where the creator can work on it. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there is at least one institute for the preservation or recovery of the Asturian language. It may be worth looking there for support. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
: Academy of the Asturian Language, Asur is a member. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have found and added some sources, dating from 1986 to 2025 - easy to find by searching Google Scholar or Google Books. I do not read Spanish (or Asturian), so would need to copy and paste more into Google Translate in order to add more info and refs to the article - but there is certainly scholarly writing about his writing, so he meets WP:AUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per RebeccaGreen. I am reluctant to vaguely wave at google scholar results, and my Spanish is rusty on the best of days, but sources like [8] certainly seem to have reputable scholarly coverage to establish NAUTHOR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ankola (Karnataka) landslide

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support nom. Coverage is concentrated around the event, no indication of lasting significance or impact WeWake (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the subject of sustained significant secondary coverage. Articles like this should not be created unless the event is written about retrospectively. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Vilangad (Kozhikode) landslide

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm afraid that, with only one death, this is entirely run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. This article should not be created unless it's written about retrospectively as a major event. As of now, there is no sustained secondary coverage. Note that death count is an arbitrary quantity, which is not considered when evaluating notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Safier

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

Contested disinfected BLAR; a before search shows only non-RSs and 'meet Courtney Stodden's husband'-style articles. Laun chba ller 16:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I invited the community to fix up the article at WP:CLEANUP a year ago, but nothing constructive could be done. Except for the wedding stories, none of the sources are about the subject matter. In fact, before the nominator removed most or the content, it was almost all about what collaborators had achieved elsewhere. BOTTO_(T•C) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of getting married, there are no stories about this person. Flushing the diamond ring down the toilet seems to be about all the coverage there is outside the marriage items. Just not enough for notability here... Mentioned in several articles used for sourcing, but nothing extensive about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides this being a completely producer involved in a situation comedy situation, we run into the recurring problem with autobiographical material here: it almost always involves original content that we have never done. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Huawei Watch. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Watch 5

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

Huawei Watch already exists therefore this page is duplicative and unnecessary Dahawk04 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/update to Huawei Watch Nothing else to add; nom laid it out perfectly and it should just go right to the watch article. Nathannah • 📮 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is an admin willing to complete this request? It doesn’t seem there is any controversy or debate on this one. Thanks all! Dahawk04 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Huawei Watch is a better solution than deletion. A sentence or two may be added there to preserve some basic information. Insillaciv (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budhendra Kumar Jain

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

Sources are only for Padma award. No significant coverage from multiple independent sources neither. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. GrabUp - Talk 15:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – Keep the article

Dr. Budhendra Kumar Jain is a Padma Shri awardee (2025) and a distinguished ophthalmologist known for revolutionizing rural eye care at Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot. His work has been recognized both nationally and academically.

Significant coverage includes:

The subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBIO based on sustained, independent coverage from reliable sources. The article should be improved, not deleted.

— Anildiggiwal (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. From this coverage, it appears the subject has received at least a couple of other industry awards (though most of this is clearly written from a non-neutral viewpoint). Article needs to be expanded significantly with reliable secondary sources to be worth keeping (beyond just the many duplicate Padma Shri references) but I don't think it's a delete.

Crmccull000 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a Padma Shri receipient, India's fourth-highest civilian award. Meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based in the award and the article in the peer reviewed Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, these both strongly indicate notability per WP:GNG and also to a degree for WP:NPROF as having made a strong impact. Clearly the award is relevant and looking at past awardees, almost all of them have an article. The sources found by Anildiggiwal also clearly indicate this is not a case of WP:BLP1E as asserted in the nomination. --hroest 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The journal article is fine but the citation used seems to be about another person, the link leads to the correct article. The award won is also notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Padma Shri is a notable award (meets WP:ANYBIO#1), significant impact as WP:NPROF as noted by others. WeWake (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: He was awarded the Padma Shri, fourth-highest civilian award of India. Easily passes ANYBIO and GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSM Group

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sufficient decent sources so as to meet WP:NCORP. Plenty of passing mentions and WP:ORGTRIV but nothing substantial. Company recently won an award for non-intrusive cable extraction, but I don't think that on its own is sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing indicating this is notable and it looks like it was put here only to raise the company's profile. FalconK (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP, also unable to find anything via ProQuest. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Ukraine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fully unsourced, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutiva (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not Namepedia. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say this to all lists of (sur)names, or just this one? Wikipedia is for research purposes, which includes last and first names. Littlelovedove (talk) 20:17, 7 June 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 14:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it seems quite likely that there would be sourcing on this in the Ukrainian or Russian languages, if one searches for information about the history and etymology of Ukrainian surnames. I'm not seeing that there's been a lot of effort to search for sources in the relevant languages as per WP:BEFORE. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, the burden falls on those wanting to Keep an article (or who are Neutral) to find appropriate sources as long as a valid BEFORE has been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of very large lists; it is NOT a (phone) DIRECTORY. "likely there would be sourcing": that isn't how we work, and it wouldn't serve for a list article anyway - sources on history and etymology would assist with a text article, which would have to be written from scratch according to the putative sources, not from this list. It's junk, let's get rid of it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:@Chiswick Chap "that isn't how we work" what Wikipedia policy are you basing this on? My argument is based on WP:DILIGENCE, which as I understand it means that the onus is on the nominator to at least perform a basic check to show there are no sources, not on those voting to keep. Of course, if such a check has been performed, then keep voters would need to show the evidence to contradict it. Sometimes, it's obvious that there will be no sources in which case people may skip this step by WP:IAR, but that's not the case here. If this AfD is closed as keep or no consensus, then someone can take it to AfD a second time with a better nomination that evaluates the sources that exist (or shows that they do not); alternatively @Absolutiva or someone else can perform such a check in which case I will withdraw my vote. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Just saw Liz's response. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian surnames exists. A list is something different. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we long ago stopped trying to be a directory of everything. Bearian (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hernandez

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

nonnotable actor --Altenmann >talk 14:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is unsourced and roles relevant to WP:NACTOR are minor; Endorse nomination WeWake (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he did have a starring role in Ethan Mao and received some coverage in reviews but it's trivial. Outside of that, just mentions and smaller roles. Neither is enough to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. If someone finds more, ping me. His name makes it a bit difficult to search. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sands

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

Non-notable cosmetic dentist. Most of the sources namecheck him or briefly quote him. Some sources like [9], [10], [11] cover him in detail but they are all paid sources. W Magazine article doesn't count towards notability as it is QA-style article (WP:INTERVIEW). He has worked with celebrities but it is not possible to WP:INHERIT notability from his clients. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom nails it. Refs fail WP:SIRS, subject fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly non-notable dentist without WP:SIGCOV as would be required by our guidelines. --hroest 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Patrick Høhl

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Denmark. Joeykai (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ephemeral career in the Danish minor leagues, no evidence he meets the GNG, and has never met any iteration of NHOCKEY. How this slipped through the cracks for 17 years is eyepopping. Ravenswing 19:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Sias

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Khubz

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary 176.28.150.183 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Middle East. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Reason is non-valid. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the general name for several flatbreads in the Middle East, certainly notable and independent enough for a page. jolielover♥talk 09:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that "Kuboos" is different from Pita bread; Pita bread is thicker and softer, while this type is more popular for shawarmas. It's very rarely referred to as Pita bread here actually; I assumed it was North American. I don't think Pita and Khubz are the same thing. Some links (just to prove what I'm saying is true, obviously not to be used as sources: [12],

[13]) referring to this flatbread as Kuboos, Some info on that could be added. Also, I'd recommend moving this title to Kuboos since that's usually how it's spelled and pronounced. jolielover♥talk 11:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

- I still think it should be kept as it's the term for bread in the Middle East and typically refers to Arabic bread. There should be a general page for Arabic bread as there are different types; however, am striking my vote since maybe the article should be recreated, or something of the sort. Arabic bread or bread in the ME would probably be a more appropriate title. jolielover♥talk 04:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 'Bread in the Arab Middle East' or something similar. 'Khubz' can be any bread. --Soman (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover there is no word in Arabic as "Kuboos". I don't know what you are referring by that word. The article in question is about Khubz, not Kuboos. "Kaboos" means nightmare in Arabic.

Khubz in Arabic can refer to any type of bread. Just type bread in Google translate. Khubz is "bread". It is a word. Not a type of bread. 176.28.150.183 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: we use pita or saj or tortilla for shawerma. We don't have a "Kuboos" bread. 176.28.150.183 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just googled "Kuboos" and found that it is used to refer to Pita [14] 176.28.150.183 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first link says clearly "Golden Loaf Arabic Shawarma Breads" and the second link, on the picture, the writings on the bag read "Lebanese bread" 176.28.150.183 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macologist

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEBSITE. The sources cited in the article either don't look reliable or don't mention Macologist. This one is good, but lacks WP:SIGCOV. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer project with a couple mentions in magazines, perhaps some relevance to Apple community, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sigcov here: [26]. ResonantDis_tortion 08:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 19:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Xiaochuan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little reliable significant coverage online, with Baidu and Bilili being cited in a majority despite being clearly unreliable sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and China. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the sources on zh:孙笑川? IgelRM (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. No awards, contributions or anything that shows notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hu, Zhengda 胡正达 (2018-09-13). "新津青年孙笑川：是全网通缉的带明星，也是月入3500的小主播；是口若悬河的哲学家，也是好吃懒做的心机怪；是直播兴起时代观众捧出的网红，也是与粉丝关系破裂后新型网络暴力的受害者。人人都骂孙笑川，人人都是孙笑川。" [Xinjin Youth Sun Xiaochuan: Both a wanted online celebrity and a small-time streamer earning 3,500 yuan a month; both a silver-tongued philosopher and a scheming slacker; a web idol elevated by fans during the rise of livestreaming, and a victim of new-age online abuse after falling out with them. Everyone curses Sun Xiaochuan, and everyone is Sun Xiaochuan]. Chuapp [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The article notes: "高中时的孙笑川毫不起眼。话少，相貌平凡，成绩不突出，性格也不淘气。孙笑川觉得自己就是那种每个班都会有的低存在感男生，很多年后同学聚会时，大家连他的名字都记不清。读书时，孙笑川最大的爱好是周末和同学结伴去网吧打游戏，要么就是去同学家里聚餐。四川高考难度不小，但他并未感受到太大压力。他成长于单亲家庭，母亲卖零食、卖童装，忙于生计，从不对他的成绩提要求，他也乐得轻松。2008年，高三模拟考试，孙笑川的成绩总在三本线附近晃荡，老师判断他是“保三本、争二本”的材料。"
  From Google Translate: "Sun Xiaochuan was unremarkable in high school. He was quiet, ordinary-looking, not outstanding in grades, and not naughty. Sun Xiaochuan felt that he was the kind of low-profile boy in every class. Many years later, when classmates reunited, no one could even remember his name. When he was in school, Sun Xiaochuan's biggest hobby was to go to the Internet cafe with his classmates to play games on weekends, or to have dinner at his classmates' homes. The Sichuan college entrance examination was difficult, but he did not feel too much pressure. He grew up in a single-parent family. His mother sold snacks and children's clothing. She was busy making a living and never made demands on his grades. He was also happy to relax. In 2008, in the senior high school mock exam, Sun Xiaochuan's grades were always around the third-tier line. The teacher judged that he was a material for "keeping the third-tier and striving for the second-tier"."
2. Heidi 海蒂 (2018-12-26). "既在场又不在场的带带大师兄，拥有社交网络海洋里最棒的泳姿" [Daidai Dashi Xiong: Both Present and Absent, Mastering the Finest Swim in the Ocean of Social Networks] (in Chinese). Vice Media. Archived from the original on 2019-01-30. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The article notes: "带带大师兄，真名孙笑川。做过工地监理的他，听说直播很火，便摘下安全帽，戴起电竞耳机，无缝跳槽成一名游戏主播。现在的直播界已经形成了两条潜规则：要么长得让人想送钱，要么游戏打得让人想送钱。长得不帅，游戏水平也一般的孙笑川并没有试图讨好观众 —— 他骂粉丝。粉丝们爱听他骂人，更享受在直播里通过弹幕被他骂。在直播中大骂队友的孙笑川就像他们的室友一样触手可及。他没想到自己牵了个头，粉丝们追随着他，戏谑性地宣泄着平日生活中被自己隐藏了的情绪。"
  From Google Translate: "Daidai master brother, real name Sun Xiaochuan. He has been a construction site supervisor. He heard that live broadcasting is very popular, so he took off his safety helmet, put on e-sports headphones, and seamlessly switched to become a game anchor. Now the live broadcast industry has formed two unspoken rules: either you look good enough to make people want to give money, or you play games well enough to make people want to give money. Sun Xiaochuan, who is not handsome and has average game skills, did not try to please the audience - he scolded fans. Fans love to listen to him scolding people, and they enjoy being scolded by him through barrage in live broadcasts. Sun Xiaochuan, who cursed his teammates during the live broadcast, was as accessible as their roommate. He didn't expect that he would take the lead, and fans would follow him, playfully venting the emotions that they had hidden in their daily lives."
3. Miao, Zonghan 繆宗翰 (2020-04-06). Zhou, Huiying 周慧盈; Zhu, Jianling 朱建陵 (eds.). "中國網軍假訊息何處覓眾文都指孫笑川" [Where Do China's Internet Trolls Get Their Disinformation? Many Point to Sun Xiaochuan] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The article notes: "「孫笑川」原是一名中國大陸網紅，由於直播期間與粉絲及網友經常發生辛辣爭執，引發中國大陸網路社群一波「孫笑川」亞文化（次文化）與網路迷因（meme）風潮。這股風潮近來也被中國網軍所利用。推特（Twitter）、臉書（Facebook）等社群平台在2019年間出現一系列「孫笑川」帳號，個別帳號名稱有些微差異，並有不同背景個資，並有節奏地對台發動訊息攻勢。"
  From Google Translate: ""Sun Xiaochuan" was originally a Chinese Internet celebrity. Because of the frequent spicy disputes with fans and netizens during live broadcasts, a wave of "Sun Xiaochuan" subculture and Internet meme (meme) trend was triggered in the Chinese Internet community. This trend has also been used by Chinese cyber army recently. A series of "Sun Xiaochuan" accounts appeared on social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook in 2019. Some of the accounts have slightly different names and different background information, and they have launched information offensives against Taiwan in a rhythmic manner."
4. Yan, Weiqi 颜维琦 (2018-08-27). ""狗粉丝"背后的新型网络暴力亟需遏制" [The New Form of Cyberbullying Behind 'Dog Fans' Urgently Needs to Be Curbed]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-02-11. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The article notes: "“狗粉丝”并非爱狗人士，而是源于斗鱼主播李赣、“带带大师兄”孙笑川的粉丝群体。由于他们直播时常常“出口成脏”，同粉丝进行骂战，采取各种博眼球的手法吸引流量，从而招惹了一大批“黑粉”，“狗粉丝”这个名称就是从直播间的口水骂战中而来。与那些真心支持偶像明星的粉丝不同，“狗粉丝”经常宣扬孙笑川为各种社会负面事件的“罪魁祸首”，将其塑造为无恶不作的形象，从而吸引其他群体对他进行声讨。"
  From Google Translate: ""Dog fans" are not dog lovers, but fans of Douyu anchor Li Gan and "Big Brother Daidai" Sun Xiaochuan. Because they often "swear" during live broadcasts, engage in verbal battles with fans, and use various eye-catching methods to attract traffic, they have attracted a large number of "black fans". The name "dog fans" comes from the verbal battles in the live broadcast room. Unlike those fans who truly support idol stars, "dog fans" often promote Sun Xiaochuan as the "culprit" of various negative social events, shaping him into an image of doing all kinds of evil, thereby attracting other groups to denounce him."
5. ""国潮第一人"专访：人人都说抽象话，无人再识孙笑川" [Exclusive Interview with the 'Pioneer of Guochao': Everyone Speaks in Abstractions, but No One Remembers Sun Xiaochuan]. China Youth Network [zh] (in Chinese). 2019-01-16. Archived from the original on 2019-01-30. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The article notes: "被p上众多潮流品牌型录的孙笑川。“上身”过的潮牌比任一个业界KOL都多。孙笑川被动成为潮流圈的代表形象之一。他也顺势自创了服饰品牌NMSL。潮流圈内人士总是和说唱圈关系密切。孙笑川也不例外。他的直播片段被网友当做素材。剪成各种鬼畜rap抽象圣经。从而有了“成都地下说唱皇帝”的称号。他成立了音乐厂牌NMSL。旗下已结集了十几位新生代说唱歌手"
  From Google Translate: "Sun Xiaochuan has been photoshopped into many trendy brand catalogs. He has "applied" more trendy brands than any other KOL in the industry. Sun Xiaochuan passively became one of the representative images of the trend circle. He also took the opportunity to create his own clothing brand NMSL. People in the trend circle are always closely related to the rap circle. Sun Xiaochuan is no exception. His live broadcast clips are used as materials by netizens. They are cut into various ghost rap abstract bibles. Thus, he has the title of "Chengdu Underground Rap Emperor". He founded the music label NMSL. It has gathered more than a dozen new generation rappers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sun Xiaochuan (simplified Chinese: 孙笑川; traditional Chinese: 孫笑川 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the Vice China and CNA articles, the other three websites' reliability are questionable at best. CNA, Guangming Daily and China Youth Network are closely associated and operated by their respective governments; while CNA being Taiwanese isn't problematic in this rehard, the two latter are operated directly by the CCP and thus have significant reliability concerns. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard's work suffices for GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahaha Studios

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only demonstrated notability is gaining funding with little significant coverage to support. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Finland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage from pocketgamer.biz, but looks insufficient. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetguard Filters Private Limited

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

This article appears to be an advertisement. There is a lack of evidence supporting notability. Does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Sources cited are trivial mentions in trade press, and nothing else was found other than product listings. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject matter does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP) as the sources that I found in the article and on the search engine are announcements, or profiles; nothing that discusses the subject significantly (WP:SIGCOV, WP:SIRS). ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heir (tournament)

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

Lack of sigcov and available sources; article itself is very short and poorly sourced while also being orphaned. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was borderline at best when I created it, and they stopped their activities soon afterwards so their coverage will not grow. Happy to admit I was wrong on this one :) Exilexi (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article's creator, Exilexi --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITITI Doon Sanskriti School

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

This article resembles an advertisement and does not independently satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, India, and Uttarakhand. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Lagun

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

Looks like article written by subject himself or someone closely connected, as this if full of information unsupported by sources. Lacks genuine coverage as a researcher or academician. No media coverage to meet notability. Not yet established as an academic entity. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While accomplished for his age, there is no sign of the impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF notability. I also did not find press coverage for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find sources to meet WP:BIO; similarly WP:NPROF is not met. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Salahi

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

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nissan

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

Letting aside for a moment the promotional tone and the evident COI of the author, there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject to be found except various press releases and marketing interviews. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regular professional at work. Not encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if not paid, much of the material added and re-added by the creator appears to be original research. If there was significant coverage, about important accomplishments, then we could still write a decent article, but it's lacking. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

collapse obviously AI-generated comment. Write your own arguments, please. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to deletion proposal (re: Daniel Nissan article)

Broc – thank you for flagging concerns about COI, tone and depth of sourcing. I believe the article can meet Wikipedia’s notability standards once we tighten the prose and foreground the existing reliable coverage. I’d welcome working with other editors to bring it fully into line with policy rather than deleting it outright.

----

=== 1. Significant independent coverage exists ===

Below is a representative sample of independent, secondary sources that provide WP:SIGCOV (substantial discussion, not mere passing mention) of Daniel Nissan’s career. All are archived and freely accessible:

Year	Source	Scope of coverage
1995	The New York Times – “Long-Distance Telephone Calls Are Coming Soon to the Internet”	Profiles Nissan’s role in commercializing VoIP at VocalTec.
1997	CNN Money – “NetGrocer goes online”	Multi-paragraph feature on Nissan’s launch strategy and nationwide model.
1998	Forbes ASAP – “Food Fighter”	1,400-word profile focusing on Nissan’s leadership, funding and portal deals.
1998	The Wall Street Journal – “Wave of Cancellations Means Internet-IPO Season Is Over”	Discusses Nissan’s IPO attempt and broader e-commerce context.
1999	Wired – “Price Hike Keeps NetGrocer Alive”	Independent analysis of Nissan’s restructuring moves.
2023	Business Wire (invited by editors to verify) – “StructuredWeb Introduces ChannelGPT”	Third-party quotes from analysts corroborating Nissan’s AI milestone.
2025	Forrester Wave™: Partner Marketing Automation Platforms	Analyst report naming StructuredWeb a Leader, with explicit commentary on Nissan’s roadmap.

Collectively these provide the depth, reliability and independence required by WP:GNG.

=== 2. Addressing COI and promotional tone ===

I acknowledge that earlier drafts leaned promotional. I propose to:

Replace marketing phrasing (e.g., “pushing the boundaries”) with neutral language.
Move all first-party press releases to the external links section and cite them only for simple verifiable facts, per WP:RS.
Rely on the independent sources above for substantive claims of impact or “firsts.”
Add inline attribution where subjective assessments (e.g., “pioneer”) are quoted from reliable commentators, not asserted in Wiki-voice.

=== 3. Path forward ===

Instead of deletion, I suggest we add {{tone}} and {{COI}} tags, then collaborate on a neutral rewrite.
I am happy to start a sandbox rewrite today and invite anyone—especially editors without a COI—to review and adjust.
If consensus still feels a full article is premature, a move to Draft space (per WP:DRAFTIFY) is a less drastic alternative to AfD.

----Next steps: I will open a sandbox draft within 24 hours, list the independent sources in full, and ping interested editors on the Talk page for feedback. Let’s work together to bring the article up to policy rather than lose verifiable history of early VoIP, online grocery, and channel-marketing innovations.

— ~~~~ Maninblack10 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sources provided above contribute to notability?

NYT article [27] does not mention Nissan. N
CNN Money article [28] does not mention Nissan. N
Forbes profile [29] could contribute to notability. Y
Wired article [30] only mentions Nissan being fired from his position as CEO. N
WSJ [31] behind paywall ?
Business Wire [32] press release N
ForresterWave [33] behind paywall (2,995 USD!!) ?

Broc (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FinEdge

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

A run-of-the-mill financial advisory firm that fails to meet WP:NCORP. The sources comprise PR, churnalism, self-published material, or passing mentions, and severely lack the in-depth coverage required under WP:SIRS. Yuvaank (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hulk supporting characters#Enemies. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puffball Collective

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

There are no independent and reliable discussions of this fictional character. Furthermore, all of this article's sources were published by the company that owns the character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters#Enemies where they (it?) already appear and merge over the primary sources as WP:Alternative to deletion. The two sentences at the target can be further referenced and possibly expanded by the Marvel Encyclopedia as a non-indepent secondary source and this web article as a situational source. Altogether not nothing but not enough to establish notability. Daranios (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the creators should also be merged over, as corresponding real-world information to the plot summary present at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: K with the history preserved should someone desire for a merger Star Mississippi 19:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klaatu (comics)

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

There are no sustained discussions of this fictional character. On a related note, the vast majority of search results relate to the character from The Day the Earth Stood Still. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Merging to a list that arguably fails WP:LISTN doesn't accomplish much. He is too minor to even include in a list outside of a Marvel dedicated wiki. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. There does not seem to be a lot of discussion of the character, but we do have Back Issue! as a secondary source, and, more extensive in much the same vein, this web article by Giant Freaking Robot. So just the right thing not to have as a stand-alone article but as part of a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor character that only appeared in a handful of comic issues, and the only secondary coverage that is more than a brief mention is just a plot summary of those few appearances. Not every minor character that ever existed needs to be included in the already-bloated character lists to bloat them even further, and a character that appeared in a grand total of four issues and has had no lasting impact or notability is a prime example of one that is too minor to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The arguments presented, insofar as they are specific and policy-based, favor the conclusion that the subject does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 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!} 04:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in the form of multiple reliable sources such as The Times of India, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times and many others to demonstrate notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Sofilily (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India (see below for cautionary note plus WP:NEWSORGINDIA) has two articles. Ref 1. Only has a passing mention while discussing another festival. Ref 5. Straight up press release. The New Indian Express, Ref 2. Article about a film boasting that it won some awards, not about the festival. Hindustan Times, Ref 6. Article about a filmmaker with a passing mention of this festival (and their partner festival below). Nothing remotely good for GNG. Articles that talk about a single film or filmmaker who "won" something or are screening are generally PR for that film or filmmaker. As you are the creator of this: "an IMDb monthly live screening"? WTF does that actually mean? Was including boasting of IMDb part of the job description? Like with Cult Critic Movie Awards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards), Tagore International Film Festival (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagore International Film Festival), Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. All partnered with Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This came up in a previous AfD about one of the films awarded by WFC, where editors (including myself) suspected it was one of many festivals that operate as a thinly veiled PR service. Most of the sources Sofilily mentions are actually articles about films that appeared in the festival, with only brief mentions of World Film Carnival Singapore. This Times of India article is the exception, but it reads as the type of potentially paid advertorial that WP:TIMESOFINDIA warns about. The ones that come closest to meeting WP:GNG are Lokmat, The Star, The Print, or Sambad, but these are all similarly promotional articles about actors/films and don't say much about WFC itself. hinnk (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reportedly the topic having significant coverage and warrant notability of the subject. Meets GNG criteria. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away boilerplate !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed to be said. I will add...your AfD voting and commentary is becoming disruptive. Are you able to point out the the "significant coverage" you state is avaiable? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duffbeer's analysis of sources is most convincing. Lacking reliable non PR sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film festival article seems notable with the standard awards and with significant coverage.Almandavi (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe provide significant coverage? hinnk (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do the awards given by this festival add to notability? That doesn't make sense to me. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last chance for keep !voters to provide evidence to back up their positions. Otherwise, the deletes have this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this festival lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are a combination of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:PRIMARY, and those that are reliable lack significant coverage. @Sofilily, we understand your interest in keeping the article since you created it and all, but it needs better sourcing if it is to remain on Wikipedia.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This festival includes significant coverage. There are references from credible sources. Meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Kimumuhi (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage from Times of India, Indian Express, and Hindustan Times is present, potentially supporting the subject's notability under WP:GNG.Bunnybanny (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)— Bunnybanny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to point out that the coverage present in 2 of those 3 sources is being mentioned in a single sentence. hinnk (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask the closer to evaluate for signs of canvassing, given that the last two comments were left minutes after the accounts' first edits. hinnk (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. requested sourcing did not eventuate Star Mississippi 16:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Robot !votes discounted. asilvering (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Muscoso

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

Promotion for non notable filmmaker. No notable productions. Sourced to press releases, passing mentions, listings, non reliable sources and local puff. Otherwise lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Laundry list of awards are not major. Spammed by Dreamworldpicturesnet where DreamworldPictures is his production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Lorenzo Muscoso has received coverage from various reputable sources over the years.

Examples include:

- ANSA (Feb 2025): https://www.ansa.it/sicilia/notizie/2025/02/07/hollywood-brucia-supereroi-e-star-la-salvano-in-video-con-lia_e9794d49-010f-4cda-97a6-43014e59fad5.html - Giornale di Sicilia: https://catania.gds.it/articoli/cultura/2025/02/07/hollywood-brucia-supereroi-e-star-la-salvano-in-un-video-con-lia-lo-ha-realizzato-il-catanese-lorenzo-muscoso-7661375b-31a3-4d3f-906b-cbaba58f94c9 - DVIDS (US Department of Defense): https://www.dvidshub.net/search?q=muscoso - RAI Cultura (Verga100): https://www.raicultura.it/tags/verga100

The presence of sustained and independent coverage in national and international outlets appears to meet the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). --Marziabiblio (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC) — Marziabiblio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You present 4 sources. In order 1, Press release. 2, Same Press release, framed as look what this local has done. 3, Not an independent reliable source. 4, Just event listings. None are any good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that sources 1 and 2 have the same content. How do you know that they are press releases? I don't see that. Number 3 is odd and admittedly the DoD is on shaky ground, but I would consider it reliable, but perhaps not independent in this case. There are a number of sources about him in newspapers representing Sicily and Catania, and especially regarding his film about violence against women (It says "blog" but it is an actual news article.) The article is a mess and probably needs a TNT but I think a decent article could be attempted -- perhaps best in @it wikipedia. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes me think it's a press release? I read it. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be cleaned up a good deal yet the subject seems notable with many references. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTFB. The formatting and lists are a disaster of made up in one day awards from NN film festivals for a perpetuallly up and coming but run of the mill filmmaker. Most of the "content" of this page was added by a SPA whose user name is suspiciously close to his film production company. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clarifying some of the points raised:

– **ANSA** is Italy’s national press agency (est. 1945), comparable to Reuters or AFP. Its content is produced by professional journalists. [Example – ANSA 2025](https://www.ansa.it/sicilia/notizie/2025/01/28/raccontando-verga-eventi-nelle-scuole-di-tutta-italia_7b118e34-890b-41d5-b792-f85f19ad9555.html)

– **RAI Cultura** is the editorial cultural division of Italy’s national broadcaster. The “Verga100” coverage is part of a state-supported centenary program, not a local events calendar. [RAI Cultura](https://www.raicultura.it/tags/verga100)

– **DVIDS** is the official media platform of the U.S. Department of Defense. It documents civic and cultural collaborations and is not a blog nor unstable. [DVIDS example](https://www.dvidshub.net/video/892155/captains-courageous)

Other third-party sources include: – [Famiglia Cristiana](https://www.famigliacristiana.it/articolo/se-una-novella-di-verga-puo-aiutare-a-combattere-la-violenza-contro-le-donne.aspx) – [RAI NEWS](https://www.rainews.it/tgr/lombardia/video/2024/05/incontro-capitani-coraggiosi-lainate-milano-anniversario-strage-capaci-b19c8c98-5a7c-4c5a-a6b6-69f9fcb661b7.html) – [RTS Serbia](https://www.rts.rs/magazin/kultura/vesti/5578230/don-djezualdo-u-topoli-i-kragujevcu-u-cast-autora-kavalerije-rustikane.html) – [Istituto Italiano di Cultura – Italian MFA](https://iicbelgrado.esteri.it/it/gli_eventi/calendario/lo-spettacolo-don-gesualdo-a-kragujevac/) – [la Repubblica](https://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/08/09/news/marines_e_migranti-93386380)

These sources confirm sustained coverage on education, literature, public engagement, and international cultural diplomacy, meeting WP:GNG standards.

Lastly, the subject has a public **LinkedIn** profile and holds a **Law degree**. Allegations that awards were "invented" lack evidence and may verge on **defamation**, in potential breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Let us remain focused on verifiability and notability—not personal speculation. --Marziabiblio (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:SIGCOV to be found anywhere, except some passing mentions of his works and press releases. The sources provided above are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. Broc (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Well, this AfD is a mess, but it's simpler to close than it appears. When asked, repeatedly, for WP:THREE, the keep !votes were unable to deliver. After the first relist, we've now had !votes that provide long quotes from the sources - and these long quotes show quite clearly that the delete !voters are correct: the sources do not deal with the subject in depth, but are repeating what he said about his company. asilvering (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hillmann

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

He's held notable leadership roles, but there is little to no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most coverage consists of routine announcements or PR pieces lacking the depth required to establish notability per WP:BIO. No evidence of substantial recognition/awards or major lasting impact that would merit a standalone article Mooonswimmer 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Law, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Hillman was not simply a "press guy giving press statement" given all of the coverage that has been highlighted by other editors in addition to local coverage here in the UK where he is often featured on the BBC and in the FT. Here is an article that I have not seen other editors note that I think supports the case. It created significant waves here and continues to be referenced somewhat refgularly.

Financial Times : announces Hillmann as featured keynote speaker at its 2024 FT Digital Assets Summit in London and resulted in waves of coverage specifically about Hillman and his perspective on how our local regulator is approaching fintech regulation. 12.49.44.35 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
‘’‘Keep’’’ – The subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with multiple independent, reliable sources covering his work in substantive detail over a sustained period. The argument that coverage is limited to “routine announcements” does not hold up under review of available sourcing. 1. Substantive Coverage in National and International Media Patrick Hillmann has received significant, non-routine coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources, particularly in relation to his role in one of the most consequential regulatory enforcement actions in the history of the cryptocurrency industry. ‘’‘The New York Times’’’ covered the U.S. Department of Justice’s $4.3 billion settlement with Binance and referenced Hillmann’s role as part of the executive leadership navigating the crisis: [34] ‘’‘CNBC’’’ aired multiple interviews with Hillmann during regulatory investigations: [35] ‘’‘Reuters’’’ and ‘’‘The Wall Street Journal’’’ covered Binance’s billion-dollar liquidity events and quoted the exchange’s communications posture—spearheaded by Hillmann: [36] [37] These are not “routine” press releases but mainstream coverage identifying Hillmann as a key figure in the management of major financial and regulatory crises. This meets the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. 2. Demonstrable Policy-Relevant and Institutional Impact Hillmann personally authored Binance’s formal response to a bipartisan U.S. Senate inquiry led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, and Roger Marshall—an event covered in: ‘’‘CoinDesk’’’: [38] ‘’‘Blockworks’’’: [39] This led to direct public criticism from Senator Warren—coverage that appeared in national press. Several months later, the DOJ settlement publicly affirmed many of the claims made in Hillmann’s letter, including the absence of user fund commingling and acknowledgement of compliance improvements. This level of influence on U.S. policymaker engagement satisfies WP:BIO#1, which includes having “a significant impact in their professional field.” 3. Executive Leadership in a Notable Institution Hillmann served as Binance’s Chief Communications Officer and then Chief Strategy Officer during one of the most closely watched periods in the company’s history. Binance is the largest crypto exchange in the world by trading volume. He held executive responsibility during: - The collapse of FTX and Three Arrows Capital - Regulatory investigations by the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ - The $4.3 billion DOJ settlement—one of the largest corporate resolutions in U.S. history Hillmann was the public voice for Binance through these events, featured prominently in dozens of interviews, op-eds, and public statements. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, individuals who play executive roles in organizations that are “the subject of multiple independent, in-depth articles” clearly qualify. 4. Longevity, Breadth of Coverage, and Source Variety Hillmann has appeared in a wide range of independent, non-trivial sources over the course of more than a decade: ‘’‘NBC News’’’ covered an AI-generated deepfake scam that impersonated Hillmann as part of an international fraud scheme: [40] ‘’‘O’Dwyer’s PR’’’ has documented multiple career moves across leading firms including Edelman, GE, and the National Association of Manufacturers: [41] ‘’‘Politico’’’ and ‘’‘The Hill’’’ have featured his thought leadership and professional milestones: [42] This satisfies WP:SIGCOV, which requires significant coverage—not mere mention—in reliable sources. 5. Precedent for Inclusion There are numerous crypto executives with significantly less mainstream visibility who currently have articles on English Wikipedia. These include: ‘’’Florian Reike’’’: A co-founder of nakamo.to and blockchain consultant. His profile is primarily niche and has little to no major media coverage. ([43]) ‘’’Antoni Trenchev’’’: Co-founder of Nexo and former Bulgarian MP. While notable in crypto finance, his media exposure is largely regional.([44]) ‘’’Jason Fernandes’’’: A Web3 entrepreneur with limited citation in English-language press. His article mostly cites self-published or regional sources. ([45]) ‘’’Emin Gün Sirer’’’: An academic and founder of Avalanche blockchain. While respected in crypto development circles, his public role is largely technical and academic. ([46]) ‘’’Adam Back’’’: A cryptographer known for Hashcash. Though influential in the early crypto community, his public visibility is limited outside technical audiences. ([47]) Each of the above has less mainstream regulatory coverage, public controversy, or executive visibility than Hillmann, yet their articles are retained under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Therefore I'd argue he clearly meets and exceeds the notability threshold under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Otherwise, the bar here is being set abnormally high, particularly while the subject seems to still be very active and influential. 24.234.111.50 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Editors need to do more heavy lifting before simply voting to delete without reading through others feedback. Annoying to have to do this from my mobile device when others could have made edits directly to satiate concerns. Following the 2 June clean‑up (diff), the article now cites only heavyweight, independent outlets: The New York Times, CNBC, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and NBC News. Press‑release material has been dropped, and minor résumé details trimmed.

• Significant coverage – Those sources devote multiple paragraphs to Hillmann’s actions during Binance’s US$4.3 billion DOJ settlement. That meets WP:GNG and the depth requirement in WP:BIO.

• Not a one‑event figure – The press record spans 2019–2024 and several employers (GE, Edelman, Binance), so it is well beyond a single news spike.

• Neutral presentation – Promotional language is reduced; side roles (e.g., Lincoln Park Zoo board) are reduced to one line.

• Project consistency – Crypto executives with slimmer sourcing (Antoni Trenchev, Florian Reike, etc.) already have pages. Raising the bar only here would be uneven.

If any citation still looks shaky, flag it on the talk page so we can replace or remove it. Deleting a bio that now rests on mainstream, independent coverage would run against WP:ATD.

— DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the sources count towards Notability. Federal Newswire, Mifeed, and Crypto Republique are multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. If anyone needs further explanation, let me know. There’s one source that’s clearly an interview (Business Daily), so that wouldn’t count towards Notability. But we have 3 sources that do. That counts as multiple sources and they meet the stated criteria of WP:BIO. Thanks.

SilverhairedHarry (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources at all per WP:RS. That includes Federal News Wire, which is a press release, and Mifeed and CR are basically blogs. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these in the 6/2 clean-up. Please respond if you have other specific concerns. DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When editing from a cell phone, be careful how you past over source data. Depending on your device, it may include phantom data that causes errors. 173.165.83.158 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are not independent of the subject. The sources included in the keep of this is "press person makes press statement." There is a lot of pseudo-biography building. His service to the Lincoln Park Zoo, auxiliary board is not encyclopedic.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ibid.

“I have addressed these in the 6/2 clean-up. Please respond if you have other specific concerns.” DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article now rests on a solid spine of independent, high‑quality coverage from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Politico and CNBC, each devoting substantive space to Hillmann’s decisions and public statements during Binance’s US$4.3 billion DOJ settlement and earlier compliance disputes. That sustained, multi‑year attention easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO; it is neither routine announcement traffic nor self‑published puffery. Per the other editor above, comparable tech execs with far slimmer sourcing remain in mainspace, so removing this page would create an uneven standard. Minor resume flourishes can always be pared back, but the core notability case is beyond doubt 173.165.83.158 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to 3 independent, reliable sources covering Hillmann in depth? The existence of other undersourced articles isn't justification for keeping this one. Each article must meet notability guidelines on its own merits. If the subject lacks significant, independent coverage, no amount of comparison or trimming can substitute for genuine notability. Mooonswimmer 22:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of coverage of the subject. Here is 10 independent, reliable sources. Have you seen the other responses from the community above?

Each of the articles below devote significant attention to the subject's role as senior leader at Binance and his involvement in key global regulatory and law enforcement actions. Collectively, these clearly meet the requirements of both WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and reflect WP:SIGCOV in reliable, secondary sources.

Reuters – “Crypto exchange Binance hit by executive exodus” (6 July 2023). Covers Hillmann’s resignation and positions him centrally in Binance’s leadership turnover during regulatory challenges.
Wall Street Journal – “Binance Strategy Chief Rubs Salt Into FTX’s Wounds” (11 Nov 2022). Focuses on Hillmann’s public commentary and strategic framing during FTX’s collapse.
Politico – “Two major crypto exchanges failed to block sanctioned Russians” (24 Feb 2023). Hillmann is quoted acknowledging compliance failures, confirming his executive responsibility for oversight.
Wall Street Journal – “Binance Is Trying to Calm Investors, but Its Finances Remain a Mystery” (18 Dec 2022). Includes detailed quotes from Hillmann on Binance’s disclosure practices amid DOJ scrutiny.
Reuters – “How Binance became a hub for hackers, fraudsters and drug sellers” (6 June 2022). A deep investigative piece; Hillmann responds to allegations and outlines remedial actions.
Wall Street Journal – “Crypto Giant Binance Offers Little Transparency After FTX Collapse” (22 Dec 2022). Hillmann featured on internal audit efforts and regulatory posture.
Politico – “Gensler’s crypto cleanup gets custodial” (16 Feb 2023). Quotes Hillmann on Binance’s U.S. regulatory efforts, framing his leadership role in industry engagement.
Reuters – “Binance moved $400 million from U.S. partner firm managed by CEO Zhao” (16 Feb 2023). Hillmann provides company response, reflecting senior responsibility.
Wall Street Journal – “Texts From Crypto Giant Binance Reveal Plan to Elude U.S. Authorities” (1 Mar 2023). Hillmann comments on law enforcement cooperation; the piece situates him in broader regulatory tensions.
Reuters – “Binance’s U.S. partner confirms firm run by CEO Zhao operated on exchange” (17 Feb 2023). Hillmann provides statements confirming corporate governance issues and restructuring efforts.

== Policy basis to keep ==

WP:GNG – Coverage is significant, not routine, and from reliable secondary sources.

WP:BIO1E does not apply – Hillmann has received sustained coverage across multiple events and contexts.

WP:RS – All sources listed are mainstream, fact-checked, and editorially independent.

WP:BLP – No contentious claims are unsourced; high-quality citations confirm each notable assertion.

Accordingly, deletion would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies. 76.157.23.231 (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add these stories from Bloomberg, Reuters, Fortune, etc. covering the subject’s departure and impact on the industry:

Bloomberg – outlines his regulatory strategy leadership.

Reuters – names subject as key executive amid DOJ fallout.

Fortune – features subject among the firm’s most public-facing leaders.

CoinDesk – confirms his influence in crisis-era decision making.

PRWeek – independently highlights his stature among former GE- comms executives. DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more non-AI participation, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can hem and haw about editors using AI to pull media coverage here in the talk track, but the fact remains that the discussion for deletion was based on and continues to be anchored to the assertion that "Most coverage consists of routine announcements or PR pieces lacking the depth required to establish notability per WP:BIO."

It takes 15 minutes of grammar school level research online to demonstrate that assertion does not hold up to scrutiny. If there is some other bias against the subject here due to their role or the industry they work in, that's fine, but let's stop pretending that this is a WP:BIO issue. DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then provide just three of the best sources. There’s no bias, I don’t have much of an opinion on crypto. Mooonswimmer 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments and sub comments above in the main talk track DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add this story from the UK here that made significant waves when the FT had Hillmann as the keynote at their financial summit. There was extensive coverage per the below that still gets referenced here regularly.

Financial Times – announces Hillmann as keynote, underscoring his industry prominence.

Cutting and pasting the other coverage referenced above by other editors so everything is combined to answer your question.

Reuters – “Crypto exchange Binance hit by executive exodus” (6 July 2023). Covers Hillmann’s resignation and positions him centrally in Binance’s leadership turnover during regulatory challenges.
Wall Street Journal – “Binance Strategy Chief Rubs Salt Into FTX’s Wounds” (11 Nov 2022). Focuses on Hillmann’s public commentary and strategic framing during FTX’s collapse.
Politico – “Two major crypto exchanges failed to block sanctioned Russians” (24 Feb 2023). Hillmann is quoted acknowledging compliance failures, confirming his executive responsibility for oversight.
Wall Street Journal – “Binance Is Trying to Calm Investors, but Its Finances Remain a Mystery” (18 Dec 2022). Includes detailed quotes from Hillmann on Binance’s disclosure practices amid DOJ scrutiny.
Reuters – “How Binance became a hub for hackers, fraudsters and drug sellers” (6 June 2022). A deep investigative piece; Hillmann responds to allegations and outlines remedial actions.
Wall Street Journal – “Crypto Giant Binance Offers Little Transparency After FTX Collapse” (22 Dec 2022). Hillmann featured on internal audit efforts and regulatory posture.
Politico – “Gensler’s crypto cleanup gets custodial” (16 Feb 2023). Quotes Hillmann on Binance’s U.S. regulatory efforts, framing his leadership role in industry engagement.
Reuters – “Binance moved $400 million from U.S. partner firm managed by CEO Zhao” (16 Feb 2023). Hillmann provides company response, reflecting senior responsibility.
Wall Street Journal – “Texts From Crypto Giant Binance Reveal Plan to Elude U.S. Authorities” (1 Mar 2023). Hillmann comments on law enforcement cooperation; the piece situates him in broader regulatory tensions.
Reuters – “Binance’s U.S. partner confirms firm run by CEO Zhao operated on exchange” (17 Feb 2023). Hillmann provides statements confirming corporate governance issues and restructuring efforts.
Bloomberg – outlines his regulatory strategy leadership.
Reuters – names subject as key executive amid DOJ fallout.
Fortune – features subject among the firm’s most public-facing leaders.
CoinDesk – confirms his influence in crisis-era decision making.
PRWeek – independently highlights his stature among former GE- comms

Again, I'm just combining all of the other editors responses to make this easier.

Although having read through all of these news stories, I would also vote that this is a Keep situation. Hillman was not simply a "press guy giving press statement" 12.49.44.35 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than listing over a dozen sources, it's more effective to highlight the three strongest ones. I checked four of these at random, and absolutely none provide anything close to in-depth coverage. As you noted in your own comments about the sources, many of them are just quoting Hillmann. Sometimes it's in a single sentence. This doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage. It's passing mentions and routine coverage. Mooonswimmer 00:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below are three strong sources where Hilman is the central subject thus meeting [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:BIO]], and [[WP:SIGCOV]]

Reuters – Crypto exchange Binance hit by executive exodus Subject is identified as a key figure in the industry and quoted directly explaining his departure as part of a major executive reshuffle - https://www.reuters.com/technology/binances-chief-strategy-officer-patrick-hillman-quits-tweet-2023-07-06/

Bloomberg – Binance Executives Exit as Crackdown on Crypto Exchange Intensifies (6 July 2023) Details Hilman's resignation and his function within Binance’s global legal strategy - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/binance-executive-patrick-hillmann-us-employees-leave-as-crisis-deepens

Financial Times – Live coverage: FT’s Crypto & Digital Assets Summit keynote (May 2023) The FT article profiles Hilman as the keynote speaker—offering him his own spotlight in the global crypto finance narrative - https://www.ft.com/content/362caa7c-eebb-493b-9ef0-53cbc189f9f2 173.165.83.158 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all the Reuters article says about Hillmann:

"Chief Strategy Officer Patrick Hillmann said in a tweet on Thursday that he was leaving the exchange, citing personal reasons. Hillmann, who joined Binance in 2021 as its top communications executive, became its chief strategy officer in October last year. After Zhao, he was Binance's most outspoken advocates on social media. 'I've taken this company through a lifetime of industry crises and regulatory challenges," Hillmann tweeted, citing a string of corporate failures to hit crypto last year. "Despite all of these challenges, the company has continued to grow and thrive.'"

This is all the Bloomberg article has to say about him:

"Patrick Hillmann, Binance’s chief strategy officer who joined in 2021, tweeted he was leaving 'on good terms.'"

And this is all the Financial Times says:

"Patrick Hillmann, the company’s chief strategy officer, said at the Financial Times’ crypto and digital assets summit that the US “has been very confusing over the past six months”. He pointed to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s actions against rival exchange Coinbase over alleged securities laws violations as a sign of how “the US right now is in this weird place” In contrast with his comments that it was now a “very difficult time” to do business in the US, Hillmann said Binance would do “everything we possibly can” to be regulated in the UK. Hillmann said the “broader regulatory pivot we’ve seen in the US” was different from Binance’s discussions with the CFTC. However he played down the threat of US enforcement actions on the company and the industry, saying: 'I expect at some point the US is going to want to pivot and play catch-up to Europe, which just passed Mica [the EU’s crypto asset regulation], which is a huge step forward.'"

These three sources don’t come close to establishing notability under WP:GNG. It's not in-depth coverage about Hillmann as a person, his career, or his impact in the field. These are just quotes and routine corporate reporting, not the kind of significant, independent coverage WP:GNG calls for. Wikipedia requires more than a high-profile title or a few quotes. Mooonswimmer 00:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Notability Concerns and Issues of Bias

The following examples meet both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV by focusing on him as a central figure—not as a spokesperson, but as a strategic actor during pivotal events in the crypto industry. Certain editors may not agree with the relevance of the industry as a whole, which is their prerogative, but the facts at hand are clear that the subject meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.

• Reuters – ‘’Crypto exchange Binance hit by executive exodus’’

Hillmann is directly quoted on his resignation, which Reuters places in the context of a broader regulatory reckoning at Binance. He is clearly identified as a key player in the firm’s internal crisis response and legal strategy. The article’s web address address even centers on Hillmann.

• Wall Street Journal – ‘’Binance Strategy Chief Rubs Salt Into FTX’s Wounds’’

This is not a passing quote, it’s a detailed description of Hillmann’s role in driving Binance’s business decision-making through the FTX collapse, showing clear editorial interest in his approach and its implications. The entire story is dedicate to coverage of his perspective and the fallout in the industry that resulted.

• Bloomberg – ‘’Binance Executives Exit as Crackdown on Crypto Exchange Intensifies’’

Bloomberg details Hillmann’s departure as central among a broader institutional reshuffling. His role in global strategy and crisis navigation is explicitly outlined. Again, his name is even the featured the name in the web address. I work in a newsroom and can explain that the reason his name is featured that way is because the title use to be some form of “Patrick Hillmann Announces Departure” but was edited over time as more executives left.

• Financial Times – ‘’Binance slams US crypto crackdown and makes bid for UK oversight’’

Hillmann is featured as the keynote speaker at the FT’s flagship digital assets summit, an honor reserved for C-suite executives or public figures with demonstrable influence. FT’s decision to single him out speaks volumes about his standing in the field. The entirety of the piece focuses on Hillmann.

• Fortune – ‘’Binance plunges into crisis as senior execs quit over CEO Changpeng Zhao’s response to Justice Department investigation’’

Fortune includes Hillmann in its coverage of a mass executive resignation, citing the internal turmoil around DOJ engagement—again placing him within a substantive, independently reported narrative.

In addition to this core set of coverage, the subject continues to be called upon for expert commentary across mainstream platforms despite not currently being employed by a fintech company today (LinkedIn shows that he is CSO at an AI startup):

• CNBC: Interview on crypto markets during SVB/Silvergate volatility

• Fox Business: Expert segment during the SBF trial

• Fox News: Policy discussion on compliance in digital assets

These aren’t fluff mentions. They’re editorial decisions by globally respected newsrooms to feature Hillmann by name and on record. DontAbuseWikiPlease (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are just quotes and routine corporate mentions. I’ve pulled the Hillmann-related content from the Bloomberg, Financial Times, and Reuters articles cited above, and it’s clear there’s no significant coverage about him. The Bloomberg article includes literally one sentence: "Patrick Hillmann, Binance’s chief strategy officer who joined in 2021, tweeted he was leaving 'on good terms.'" That’s nowhere near significant coverage. It’s a passing quote in a broader piece about Binance. Being named in a sntence doesn’t meet the GNG. That article can be used to reference his departure and the fact that he joined Binance in 2021, but it contributes nothing to notability. Mooonswimmer 00:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact that you continue to cherrypick one story rather than responding fulsomely to other editors thoughtful and robust responses, you clearly do not understand what a "routine press quote." This entire FT story is about an appearance he made as the keynote at the Financial Times Fintech Summit.

"Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, has said a crackdown on crypto has made it “very difficult” to do business in the US, adding that it now hopes to be regulated in the UK. Patrick Hillmann, the company’s chief strategy officer, said at the Financial Times’ digital assets summit that the US “has been very confusing over the past six months”. He pointed to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s actions against rival exchange Coinbase over alleged securities laws violations as a sign of how “the US right now is in this weird place”. In contrast with his comments that it was now a “very difficult time” to do business in the US, Hillmann said Binance would do “everything we possibly can” to be regulated in the UK. Binance had previously clashed with London regulators who said the exchange was incapable of being regulated after it failed to provide basic information about its business activity. The group has no fixed headquarters and offers services around the world. In 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority ordered the company to stop all regulated activities in Britain, and last year a joint venture partner said the company had filed a “grossly inaccurate” annual report for one of its UK subsidiaries. Hillman declined to confirm whether the company had reapplied to the FCA’s registration regime for crypto businesses, which covers companies’ processes to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Other groups have claimed that UK officials have been overly wary of fintech and crypto companies. This week, the head of payments company Revolut blamed “extra cautious” UK regulators for delays in gaining its banking licence. Binance has been the target of US regulators clamping down on perceived illicit activity this year. In March. the Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought a lawsuit against the group, alleging it had been operating illegally in the country and had broken the law by extensively soliciting US customers. At the time, Binance called the CFTC complaint “unexpected and disappointing”. The Department of Justice also named Binance as a counterparty to Bitzlato, a crypto exchange whose founder was charged with transmitting millions of illicit crypto funds in violation of US money-laundering regulations. Binance’s US affiliate, Binance US, last month abandoned a proposed $1bn deal for the assets belonging to Voyager Digital, a crypto lender that fell into bankruptcy last year. Hillmann said the “broader regulatory pivot we’ve seen in the US” was different from Binance’s discussions with the CFTC. However he played down the threat of US enforcement actions on the company and the industry, saying: “I expect at some point the US is going to want to pivot and play catch-up to Europe, which just passed Mica [the EU’s crypto asset regulation], which is a huge step forward.” The EU legislation is intended to provide a framework for regulating crypto assets in the bloc, so giving greater certainty to consumers and market participants. The Binance enforcement case is one of many brought by US regulators against some of the biggest companies in the crypto industry. Among them, Nasdaq-listed Coinbase is the focus of an SEC investigation into possible securities laws violation. Crypto payments company Ripple is also engaged in a long-running lawsuit brought by the SEC in 2020 alleging it violated securities laws." 76.157.23.231 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s disingenuous to accuse me of “cherrypicking one story” and ignoring other responses when I explicitly asked for three sources that best support WP:GNG, as is customary in AfD discussions. The Bloomberg article I critiqued was one of the examples provided to me above. If a source is offered as part of a core notability argument, it's entirely fair to assess its weight under WP:SIGCOV. Refbombing over a dozen articles is not "thoughtful and robust" argumentation, by the way.

Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means the subject is treated directly and in detail, not just mentioned or quoted. A few quotes or appearances in articles about Binance do not meet that threshold.

In which of these articles is Hillmann the subject of sustained editorial attention? Respond to that directly with 2-3 sources. If Hillmann were truly independently notable, we’d expect at least one substantial profile about him, not just quotes in stories about broader events. The paragraph you quoted clearly doesn’t prove notability. It’s about Binance’s regulatory troubles, not about Hillmann. He’s quoted as a company spokesperson. There’s no biographical detail, no focus on his actions, and no independent analysis of him as a subject. Mooonswimmer 04:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AI-refbombing the deletion discussion with promotional trash is not a convincing argument - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this here... https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/book/

If you want to argue against the suitability of the article than do so. If you are simply looking to grind an axe against an industry that you don't find respectable, than do it on Twitter, don't abuse the editor program here. 173.165.83.158 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I am an acknowledged expert in the subject area - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
God help the AFD closer who takes on this mess. There's a reward for you in the next life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hutchings (American football coach)

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

Article does not include any GNG-level sourcing, and a WP:BEFORE search does not reveal any GNG sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources: [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are compelling — I had been looking for coaching sources and didn't find any sigcov, but it looks like he might be notable as a player from his college career? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete: The issues on the article lacking inline citation is a real problem, articles cites more unreliable sources, even if the subject might be notable, the created piece fails WP:GNG for that reason. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 22:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't based on the article quality (WP:CONTN). I removed the X (Twitter) source. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make a good improvement on the article and add some of the sources you listed on the discussion on the article and develop the article maybe I can consider changing my comment, placing the source here without adding it on the article won’t help much. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Somewhat borderline but I think being an NFL coach puts him over the bar of notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is the current Safeties coach for the Minnesota Viking. That is notable. If you have any problems with that you can look at the Minnesota Vikings website.'~DakotaBoy89~' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaBoy89 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Being listed on the Vikings' website has zero bearing on notability (they have bios for a bunch of non-notable people-even their turf technicians). Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the sources found above put him just over the threshold. Wizardman 23:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even discounting the Sun article, which doesn't say much, there are multiple articles about the subject from at least 4 different reliable sources (including the LA Times), which is plenty to meet GNG. While GPL93 is correct that the Vikings website has zero bearing, I am not counting that one. And Chippla360's insistence on including these sources in the article has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or not per GNG. That can be done after the article is kept, if it is. Rlendog (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

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

I cannot find any independent significant coverage of the bridge. All the sources are either press releases or just some very basic news coverage of the bridge opening. The only SIGCOV I found was written by two men who worked on the bridge and thus not independent. Some information could be merged to Northwestern Motorway Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This could go both ways - either it's just a routine bridge over a motorway or it passes GNG more so than a routine bridge over the motorway. I think there's just enough coverage that it goes beyond routine, but I can see this one going either way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete When it comes down to it, there is no claim of notability in the article for what appears to be a run-of-the-mill pedestrian overpass. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Mangoe above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 google news hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not the arbiter of GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indicator if an entity is covered in major media outlets. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The technical paper referred to by the nominator, which they agree is SIGCOV, shows exactly why this bridge is notable. Its structural engineering is sufficiently unusual and innovative that the engineers who designed it were able to write a technical paper on the design and construction of the bridge that was presented and published at an international conference on bridges. If it were a run-of-the-mill bridge, they would not have bothered to write the paper and it would not have been accepted for the conference. Paora (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technical paper would be a non-independent source as it was written by engineers associated with the bridge. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the technical paper, [56], does seem to make a case for the bridge being innovative, and [57] is further coverage explaining why the bridge was necessary.-Gadfium (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many articles in the New Zealand Herald and the Western Leader covering the necessity for the bridge, most of which can be found via Newztext and not via Google News. Paora (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People build bridges, for the most part, because they are needed; it doesn't make any given bridge notable. And I don't see a paper by the builder's designers as conferring notability either. If it were widely cited in the literature that would be a different story, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on that technical paper?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The technical paper is incredibly well-detailed but per WP:INDEPENDENT 'To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.' The authors of the paper were the engineers for the bridge. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northwestern Motorway. Insufficient notability for a stand-alone article, but a noteworthy feature along the road it crosses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Not every one of the hundreds of reported airstrikes is independently notable per WP:GNG. Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, where it's already covered with context. See WP:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting for a similar AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can easily be incorporated in an article covering the larger context, agree with nominator. BHC (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 10 years later and this appears to have been largely forgotten, with no coverage past the initial burst of news... Not notable due to the lack of sustained coverage. One drone shot down, four missiles fired, nothing serious appears to have come of this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 11 years later and this hasn't been forgotten as it was included in the 2020 book "The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East", by Christopher Phillips, published by the distinguished Yale University Press.[58] Still looking into BHC's merge proposal. gidonb (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgotten, but a footnote in the broader of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, especially compared to airstrikes Philips calls out as specifically WP:LASTING, such as the January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike. Good find, though. Longhornsg (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom has suggested a redirect, but the !votes are for delete - is there any reason this ought to be deleted instead of redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no sustained coverage of the strike after the initial coverage and there is no record of colossal damage. Patre23 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Student Forum

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

fails WP:NORG and entirely primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. GoldRomean (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: This appears to be a relatively new organization with a wide area of influence. A relatively quick search revealed this story I'm reviewing for additions to the article. I feel like deletion is too hasty at this stage. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo page, similar to I.I.M.U.N.. Charlie (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is room for improvement on this article, It’s Broad. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get any source analysis here? One source usually isn't enough to keep an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are non WP:RS and are mostly primary. Several of the sources do not address the organization itself but merely disscuing the importance of students' union on educational institutions. This does not meet the threshold for WP:NORG. Patre23 (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref. 1 might be good, but needs a more specific chapter/page number in a large multi-author book. The other sources are not really about the organization and nothing more was found. Open to keeping if more sources could be found, but I was unable to. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Taka SC

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

It this a notable location? Right now this is unreferenced (WP:V failure, single EL to Facebook...). On pl wiki some editors tried to create an entry with some refs, but there is confusion whether they talk about the same entity, or different... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Sudan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I at least wanted to point out that this article is about a football club, not a "location". (I have no opinion on the article or its current lack of sourcing.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch Good catch, I came here via interwiki to Stade Al-Taka Kassala which redirects here, but yes, the club itself is just as bad, GNG-wise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Town (Colchester ward)

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

I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Wikipedia to raise to article levels minor electoral areas in local government as such. Obviously a ward may encompass an area such as a village that is relevant in and of itself, but in this case, it is simply a collation of electoral results, which is by no means significant coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clear precedent. There are thousands of electoral constituency articles on Wikipedia of all types and AFDs have routinely return Keep results. This article is well written and sourced. MRSC (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For national election constituencies, that is true. But this is only for electing local government. Such wards do not see news articles speculating about who might win, or possible candidates. Those elected are unlikely to ever generate GNG coverage such as would lead to them getting an article. It is a very different scale than a constituency for national government.

If this is to be retained, does that mean that we ought to have a goal of creating articles for all 8,694 such wards in th UK? Not to mention equivalents worldwide. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to City of Colchester. Local city ward lacks notability and fails GNG. There is no precedent or basis for any suggestion that constituencies are automatically notable, particularly at the local level with only a few thousand voters. Most of the other thousands of articles are at the national or regional level and are substantially larger entities (and many of them should also be deleted or merged). The suggestion that the article is well-sourced is simply laughable, the only sources are simple election results data for the council, nothing remotely resembling significant coverage. We are not a database for every minor election result without context. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Colchester; it's just a local ward. No inherent notability and no SIGCOV. The electoral records can be linked form the main page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged? Are you proposing that the article for the city should have every result of every ward election since the area became a local authority? Or that this one ward somehow gets exceptional treatment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (about five lines), and link the tables of results. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but why would the City of Colchester article be improved by having some trivial data about a former ward, while a couple of dozen other former and current wards do not have the same details given? Or why the results of this one (former) ward should be preserved and reported while those of the others are not? Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be crying into my beer if this article is deleted, but WP:ATD states that "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and WP:ATD-M that "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles". So my reply is based on the deletion policy.

Speaking of which: per below, instructions for multiple-article AfDs are at WP:BUNDLE. Hope this helps. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By no means intended as an attack on you, but I think it is a huge flaw of the deletion system that an instruction gets sent to a talk page telling editors there that material from another article is to be incorporated into it, with no consideration of whether it is appropriate or proportionate, often when there has been no awareness on the part of the editors committed to the target page that such a thing is under discussion. It comes across (again, by no means intending this as personal to you) as an extraordinary systemic arrogance that one part of Wikipedia tells another what it must do with no consultation at all.

But that is a bigger issue than the article at hand.

Thanks to the signposting to WP:Bundle, but that doesn't seem to deal with later additions to an AfD, so I'll see what happens here, then propose it if there is (what seems to me) a suitable outcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the method is for turning a simple AfD into a multiple article AfD, but anything that can be said about this article seems likely equally true of Castle (Colchester ward). And if both of those are deleted, I would suggest that Template:Electoral wards in the City of Colchester, being then is void, should equally be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Lebanon women's international footballers. based on the source analysis and general consensus (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assile Toufaily

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

Fails GNG; lacks WP:SIGCOV. Contested prod Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nehme, appears to have enough sources to show notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' passes WP:NSPORT per the career stats. Patre23 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can pass any guideline through stats. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I prepared a source analysis to aid the discussion. Almost all of the sources appear to be primary in their nature.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cloudz679
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://globalsportsarchive.com/people/soccer/assile-toufaily/291294/			The source contains stats only	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150721102948/http://www.the-afc.com/afcasfeeds?fixtureid=8457&stageid=337&tMode=C&view=ajax&show=matchsummary	Confederation has a direct relationship with the player		The source contains stats only	✘ No
https://rdsfootball.wordpress.com/2022/07/17/enquete-le-chemin-vers-la-professionnalisation-au-liban/	The source suggests that the work is based on a discussion with the subject	The source is a personal blog hosted on WordPress		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa1CV4oE8M	The source is a video interview with the subject			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200724041555/http://arabia.eurosport.com/article/كرة-القدم/الدوري-اللبناني/كرة-القدم-النسائية-تجتاز-الحواجز-وتتسلق-القمة	The source appears to include quotes directly from the player herself, which is primary			✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bya6GG2JCq0/	Primary source - club has a direct relationship with the player		routine announcement	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170425070405/http://www.netmedyouth.org/highlights/assile-toufaily-yes-women-can-play-football	Interview with the player - primary source			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

C 679 07:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudz679, I agree with your analysis but do want to point out that "primary" is not the same as "non-independent". Also, blogs are SPS and can never be used for BLPs, so are an automatic fail. JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers as WP:ATD based on the source analysis above. C 679 08:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers - per the above source analysis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants Nehme1499 — GiantSnowman — Patre23 — Geschichte: to share review of source analysis. C 679 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for a redirect, if not kept. Giant Snowman 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, source analysis demonstrates lack of the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As the best WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Ilidio Nascimento

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

Non-notable lawyer that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a single source in the article and WP:BEFORE did not yield anything to meet threshold for notability. Patre23 (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is not going to emerge in any other direction for this particular athlete. Star Mississippi 16:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Caruana

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

Declined prod. The added source is a 1 line mention. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Malta. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a mention saying she was the Maltese Sportsperson of the Year as selected by the Malta Sportswriters Association – the winners all receive a SIGCOV article from the Times of Malta for winning the honor. So, it means that SIGCOV exists (WP:NEXIST). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the Times of Malta article. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s offline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flip-flopping back and forth between “keep” and “redirect”, but probably favouring redirect

On the one hand, I think Beanie is probably right here - it’s reasonable to think that the winner of a press prize like this will have received at least some coverage from that self-same press.

However, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we should not have any article without any sourcing on which a substantial article can be based.

Are there any Malta-based editors who might be able to help here? FOARP (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE is about whether to create new articles, not about whether to keep existing articles. That's an important distinction. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE also governs whether what to do with insufficiently sourced topics, which at present this is - but I'm happy to hold off whilst we see if any copy of the Malta coverage can be surfaced. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in pagedecide that supports deleting notable topics simply because the sources that exist haven't been located by a group of three editors. We're unlikely to find offline Maltese newspapers in a week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why my vote is leaning redirect, not delete, and why I'm saying let's take a bite more time on this? FOARP (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete are basically the same outcome. What part of PAGEDECIDE supports deleting or redirecting an article like this when we know significant coverage exists? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per these I found when searching under Deirdre Farrugia [59], [60], [61]. Pinging @BeanieFan11, @FOARP, @Habst Shrug02 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02 - interviews and stories where the subject is mentioned in passing aren’t IRS SIGCOV. Like I said, I’m happy to believe they’re out there somewhere per the press award, and I think they can be found, but that ain’t it. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP Ok. I'm still sticking to my keep vote. If there is an article where her breaking the national 200 metres record is covered then there would definitely have been coverage for her Olympic participation, it simply hasn't been put online. This reminded me of one of the main reasons why I scaled back my participation in AFD a few months ago. It is a sorry state of affairs when Wikipedia has no room for articles on the first Maltese sprinter at an Olympics but is rammed full of American minor sportspeople who happen to have a shed load of online coverage because that is the way of the American media to churn it out. I'll leave you all to it. Thanks for the reply and at least looking at the sources. Shrug02 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Indulge and Times of Malta coverage above, which is sufficient to meet SPORTCRIT. Per discussions previously and WP:IV, interviews can be both independent and secondary depending on context, and the second Times of Malta story is more than a passing mention. --Habst (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the coverage presented and that we know, almost for certain, that further SIGCOV exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the independence of the Times of Malta to the award? And as Q&A interviews unambiguously fail independence and are primary, the Indulge piece contributes nothing toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, Q&A interviews can still be both secondary and independent depending on context. An example of a primary interview would be a police interrogation transcript published by a government as part of an official report. An example of a secondary interview would be a celebrity selectively quoted and analyzed by a news organization. Most interviews fall somewhere in between those two extremes. --Habst (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no secondary analysis in that Q&A interview. Quotes from the subject about the subject are unambiguously non-independent and primary. As explained to you in at least two other active AfDs, the essay you keep linking includes black-and-white examples like
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source.
[...] Alice Expert says she was thrilled to win the Big History Prize last week: primary source for her feelings.
[...] To be secondary, the source has to contain transformative thoughts, which an uncritical parroting of what someone else said lacks.
[...] Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source.
so it is inexplicable how you still struggle to understand this very simple concept. JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is inexplicable how you still struggle to understand this very simple concept – You don't need to be insulting Habst's intelligence every time you disagree with him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ for deletion, and, given the WP:NAUTHOR argument, none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynab El Bernoussi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR, meager citation count, some minor awards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.74.228.91 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection for a doctoral fellowship at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill under the mentorship of Charles Kurzman in 2014 was also another significant achievment for a scholar born and raised in Morocco. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

She was recently names Recipient of the 2025 Global South Award [62] [63] (does this satisfy "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."? WP:NACADEMIC

I found some of her work published on reputable publications, does that contribute to her notability as an academic in any way? for example Oxford Columbia Uni

She was appointed Interim Chair of the Department of Humanities at The Africa Institute [64] (does this satisfy "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." or "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."? WP:NACADEMIC Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Global South award is not notable enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. Having worked published in and of itself is not indicative of passing WP notability standards. Rather, how many others have cited her work? In this case, the answer is not many. Interim chairs also do not count as notable. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to address all the 3 questions I had.

unfortunately I am not familiar with her work, so I can't help with much as I don't know if she has " significant impact in their scholarly discipline". but one last attempt:

she has been cited by quite a number of scholars, Scholar books now if they're reviewing one of her works, that could be something I believe, maybe WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, but I don't have much time to dig that deep, the creator of the article might be better familiar with her work and can help with this part!

She's won few other prizes like the Arab Prize, but probably still not notable enough: "Ms. Zaynab El Bernoussi from Morocco won the third prize of 5,000 USD for her paper published in English, “The Postcolonial Politics of Dignity: From the 1956 Suez Nationalization to the 2011 Revolution in Egypt”." [65]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [66]

cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible. The author was reviewed by the notable Aili Mari Tripp (who visited Morocco), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (as he invited her to UC Santa Barbara), Joseph Nye and Herbert Kelman (during her program at Harvard University). She also contributed with a piece at the notable Project Syndicate. 196.75.127.190 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The work is notable on the Arab Spring, especially from a Moroccan woman. There is also significant work in decolonizing international political economy, critical security studies, and a unique theorization of the concept of dignity. 196.65.226.219 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scholar is recognized as a distinguished professor which is notable based on her origin/gender/age group (for representation) and her pioneering research in dignity politics (coining the concept of dignition=dignity+recognition) during the 2011 Arab Spring. Her scholarship is uniquely interdisciplinary and varied (including in several languages). She has notable editorial contributions and was reviewed by major scholars. In addition to academia, she has been referenced in the press as her work deals with protests around the world. The sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. 196.75.109.181 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has two fairly significant awards and has coined a term that has some takeup, which is borderline for WP:NPROF, though she has also been described as part of "a new generation of Arab IR scholars" which I'd say contributes to notability. But it doesn't really matter whether she meets WP:NPROF or not, because she will clearly fulfil WP:AUTHOR within a year. She has published two books, of which one has two reviews (so the book is notable per WP:NBOOK criteria 1) plus some citations. Her second book only came out this spring, and of course it'll be easier to assess notability in a year when the book has had time to be reviewed - but given it's a textbook on international relations and the global south it's extremely unlikely that it won't be taught at at least two universities which would make the second book also notable, under WP:NBOOK criteria 4. Two notable books will give her notability per WP:AUTHOR whether or not she fulfils WP:NPROF. So deleting an article now that will be uncontrovertibly notable in a year would be silly. I added refs for all this in the article. Lijil (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twicebefore (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out by the OP, this topic does not meet the threshold of relevance for Wikipedia due to lack of third-party sources concerning this individual. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Xpress

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NCORP. There was no SIGCOV after Googling, just more press releases and WP:ROUTINE. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BD2412 T 03:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire challenge

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

WP:NOTNEWS. WP:BEFORE shows zero reliable source, only from 2014,which is the case of WP:LASTING.🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple high-quality news reports are cited. In no way does the article read like a newspaper. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 01:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage is from 2014, no WP:LASTING. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, the "challenge" surfaced again in 2018 [67] and [68] as examples, so it seems to have some notability 4 years after these first sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is finely sourced and I see reliable sources. Allblessed (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Keep arguments that demonstrate the subject's general notability over the years (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milk crate challenge

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

WP:NOTNEWS. WP:BEFORE shows reliable sources only from 2021 ,which is the case of WP:LASTING 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question do I close this or keep this open? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:3C70:C45F:E4E1:123D (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what. WP:NEWS is an essay talking about the various projects by Wikimedia dedicated to news, why are you citing it like it's a policy? Also, this isn't a rationale. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage is from August 2021 (or is from Twitter or not about the challenge at all). No WP:LASTING effects, just another one-news-cycle mass hysteria that got someone their 15 minutes. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clicking on the Gscholar link above gives several peer-reviewed articles discussing this either in terms of injuries or studying social media fads, 2022, 2024, 2025... Showing some critical notice of this thing. Article needs updating but we have scholarly notice of this. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are scholarly reports of the subject preceding 2021. Such as a PDF called "Impulse or Self-Expression? How Social Media Challenges Influence the Decision-Making Process of Young Users" TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. Article absolutely needs to be updated, but recent peer-reviewed articles discussing it seems to point towards it meeting WP:LASTING. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source on the article is sufficient enough for a keep, meets GNG Allblessed (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Szwedkowicz

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, no sources passing WP:GNG show up. I noticed that the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well, and the article seems to be written in a promotional tone. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Film, Television, and Poland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I believe that Magdalena Szwedkowicz meets the notability criteria, especially within the Polish film and television industry. She is a well-known producer with significant contributions, and the English article is a faithful translation of the existing Polish Wikipedia page, which is well-sourced and has been maintained without dispute.

I understand the concerns regarding tone and sourcing, and I am open to improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I will work on adjusting the language to make it more neutral and will add reliable, independent sources in English or Polish that verify her notability.

Please feel free to suggest any specific changes or improvements. I’m committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines Jotdr4822 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotdr4822 You're new to Wikipedia, so maybe you lack experience creating articles. Please review WP:PRODUCER along with WP:GNG for guidelines. The subject of the article needs to meet some requisites, such as being part of creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, which Magdalena doesn't (or doesn't yet).

In regards of the tone, it must be encyclopedic. Review WP:MOS.

Wikipedias in different languages are independent of each other, and the English Wikipedia has higher standards than most of the other ones.

If you could improve the language of the article and add multiple reliable, independent sources that would help a lot in reviewing the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many folks are easily impressed by the title of "producer", but it's become meaningless and run of the mill. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't pass general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttps://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

[Infobae_2021_allegation-2] "La youtuber Maire Wink acusó a Ricardo Ponce de crear una secta y abusar sexualmente de mujeres". Infobae (in Spanish). 2021-05-29. Archived from the original on 2021-05-30.

[Martinez_2021_investigation-3] Martinez, Rafael (2021-06-03). "Catean hotel en Bacalar tras denuncias de abuso sexual en contra de Ricardo Ponce". El Sol de México (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[Siglo_2021_investigation-4] "Indagan denuncias de abuso contra gurú Ricardo Ponce en Quintana Roo". El Siglo de Torreón (in Spanish). 2021-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-04.

[Pérez_2021_investigation-5] Pérez, Jazive (2021-06-03). "Del paraíso al infierno del abuso sexual: Revelaciones en un grupo de autosanación en México" (in Spanish). KVEA. Archived from the original on 2021-06-04.

[Proceso_2021_response-6] Omar Fierro, Juan (2021-06-14). "Ricardo Ponce, el 'gurú de la autosanación', pide no ser crucificado tras denuncia de abuso sexual". Proceso (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-14.

[Telemundo_2021_response-7] 
"Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.
"Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[8] "Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.

[9] "Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[Chávez_2025-8] Chávez M, Javier (2025-02-05). "Marianne Gonzaga: ¿Quién es la influencer que fue detenida por apuñalar a la novia de su ex pareja?". Milenio (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-02-06.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]