Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 12	June 14 >

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. ✗plicit 03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guil Lunde

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

Per LastJabberwocky's prod: "Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources." Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing to be found for this person. The Dubbing Wikia is about the best that comes up in Gsearch... One source used in the article that isn't linked to a book online, so I can't check. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searched the usual before places, just found one mention in newspapers.com (no context or background about subject). Zzz plant (talk) 03:19, 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 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Galactic

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

Unsourced article, fails WP:GNG FMSky (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Spaceflight, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete zero google news hits, which is telling for an American entity. Unreferenced for 9 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in newspapers.com, PressReader, or google books. Even for non-notable companies I can usually have a mention or two, so this is a unique case in that there appears to be no coverage, let alone significant coverage. Zzz plant (talk) 23:59, 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 redirect‎ to United States National Security Council#Deputies Committee. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Destinyokhiria (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Council Deputies Committee

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

Redirect to United_States_National_Security_Council#Deputies_Committee, where it's already covered. WP:REDUNDANT Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and WP:NOPAGE. I could not find any independent WP:SIGCOV of the Deputies Committee, and it is already entirely adequately covered at the NSC page. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is reasonable in this case. Bearian (talk) 03:37, 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 keep‎. Participants reached consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy McGrath

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN, Individual lost both of their election races, they do not currently plan to reattempt an election bid, and their military service history is not notable enough to warrant keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opama420 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are already cited in the article): CNN, New York Times, Mother Jones, as a few examples. Liu1126 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. References concerning McGath's military career that demonstrate notability include The Cincinnati Enquirer, Aviation Museum of Kentucky, New York Times, and, most impressively, the book "Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq". Thiesen (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because someone fails WP:NPOL#1 because they weren't elected does not necessarily mean they are not notable. McGrath clearly meets the Christine O'Donnell standard of a well-covered political candidate with coverage beyond simply routine political articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, political candidates are generally held to a higher standard of WP:GNG because it is expected they will receive routine coverage as part of the election. A full profile in the New York Times ([1]) is certainly not routine coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Curbon. She's notable as a talking head now, although she got there by spending $90 million. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy McGrath. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Lt. Col. McGrath was a Marine fighter pilot, which in and of itself is notable. She is indeed a politician; the fact that she lost races is irrelevant. Her role as an analyst on various news programs is on-point, thoughtful, and easily comprehended by virtually any audience. She is abundantly worthy of a wiki page. 2601:4C3:8101:4E20:E98:3A51:D6F0:3752 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although she lost, Ms. McGrath got more attention than most losing Senate candidates. As Bearian pointed out, $90 million worth. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While she got on the map due to her two candidacies, her career is far more than simply candidate for office. The article may require edits to better balance her life against her 2018 and 2020 candidacies, but I think this article can be retained.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Baden-Württemberg

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

Per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia, where a very similar page was deleted. Users in that discussion cited pages such as WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:MILL, WP:NOPAGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE to explain their arguments for deletion. These pages are sparse and little justifies creating a separate page for each state in Germany. This content would be better served at Climate change in Germany. Astaire (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Germany. Astaire (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Vanamonde93's comment on the original AfD, which sums everything up quite nicely imo. Another possible outcome would be BLAR all of these to Climate change in Germany. Zzz plant (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The climate doesn't change at state borders. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Mccapra (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - consolidate all these nominated articles into one list article that meets WP:NLIST. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of what? We already have Climate change in Germany where information on individual states can be added if desired. Astaire (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge all to Climate change in Germany. No need for all these state articles that have really generic impact sections, but the legislative response could still be covered together. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sung Kwan Lee

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, coverage is also not directly about them grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adjuncts are almost never notable, and I don't see anything that makes the subject notable. It's also so afar from our manual of style that it's close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also smelling a little like COI; user just uploaded likely copyvio pic of this person for article. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhmani Kaur Saggu

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

Very recent grad (bachelor’s in 2024) who has co-authored 3 papers and appears to have a run-of-the-mill research job. I don't see how she could pass any criteria of WP:NPROF even with the broadest possible interpretation, and as for WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any mentions. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF notability and none of the sources support WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at the version that was accepted at AfC it is noticeably worse. Some poor quality control there, it should never have been passed to main. I do not see any reasonable chance of repair, so a full delete is more appropriate than draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify. Needs to be shortened significantly. Three peer-reviewed journal publications show potential. Wisdom2025 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- three peer-reviewed publications are nowhere close to passing WP:PROF notability in this very highly cited and published field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from WP: PROF (does not pass notability).

Dratify. aligns with WP:ACADEMIC. Per Ldm1954, needs repair. Salvageable with dratification. Wisdom2025 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants are only allowed one boldface opinion per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White (2026 film)

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

Filming has not yet begun per WP:NF, move to draft until main production has been confirmed BOVINEBOY2008 20:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Stop creating film articles where nothing's been actually filmed yet and the tone is more appropriate for a non-neutral film fan website. We may need a NEWSORGINDIA-like solution for this issue, and it's exhausting it hasn't been dealt with yet. Nathannah • 📮 22:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM; no guarantee this film will even make it ever. WeWake (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete : This doesn not qualifies any of the notability evidences from WP:NFILM. Clearly a Promotional article and a part of film PR game.Almandavi (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: Film isn’t yet out so it’s generally not notable, there are no buzz around the production or I can’t see multiple media platforms anticipating, it’s not also a production of an already existing film. Allblessed (talk) 22:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hojat Ashrafzadeh

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

Was draftified, then moved back without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve looked in Farsi and can see that the subject is a prolific musician, but all I can find is download sites and no in depth third party sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:02, 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 redirect‎ to M. G. Sanchez. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Scorpion Books

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

not notable defunct publisher; article lacking in sources, Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't exist, no sources available, probably wasn't notable even when it did exist. -- LWG ^talk 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find even any real coverage in: google/bing news, google books, google scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader. I also don't see a reasonable merge or redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M. G. Sanchez. Sanchez is one of the two co-founders of RSB - I wasn't able to determine who the other was offhand. In any case, most of what I'm finding mentions it in relation to him so he would be a reasonable landing page for this. I've already added mention of this to his article, so we just need to redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M. G. Sanchez. This publishing house, when it existed, mainly published the works of its founder, M. G. Sanchez. There is a brief paragraph in his article, and it possibly says all that can be said about it. Lamona (talk) 03:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gradisar

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

Former mayor of a town with a population of ~111k. Looking at a List of mayors of Pueblo, Colorado, the only other one with a Wikipedia page is James Bradley Orman, who later served as Governor of Colorado. I don't think this is an inherently notable position and I don't see how Gradisar rises above any other Pueblo mayor in terms of notability. Also, not that this is relevant to Gradisar's notability as a person, but the article was pretty clearly written by a supporter of Gradisar to promote him. It barely cites any sources and reads like a glowing bio of him you'd find on his personal website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I support deletion for the reasons given by the nominator. I am concerned also that the article provides some completely wrong information. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/Requests: its literally a request on here. Edward of York (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone requested it doesn't mean the person is notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or draftify, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually do better. Pueblo is certainly a large enough city that a mayor would be eligible to keep a well-sourced article, but it's not large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability on bad sourcing just because of the possibility of future improvement — but a lot of the content here is completely unsourced, and two of the three footnotes that are present are primary sources which aren't support for notability, being used to support trivia about his private personal life rather than notability-building content about his political career. The only GNG-worthy reliable source present in the article at all is a single short blurb verifying the simple fact of winning the mayoral election, which is fine but not enough all by itself. So, again, this could exist if it were sourced better than this, but a mayor needs a lot more than just one hit of press coverage verifying that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 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 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Company (song)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG - have checked Books, Scholar. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Ohio. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage about the company itself, nothing for the song found. This was the only sort of listing I could find [2], which I suppose is a RS but it's hardly extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song existed but is only found in unadorned directories of songs from its era. See also WP:NOTLYRICS. Could possibly redirect to List of songs by Robert Schmertz if the current title is a likely search term, though I don't think it is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. I found it mentioned but nothing that could prove notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSONG. Medxvo (talk) 11:08, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Monolingual Corpus

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

I can't verify that this dataset ever existed, let alone that it meets WP:GNG. No obvious associated academic paper, and I can't find a reference to it at the given external link or another link I found on a random GitHub repository. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this dataset ever existed, it doesn't appear to have ever been cited in research, nor does it appear to be accessible either directly from the compilers or in online corpora databases. -- LWG ^talk 18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 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 redirect‎ to Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olive, Indiana

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

Every topo shows nothing here except a wide stretch of railroad trackage, and indeed there are still two parallel lines running straight as an arrow toward Chicago. There are also a couple of large industrial concerns in the area now, but both are relatively new; a 1952 aerial shows nothing here but farmland. It's possible there was a village here early on but we need something better than Baker to testify to that; the dates given for the post office are probably too early for it to have been a rail spot at the time but again we need more substantial documentation. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for your reasoning. --Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana. Not even totally clear that the Baker source and the GIS reference refer to the same thing. -- LWG ^talk 18:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do this, starting with the "what do you want the township article to say about this non-place?" issue. Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana as viable search term. Djflem (talk) 18:45, 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 merge‎ to Love Coma. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Taylor (Christian rock musician)

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

Chris Taylor's individual notability boils down to winning a soap jingle contest (of which I can't find any evidence online) and being nominated for a minor music award. This falls well short of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. The information can easily be summarized in a sentence or two at Love Coma; merge per WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Love Coma. On second thought, 100% agreed with LWG. just as Amakuru stated, the award is plausible that he is notable. Needs more references, though. As of now it seems like his relevance is contingent on Love Coma.--Burroughs'10 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Love Coma. The references in this article could be used to add a note to Love Coma that Chris Taylor went on to a solo career, and a link to Chris's website in Love Coma's external links would cover the rest of the information in this article. -- LWG ^talk 16:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are reliable sources reviews of his albums such as here and biographical sources here, here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Love Coma. Arguably, he's not notable outside of the band. A few biographical details can be added. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 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 procedural close‎ as a duplicate nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badge charity was properly set up and is linked from the article and remains open. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badge charity

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTDICT, as the article simply contains a definition for the term, along with a single source. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 16:10, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badge charity

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

Fails WP:NOTDICT, as the article simply contains a definition for the term, along with a single source. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cited source doesn't even support the claim that this term exists with the definition used in the article. -- LWG ^talk 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single source is a press release. I've taught criminal justice for over a decade and never heard of this term until now. While it's a useful term, and I laud any Attorney General who pushes charities to spend their money on their mission(s), This is basically original research. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 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. An editor can set up a Redirect if you care to but there isn't a consensus to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Douen II

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test for films hinges on evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film, such as critical analysis and/or noteworthy film awards.
But this just states that the film exists as "proof of concept" without indicating that it passes any of the notability criteria for films, and is referenced solely to a single short blurb indicating that the filmmaker staged a one-off screening of her own short films in her own hometown, with absolutely no evidence that the film has been picked up for any wider commercial distribution at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it accrues a stronger notability claim than just existing and has stronger sourcing for it, but one self-funded screening at one theatre in the filmmaker's own hometown is not enough to get a film over the notability bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nom. Google failed to turn up any coverage that isn't self-published or a cursory mention, and there's precious little even of self-published information. -- LWG ^talk 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both GNG and NFILM. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alyscia Cunningham. Agree with nom, but no reason not to have it as a redirect. Fram (talk) 07:48, 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article based on what is judged to be insufficient reliable sources establishing notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)

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

From my research, this seems to be a paid-for "title" sold by a variety of 'heritage' companies. The article creates a deliberate confusion with the Earl of Rothes, which is a real heriditary title in the Peerage of Scotland. The article implies there was somehow a split between the "peerage" title and the "feudal" title of Earl of Rothes, which would allow the "feudal" title to be bestowed on someone else. No source is given for that claim.

The current "holder" of the title is supposedly a guy with Swiss and Antigua & Barbuda citizenship with a peacock article, a bunch of other weird awards and titles, and no connections to Scotland whatsoever.

The article itself wasn't created until December 2024 by the account Royalorders whose main task seems to be to anchor the claim into a variety of Wiki pages.

I can find no reliable sources that back up the claim that this title even exists, how and why it's different from the established Earl of Rothes, and who the current "holder" is. The only consistent source is a list from registryofscotsnobility.com, a nondescript and unverifiable website without listed owners or administrators, and which is likely just another forum for those who bought these kinds of titles. It's also noteworthy that the public agenda of the next meeting of the 'Registry of Scots Nobility' specifically mentions the creation of Wikipedia pages of their 'titles' as a success. All looks very fishy to me. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Rothes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD article just uses bits of the Earl of Rothes article, and then argues that the (Baronage of Scotland) title is different from the 'normal' Earl of Rothes. The latter is alive and well and holds the title, as you can see in the main article. So unless the merged article should say that two different people (the "Earl of Rothes" and the "Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)") hold the same title, there's nothing to merge. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 16:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day distinction. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment below Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The title exists (non-peerage in the baronage of Scotland) and was recognised by Lord Lyon, officer of the crown and the monarch's representative in Scotland: Sir Philip Christopher Ondaatje was infeft as at 26th November 2004 in “All and Whole the lands and other heritages forming the barony and territorial lordship of Leslie and the territorial earldom of Rothes together with the territorial office of Sheriff of Fife”, and was designed by Lyon Blair by Warrant dated 5th September 2006 (amended from 6th December 2005) Court of Lord Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In addition to what Kellycrack88 said, the existence, validity, and ownership of the title are confirmed by: 1) Crown Charter of Confirmation dated October 19, 1859. NAS Ref. C2/262/No. 4/Folio 8; 2) Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63; 3) Certificate of Registration issued by the Scottish Barony Register (which is the only document that is taken into consideration by the Lord Lyon); 4) The mention of the title and its holder in Debretts (which requires proof of title for inclusion in its list) Royalorders (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baronage of Scotland, no need for a separate article for something that exists but isn't notable at all. These titles don't have a real history (the actual notable title with history is the other Earl of Rothes) and aren't an honour or distinction but something you can simply buy and get registered. Fram (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by only if the existing holder sells - I believe there are only about half a dozen scottish baronial earldoms in existence so its very rare if to be able to buy one - and Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals i.e. no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute etc. Also a very interesting development is that the Baronage of Scotland Association has The Pledge an initiative that coverts these titles in a lifelong, hereditary honour rather than a temporary office that can be sold -- and binds the baron to a Baronial Code of Honour, allegiance to the crown, and paying a tithe to charity, if they get a criminal record as judged by their fellow barons they lose recognition of their title on the Roll. Anyway, I'm happy with what you propose Fram as yes the history should not be copy and paste of the peerage. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram @Royalorders Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals" I'm sorry, that's bullshit. "no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute" is 99% of the population. That that charity now proposed some non-binding, voluntary "pledge" for members (where barons don't need to be members at all in the first place) is of no value in general and certainly not for this AfD. Fram (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram@Kellycrak88
The non-peerage title of Earl of Rothes actually has its own separate history from the peerage title beginning on October 19, 1959, the date of the Crown Charter of Confirmation that I mentioned above.

Parliament, in passing the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, in Section 63 sought to guarantee the right to bear the non-peerage title, recognizing in it a cultural historical value.

Can we supersede the assessment already made by parliament and consider these titles of no value? No, in my opinion.

We need to distinguish the notability of the non-peerage title (which is given by the history of its grant and its successors) from the notability of its current holder. The latter is not relevant to our considerations.

However, it should be remembered that some of these non peerage titles even belong to Prince Williams or King Charles.

The fact that these non peerage titles can be transferred to third parties is not decisive. In Germany and other countries there have been several cases of nobles agreeing to adopt aspirants to their title in exchange for many millions. None of this detracts from the notability of the transferred title.

The question also remains whether it is useful and appropriate for non-peerage titles to have their own page. In my opinion, yes, if there is a clear and unambiguous statement on the page that the title has nothing to do with the peerage title. In my view, creating a page dedicated to a non-peerage title, with the clarification just mentioned, serves precisely to avoid confusion of the two titles, as well as to recognize the historical and cultural dignity of both.

~~Royalorders (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Do you have any independent sources about this specific title? That is, sources independent from the holders and from the grantibg authorities? Have e.g. any newspapers given significant attention to this newish title? That´s the kind of thing we need to establish WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram A secondary source that mentions the creation of the title in 1859? Difficult and unnecessary. You probably won't even find a secondary source that mentions the creation of the peerage title itself in 1458. What is certain is that the article on the peerage title of Earl of Rothes does not mention any secondary sources other than Debretts and Burke’s. However, Debretts (together with the certificate of registration in the SBR) is also mentioned on the page subject to this AfD. It is difficult to understand this disparity in requirements.

The Crown Charter of Confirmation of 1859 s a public document and is accessible to the public, which is sufficient to prove that the title has its own history and dignity. A historical fact attested to in official documents has inherent notability. Royalorders (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N. That is not the way notability is determined on Wikipedia. And no, thexsource doesn´t have to be from the time it was created, any time since then will do. But it has to be independent and about the title, not just mentioning it. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Fram they are nearly always right Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram interestingly there are seven baronage earldoms in the Baroange of Scotland (Arran, Breadalbane, Crawfurd-Lindsay, Errol, Nithsdale, Rothes, Wigtoun), one baronage marquisate (Huntly) and one baronage dukedom (Hamilton), all held in baroneum, where there is entitlement. Of these, four of the earldoms are extant, two are unclaimed, one is in dispute, the marquisate is extant held by a non-peer and the dukedom is held by a senior member of the Scottish peerage. Such nobles bear the honorific "The Much Honoured" (The Much Hon.) for distincting from honorifics attaching to peers of the realm. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its own separate history from the peerage title beginning on October 19, 1959 – Why was a baronial title created with the same style as an unrelated peerage that had existed for 501 years? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your BS comment please kindly see: On behalf of The Sovereign, the Lord Lyon King of Arms exercises the Royal Prerogative committed to him by the Acts of 1672 cap. 47 and 1867 30 & 31 Vict. Cap. 17, to grant Arms to “virtuous and well deserving persons”. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all part of the same absurd self-promotion campaign. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The feudal Earldom of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) is more than a personal title: it is a legally recognized dignity of ancient origin. By law it survived the 2004 abolition of feudal land tenure (Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000) and is recorded in Scottish registers. This institutional status, and its coverage in heraldic and genealogical sources (e.g. Debrett’s, Burke’s, the Scots Barony Register, Roll), meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). In particular, Scottish peerage and baronage titles are documented in numerous reliable publications, and important legal documents (Acts of Parliament, Crown Charters) attest to the title’s existence and history. The information in the article can be verified against these sources (satisfying WP:V), and the title has been the subject of court proceedings and heraldic rulings. Thus the subject is “notable” by WP:GNG/WP:N standards and can be covered under WP:RS. The article subject to AfD deserves to be kept also because it provides historical information on the origin of the non-peerage title and its extension, which the article on the peerage title does not cover as it is not relevant to that topic. Mediascriptor (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: "Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)" has significant historical importance to the Scottish history, with original usage dating as far back as 1458 as a feudal title in the British nobility. Even after the feudal land system abolition in Scotland in 2004, the nobility title continues as a legitimate nobility title in Scotland according to "Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63". This establishes the historical and current notability of the title in UK/Scotland history. Furthermore, there are multiple sources confirming the existence of the title "Earl of Rothes" to this day, with the latest source of title being December 2024. Sources:
- Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. "Earls of Rothes". Retrieved 2025-06-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- legislation.gov.uk. "Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63". legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2025-06-12.
- Scottish Barony Register (2024-12-19), "Certificate of Registration" (PDF), Scottish Barony Register, retrieved 2025-06-11
  - "The Dignity of the Feudal Earldom of Rothes"
- Registry of Scots Nobility. "Baronage – Registry of Scots Nobility". Retrieved 2025-06-11.
  - "Ambassador Dario Item, Earl of Rothes in the County of Fife and Sheriff of the Sheriffdom of Fife"
- "H.E. Pr. Dario Item, PhD". The Royal House of Georgia. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
  - "Earl of Rothes and Hereditary Office of Sheriff of Fife"
- "Royal House Government". The Royal House of Georgia. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
  - "Earl of Rothes"
- CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source is about Earl of Rothes, nothing about this spinoff. 2nd is not about this title but general. 3 and 4 indicate that this title has been registered, doesn't give any notability, just verifies its existence. 5 and 6 are not a reliable source, Georgia hasn't been a monarchy for a long time now, and wannabe kings discussing wannabe nobility or vice versa is of no value for us. Finally, can you please indicate where you heard about this AfD? Your sudden reappearance gives the impression that some WP:CANVASSING has been going on. Fram (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recognised noble titles form part of a person’s name and identity (per WP:NAME and WP:BLP), especially when recognised by the British Crown. Titles like these are comparable to honours or offices (see WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO), and are routinely included on Wikipedia.

This specific title has historical and encyclopaedic value, with coverage sources above. Notability doesn’t require mainstream media attention when there’s verifiable, published recognition — as per WP:GNG. Deleting such pages risks inconsistency, given the many similar titles already retained. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is either a reply to my post adressing the specific sources, nor a correct reading of WP:GNG. We are not discussing whether a person's article may mention that they are the Earl of Rothes, we are adressing whether this version of the title Earl of Rothes should have a stand-alonge article or not. So your first paragraph is not relevant here. The second one makes claims without evidence, none of the sources give "historic and encyclopedic value" to this specific title, as the first two don't mention it, the final two are not reliable anyway, the third is a primary source, and the fourth is a one-line entry in a list of titles. None of these support your claims. Fram (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Fram — to clarify, my point wasn’t about inclusion in a biography, but about whether a noble title itself, like Earl of Rothes, merits a standalone article under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

Under WP:GNG, a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources — not necessarily detailed prose or news reports, but coverage sufficient to verify that the subject has enduring encyclopaedic relevance. Noble titles that have been legally recognised, or publicly documented in multiple independent sources — even if some are specialist or historical in nature — can meet this bar, especially when they are used as identifying elements in formal contexts.

Re the sources: if some are judged insufficient (e.g., primary or brief entries), that’s fair to discuss, but the overall test is whether the title’s existence and context can be reliably verified and shown to have historical or social significance beyond trivial mention — which many noble titles, even lesser-known ones, do.

If the issue is sourcing quality, let's improve them. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage", as is clearly explained in the GNG, is not about whether the topic is significant, but about the depth, the length of the coverage. A brief mention is not significant coverage. Fram (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you say "not necessarily detailed" while the GNG literally, explicitly says it has to be detailed. Please read it thoroughly, it really is essential for these discussions. Fram (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for a sock free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~STRONG KEEP~~ – I’d like to respond to the recent claim that this title is “made up” or not a “real” title. Respectfully, that is a misunderstanding of Scottish legal history and heraldic practice.

This is a comparable situation to the Baron de Longueuil — a French colonial title that, while not part of the British peerage system, is nevertheless recognised by the Crown and has its own Wikipedia article. Baron de Longueuil is widely accepted as the only extant French title acknowledged by King Charles as King of Canada. Similarly, the non-peerage EARLDOM OF ROTHES IN THE BARONAGE OF SCOTLAND is one of only a handful of surviving baronial earldoms in Scotland.

It is distinct from the peerage title of the same name and a recognised title of nobility in Scots law under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically Section 63, which protects the dignity of baronial titles despite the end of feudal land tenure. The title was confirmed in a Crown Charter dated 19 October 1859, and its current status has been publicly recorded via the Scottish Barony Register, which was established with the cooperation of the Court of the Lord Lyon for registering surviving Scottish baronial dignities.

Further, it is a public fact that the previous holder Sir Philip Christopher Ondaatje was officially designed as EARL OF ROTHES in 2006 by Lord Lyon so RECOGNISED BY THE CROWN — for holding the baronial earldom of Rothes, based on this lineage — a matter of public record from the Lyon Court. These are legal and heraldic facts, not speculative claims.

ON NOTABILITY: While mainstream press coverage is limited (as is often the case with heraldic or baronial dignities, I'm assuming these individuals mostly wish quiet enjoyment of their title privately), the topic is verifiable via:

These are accepted secondary and tertiary sources for matters of nobility and heraldry under Wikipedia's WP:RS framework, and satisfy WP:V. Notability does not require tabloid-style coverage when a subject has institutional recognition and encyclopaedic value.

ON STRUCTURE: A standalone article is helpful here precisely to avoid confusion with the peerage title. The current peerage holder does not hold this separate baronial dignity, and merging the two would misrepresent the legal and historical distinction. Wikipedia hosts many pages for noble dignities of this nature — some of which are even less well-documented.

COI DECLERATION: For transparency, I’ve contributed to a wide range of Wikipedia articles across nobility, clans, biographies, historic estates, heritage preservation, and nightlife culture. While I have made considerably contributions to nobility and baronage topics, I am not a single-topic account. My interest lies in historically and legally accurate representation of undexplored topics.

The existence of a non-peerage Earl of Rothes arises from Scotland’s historic system of territorial dignities, where titles were originally tied to land ownership. Following legal reforms after 1874, it became possible to transfer land and its associated title separately from the peerage, allowing a distinct line of baronial succession. With the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, these dignities became non-territorial but legally protected, which explains how a separate, lawfully recognised dignity can now coexist with the original peerage title.

This subject meets WP:GNG when interpreted in its proper legal-historical context, and if the article needs improvement in tone, structure, or citations, then I welcome collaborative work on that basis. Thank you you for your attention to this matter @LWG @Oaktree b @Hroest Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88 already expressed Keep earlier in the discussion, repeated !vote struck out. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Just a quick follow-up, as I noticed several delete comments seemed based on this being a made up or not real title — which I completely understand, given how unclear the history can be. Context 🙏 @Bearian @Necrothesp @Nayyn @Tamfang @Celia Homeford @Fram Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you tag me, how about acknowledging my question —Tamfang (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kellycrak88, thanks for your comment. I don't doubt that this title exists (in the sense that somebody somewhere claimed to possess it and sold it to Dario Item as a fun curiosity), but I have serious doubts about its notability. None of the sources you have presented appear to me to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. They are either simply lists of titles, which are trival and do not establish notability, or they are primary/self published (the zenodo links you shared), or they appear to relate to the peerage and make no mention of this baronage. As I said in my reply, it would be debatable whether this is even worth mentioning on Dario Item. It's just not that notable. -- LWG ^talk 19:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @LWG — I did mention this earlier, but just to restate: this is a recognised title of nobility under Scots law and the Crown, so it forms part of the holder’s legal identity (per WP:NAME and WP:BLP).

According to Wikipedia’s naming conventions for royalty and nobility, titles of nobility are included when they are verifiable and officially recognised. Independent news coverage is not always necessary when legal or institutional sources confirm the title’s validity (see WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF).

This AfD concerns the title itself, but in my view it also clearly warrants inclusion in the holder’s biography, as is standard for recognised noble titles. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Scotland can change the legal name of a Swiss or Antuguan citizen... Fram (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The letters patent of the heraldic coat of arms grant becomes their official name in the UK. It's actually quite possible to have multiple passports different countries and have different legal names in each country, you could deed poll change your name in each country, for example in Ireland you can change your name to the Gaelic version of your name etc. Some countries accept foreign titles of nobility, for example Spain and Belgium if you get a passport there you can trade in your UK title of nobility for equivalent rank in Spain/Belgium. Most countries don't allow titles of nobility at all such as Poland and Austria etc. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can´t have a British passport if you don´t have the British nationality. Fram (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Dario Item. Given that it's debatable whether mention of this merits inclusion in our article about the current title holder, it certainly doesn't merit its own article. None of the cited sources in the article are actually about the article subject, just tangential mentions in lists or primary sourcing to legislation about baronies in general. -- LWG ^talk 15:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The real peerage exists, this incarnation doesn't/isn't notable. You can only find sourcing to the true peerage item. What's used now for sourcing isn't RS, primary or otherwise. I don't see sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while the real title does exist, this just looks WP:MADEUP without any sources to back this up. --hroest 16:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earl of Rothes. The title being trivially noted by the Lord Lyon and its holder being mentioned as such re WP:DEBRETTS suggests its existence; however beyond those no significant coverage has been made. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

Daniel Plumber (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional piece for a non-notable title. “Recognised by the crown!” doesn’t make it notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the others, and the nominator makes a convincing argument, real title exists, just because WP:BIT this does not have the attribution to make it notable. The strong arguements by sockpuppeters are not convincing. Nayyn (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a short paragraph in Earl of Rothes about the baronage title. It is also unsourced. It would be far preferable to get that in good shape - various dates have been bandied about regarding the date the baronage title was "spun off" (is it 1859? Or 1886? Or 1959?) - with some decent WP:V sources. After that, one might consider a separate article if reliable independent sources with significant coverage about the baronage title can be found. I don't see those at the moment. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:10, 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 Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Boxing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bangura (boxer)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Sierra Leone. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to say about this person. Mention him in Boxing at the 1980 Summer Olympics if warranted, but if that's not warranted then this article certainly isn't. -- LWG ^talk 16:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I couldn't find evidence to show that he meets any WP notability criteria as an individual, so a redirect to an article where he's already mentioned seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 03:53, 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 redirect‎ to Matthew King (composer, born 1967). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wood Symphony

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

This article contains only two sources (both of which are primary), and a Google search returns very few sources. Issues regarding WP:COPYVIO are mentioned on the article's talk page. I don't think this symphony qualifies for a standalone article unfortunately. 11WB (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further analysis, it appears neither source exists at present (unsure how long they've been unavailable). A Google search also only returns webpages from the composer himself, none of which are usable. I believe my reasons given qualify this article for deletion or redirection to the article of the composer. 11WB (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with Matthew King (composer, born 1967) ~~Merge~~: Non-notable. No SIGCOV in RS or almost any source. No charting, no gold, no awards. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would work, however any information on the symphony would need to be sourced in the event of a merge and currently there are none. I think a redirect rather than a merge makes sense for this article. 11WB (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I changed my vote above. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matthew King (composer, born 1967). The symphony is only discussed in detail at King's own pages. The currently dead link to a story in The Independent may have helped a little but it would still be just one reliable source that discussed the symphony in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. It is strange The Telegraph reference is unavailable, this is not something I've ever really seen happen as newspaper articles are commonly archived. 11WB (talk) 18:08, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Sight

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2017. This current disclosed paid draft was tagged as G4 and I speedy deleted after looking at sources applied. The page creator has appealed and I have restored the page while we discuss this subject on the merits. By my view, there's nothing applied or found which puts this past WP:NCORP. I'm sure there are thousands of UK care clinics which would pay somebody to write an article about them; the physician in this case still has a likely undisclosed paid article about them which I am not disputing in this process. I'm just not seeing anything which puts this business past WP:Notability more than any other like business. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's not a source in the article which comes close to passing our stringent WP:NCORP standards. SportingFlyer T·C 13:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Just another successful business. I've also nominated Sheraz Daya, another paid article about this clinic's doctor, for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasoning. Nothing unique about this clinic vs. other UK-based ones. Possible UPE connection here with Sheraz Daya (also deletion nom)--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sheraz Daya. Independent coverage is all in the context of his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sheraz Daya if it survives AfD, or alternatively just delete per clear GNG fail. I also agree that SALTing is probably appropriate at this point too. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, but there is nothing in the text of this article that implies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article like this can pass either CORP or GNG. It passes neither. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From looking at the sources available, it is clear that the subject does not pass the notability guidelines. As far as the other AfD mentioned goes, redirection would suffice, only if it results in keep. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Thanks for your input. I've just added better third party sources and detail on why it is a notable eye centre. Hope that clarifies things. Many thanks. Erin Dearlove (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Added source appears to be this link, which does not change the above assessment. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every credible claim of significance (e.g. "The center has treated prime ministers") is rooted in a press release or "AD feature". Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP under independent source. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn’t find sufficient reliable independent references that is in-depth. Allblessed (talk) 14:09, 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 14:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Khera

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

May not be notable. Starfall2015 chat | about me 13:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to justify notability when his biggest career highlight (FINO) doesn't even have its own respective entry--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the article is little old but doesn't meet notability guidelines, Fails WP:PEOPLE. Hence it should be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 06:02, 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 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 14:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vlora incident

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

WP:HOAXy framing as a battle when the Soviets simply withdrew under diplomatic pressure and harassment of their sailors. The most violence described in a recent news article is that an Albanian sailor tore a Soviet flag. [3] All the life.ru article cited here says is "портили имущество, каждый день скандалили с советскими моряками, провоцируя их на драки и ссоры и буквально гадили на крыльце комендатуры." ("they damaged property, quarreled with Soviet sailors every day, provoking them to fights and arguments, literally on the porch of the commandant's office.") The claim that Soviet vessels were fired upon is not to be found in the life.ru article and thus fails WP:V. Thus, I would conclude that this article is a kind of WP:SENSATIONAL WP:CFORK, and there is nothing about the Soviet's withdrawal that can't be adequately summarized at Albanian–Soviet split and Pasha Liman Base. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:G7 Fathoms Below (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Motors

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

Lack of real notability; cites all run of the mill or in niche publications TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 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 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Foča

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

WP:POVFORK of Foča ethnic cleansing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 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 14:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Cazin

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

One of countless clashes that took place during the Siege of Bihać (1992–1995). Fails WP:GNG, possibly a WP:HOAX given the framing as an ambush when the article describes it as an offensive that led to the capture of several villages. Adds nothing to readers' understanding of that siege or the wider war. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable clash. --Griboski (talk) 18:54, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Life (2001 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as I cannot find any reviews or sources in general. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could probably redirect to List_of_hood_films#2000s. Otherwise, I'm not finding anything that would establish notability. FWIW, I do remember seeing this film on Blockbuster's shelves back in the day and it enjoyed some popularity, but if there was any coverage for the film it doesn't appear to be visible on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a number of sources. Some provide significant coverage of the film, while others provide only one or two sentences of coverage. I think there is enough material to support a standalone article. If the consensus is against a standalone article, this page could be redirected to the film's director, Greg Carter (filmmaker), who has a Wikipedia article. I think the director's article would be a more relevant target than List of hood films#2000s which would otherwise be a good redirect target per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are the sources I found:
1. McIntyre, Gina (2001-02-16). "'Thug' pushes in multimedia: Franchise being introduced to Net, game, video audiences". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 367, no. 1. p. 16. ProQuest 2467900515.
  The article notes: "Carter's effort is the latest example of a new entertainment trend. Instead of creating "Thug Life" for one medium and hoping it earns a life in others, Carter's goal is to introduce the series to Internet, gaming and video audiences nearly simultaneously. ... For the Flash-animated series, Carter and the Kittleman brothers penned a series of scripts that interspersed scenes from the movie with interactive decision-making screens and role-playing scenarios to determine the direction of each episode, which will also include music from the "Thug Life" soundtrack. Lead designer Mike Phillips (whose credits include MTV's "Daria" series) was hired to bring the animated series to life. Much as the film does, the series follows a group of gang members who must fight their way home after becoming trapped on the wrong side of town. "Thug Life" is loosely inspired by the 1979 cult-favorite film "The Warriors," Carter said."
2. "Film Review review of Thug Life". Film Review. 2002. Retrieved 2025-06-14 – via Google Books.
  From the Google snippet view: "It's business as usual down the LA 'hood, where rival gangs vie for money, power and women. Popular (?) rappers Willie D, Lady of the Rage and Napoleon lead the cast of this formula melodrama, which has nothing new to say about Black America's urban strife."
3. Fenske, Sarah (2004-09-02). "Shooting Star; Houston's busiest filmmaker relies on Zen calm? and guerrilla tactics". Houston Press. ProQuest 367714244.
  The article notes: "It wasn't enough for Carter to move to Hollywood or even pay back his mother. He kept consulting as an engineer; after all, he had a wife and two kids. He continued to teach filmmaking workshops. And when he got an offer to shoot the movie Thug Life for less than $100,000, he accepted. One hit film, he learned, was not enough to give him carte blanche. Fifth Ward's distributor wanted to cut the two-hour film to 87 minutes, to better emphasize the violence. One of the story lines was axed completely. "It was painful," he admits. "That was my baby." But Betty Carter had raised her boy to be practical. Getting to make movies meant sacrificing his artistic pretensions. "If I want to be a filmmaker," he says, "the first thing is that the film has to be successful." He learned, too, when the Thug Life backers released a rougher version than he would have liked. "They just wanted something they could put in a box and sell," he says. He vowed that, even if he had to pay for it himself, he wouldn't release another movie without correcting every glitch he could. But investors hardly cringed over Thug Life. A hit in video stores and on Showtime, it led to a series of offers for Carter to make "urban action" films for the growing direct-to-video market."
4. "Home Run". Houston Press. 2005-02-24. ProQuest 367632292.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Thug Life, released in 2000, cemented Carter's tendency toward urban Houston settings. Recently, Carter straightened up his gangsta lean with two family features set in urban Houston: My Big Phat Hip Hop Family and Treasure in Tha Hood (both released in 2004). Resurrection boasts the biggest budget of Carter's movies, and it packs the most punch."
5. "Willie D, 'Loved by few, hated by many'". Call and Post. 2000-12-14. p. 10. ProQuest 2662912031.
  The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In addition, Willie D has begun a career in acting with two films to his credit. Early this year, Willie starred opposite. Roy Fagan (The Five Heartbeats) in "Thug Life" the York Productions film produced and directed by Greg Carter. "Thug Life" was showing in select cities this fall."
6. Stanton, Robert (2002-01-03). "Getting the breaks: Filmmaker's career on upward track". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-06-14. Retrieved 2025-06-14.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Following his second film, Thug Life, which he shot in Houston's Third Ward, Carter landed a multi-picture deal with York/Maverick Entertainment to write, direct and produce feature films under that label."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thug Life to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please add if you can. At least two reviews are needed to save the article from AfD, per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 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 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 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Bosanski Brod

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

WP:POVFORK of Operation Corridor 92. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. --Griboski (talk) 23:07, 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 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Yugoslav crisis of 1953–54

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

WP:CFORK of Free Territory of Trieste. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 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 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Foča

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

I fail to see why this was created when we already have Operation Trio. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, Italy, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 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 14:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Drënas

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

WP:POVFORK of Gornje Obrinje massacre, which took place in the same municipality at the same time. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. POV fork. Content can be moved to Gornjem Obrinju massacre GaLLOp3333 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge? It can't be both. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GaLLOp3333 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Doesn't seem to be extensive coverage either. --Griboski (talk) 19:48, 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 as a case has been made against the ATD Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Luz

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

This was originally a WP:PROD, with me stating "Unnotable WP:NACTOR which has been mostly unreferenced for years." This was then deprodded by Kvng who then said "consider addressing Template:Pinoy Big Brother contents comprehensively". I don't exactly know what he means by this, but if the argument that he is primarily known as Big Brother contestant, then this falls into WP:NBIO (as we don't have a reality TV-specific policy, unless WP:ARTIST comes into play), and this will just be a rehashing of the Big Brother content and would just give WP:UNDUE weight on a non-BLP activities of a biography. As stated on PROD, this has been unreferenced for years, considering the 2 references used fail WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck it seems like {{Pinoy Big Brother}} links to a lot of potentially unnotable subjects. Don't we want to try an address that more comprehensively. Deleting this article will leave a redlink in the navigation template which leave readers worse off. Removing the redlink makes for an abridged list in a not-helpful way. Maybe the template is ill conceived. Maybe it needs to be adjusted to make it clear that it only links to notable contestants. In which all the other unnotable ones should also be sent to AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled upon this article with clean-ups of filmography lists; Filipino actors are the only biographies that include a "Network" or "Film studio" or similar column to filmographies. This is akin to Calista Flockhart's filmography showing you that Ally McBeal was aired on Fox. This biography still has that (LOL). If this AFD leads to a keep, I'd be removing the "Network" column on this article. I'm hesitant on nominating other Pinoy Big Brother articles because I have participated in similar AFDs recently, on products of ABS-CBN's (the same TV network that aired Pinoy Big Brother) reality shows: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen (singer) which obviously failed WP:BANDMEMBER but ABS-CBN fans came in droves and WP:BLUDGEONed the AFD to a no consensus on Maloi, and almost certainly that same outcome on Gwen. That will almost certainly happen to more borderline and newer cases for Pinoy Big Brother. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that quiet prods or pointy deletion of individual articles on the margins of beloved subjects are not be seen as improvements by many editors. I'm not sure fans coming in droves to support material is a bad thing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beloved is different to WP:NBIO. We have AFDs to determine which among the margins gets to be cut or be left here. If we have fans of certain of people skewing discussions by bludgeoning it, now that is concerning. As for this specific person, his Pinoy Big Brother appearance is from more than a decade ago, and his last TV appearance is also more than a decade ago. Of the two references here, one is from the Philippine Entertainment Portal, which qualifies for WP:RS. I can't access that right now (maybe WP:LINKROT?) but this seems to be solely on the context of him being in Big Brother. The other is PinoyExchange, a web forum that no longer exists. As for the three non-Big Brother TV shows on his filmography, it's not stated if this is a main, recurring or guest role, or for how many episodes (Filipino filmographies usually do not show how many episodes was this for, and none of these other non-Big Brother appearances are cited.

I tried searching anything notable about his appearances at Be Careful With My Heart but found nothing. That article labels him as "recurring cast". I've tried looking for other recurring actors that do not have articles, I only had hits for Robert Ortega (who is apparently a politician in Manila), an extensive PEP article from 2013 that arguably qualifies for WP:GNG. You can also argue Micah Muñoz also qualifies. Paul Jake Castillo is just gossip fluff. Arvic Tan seems to has his break in 2021. Others are either empty or are passing mentions (such as for Divina Valencia, Tart Carlos, JM Ibañez, Joan Marie Bugcat, Kelly Gwayne dela Cruz (Tagalog), . This reference even omits Luz (LOL) as part of the cast; maybe he didn't make it to the finale.

Also, if you have a problem with "quiet prods" or "pointy deletions", there's always one of those drama boards to report me to. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with anything you've done and WP:ANI is one place I'm aware of that better at fostering division than WP:AFD. My work shows me that a lot of material is deleted through prod without adequate review due to submissions from editors not well versed in deletion policy or unable or unwilling to do a competent WP:BEFORE. Ineffective WP:PRODPATROL and the limited responsibility placed on administrators who actually do the deletions are also factors.

As for how we make decisions about whether to delete stuff, I appreciate that the ideal it is not a vote and a single editor with a policy-based argument should prevail over mass of fans. I just want to leave open the option to appease the masses in some cases and that this can have good long term benefits of making these deletion discussions less divisive, less lawyerly and make Wikipedia a more accessible and better place for new and enthusiastic editors. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in mentioned references and all the roles he had played was special appearance or guest only rather than significant role or main. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NACTOR, he clearly did not have multiple notable roles in TV or movies. --hroest 16:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered redirecting this myself after this was deprodded and before this AFD but this guy has several other credits aside from PBB:U. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:36, 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 23:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foley Stewart

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

does not meet WP:N FMSky (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks general notability guidelines, significant coverage and nsinger. Fade258 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched and can't find coverage to add. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. Tacyarg (talk) 23:06, 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 14:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goombala Road

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

The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. A Google search online only found 1 blog article, which isn't enough to demonstrate notability. – numbermaniac 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >>> Tarra-Bulga National Park, where the road runs and appears to be used of environmental studies. Djflem (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found significant coverage about the topic to justify its notability. I have reviewed this article and have checked those blue links presented in this article but I didn't see any mention about Goombala Road. Fade258 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GEOROAD. I found no reliable, independent sources that cover the road, and several aggregators just repeat content from this article. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:10, 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 14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:NORG and reads like an advertisement. - Amigao (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Struggling to find three decent sources to establish notability as a company. The use of closely paraphrased copyright violations (see article history) is another factor in recommending deletion - I am not confident that other parts of the content have not been similarly plagiarised. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't pass notability guidelines specially NORG and article looks like an advertisement. Fade258 (talk) 12:53, 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, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be famous for being famous, but a WP:ROTM actor, dancer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 6 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 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject and some of the references is self-published source and unreliable. Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, curious as to how the first AFD didn't arrive at that conclussion because the arguments there don't convince me otherwise. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 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 14:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Container ship fire in coast of Kerala

(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 ..) – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. XYZ1233212 (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Kerala. XYZ1233212 (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing really special about this fire. The Grammar Police also object to the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best case scenario probably belongs to a list based article on disasters related to cargo/container ships; support nom. WeWake (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and move information to List of shipwrecks in 2025. --Minoa (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine news, nothing such a big news with mass coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:13, 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 keep‎. Content issues can be addressed by editing the article. It seems we have consensus that this person meets NPROF. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schleip

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:NPROF. While the subject does get a text box at doi:10.1126/science.318.5854.1234 this is not enough. Other sources are unreliable and/or being used as a coatrack for questionable biomedical content. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lean keep he is a full professor at TUM, one of the leading German research Universities and his GS profile looks quite decent with an h index of 42 and a total of 18 articles with 100+ citations. Also there is a (short) profile in this Science article. --hroest 13:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The User:Bon_courage who added this deletion notice is a paid pharma editor who's targeting this page because I'm working on edits for Rolfing. If you look at the Talk:Robert_Schleip there's already been a healthy discussion and was ruled against. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not contributors. Your !vote will be ignored by the closer for having no basis in policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Biology, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H-index of 42 appears to pass WP:NPROF#C1. In this situation (where the article is WP:PROFRINGE but passes notability), I think we're supposed to keep the article and clean it up rather than deleting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 29 references listed. Incredible amount of other sources if you click on publications indexed by Google Scholar listed under External Links. And on it goes. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep under NPROF with almost 5K cites since 2020. His books are less impressive (some published through less than stellar publishers), but his academic articles leave little doubt. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I went back and looked more closely at his publications. Some seem solid, but many do not seem to be in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Journal of Bodywork and movement therapies). I hacked away at the article, removed a bunch of promo. What I think it comes down to is the reputation of these organizations that he is claimed to have created. That's the "weak" part. The "keep" part is that he has a PhD that probably is serious, has held professorships, and he has many publications. Lamona (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the page is heavily trimmed. There is way too much WP:Peacock, WP:Coatrack and a lot of details that are not encyclopedic . WP:PROFRINGE tag is certainly relevant here, particularly as the University he is at is, from its own page, a small private university, not a leading research university. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:46, 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 no consensus‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrii Kobchyk

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

Declined prod suggesting sources may exist for name in Cyrillic "Андрій Кобчик". Google news comes up with 2 sources but they are mere 1 line small mentions. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not my job to look into this, but I'm the one who de-prodded. Seems to be quite a few hits online, hence the de-prod. Apologies in advance to those either unwilling or unable to source information in a non-English language. It's probably why Wikipedia has the biases that it does. In any case, in my extremely limited abilities, it took this American about 30 seconds to find this, which appears to be a short feature from a Ukrainian news outlet, with smaller routine coverage to supplement here, here, and here. Here's another Ukrainian news mention with a similar/identical(?) story here. Additional mentions here, here, here, here, here, etc. He's not going to have a whole 50-set encyclopedia dedicated to him, most people don't, but if someone took the time to add those references plus whatever else is floating out there, he's probably in the top 90th percentile of sourced material for biographies. GauchoDude (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 29 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!} 02:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:50, 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 no consensus‎ for deletion or redirection. asilvering (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas Kormalis

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

Olympian with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. I suggest a redirect to Greece at the 1960 Summer Olympics. Svartner (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Greece. Svartner (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per common sense and coverage. He was a multi-time national champion, Balkan champion and Mediterranean Games champion with various medals at other competitions as well. He's still remembered today, decades after his death and over a half-century after his career, as a "legend". Here it is mentioned: "In 39th place [on a list of greatest athletes] is the once great PAO runner, Leonidas Kormalis, who wrote his own history with the "clover". Born in November 1932, he was a particularly fast athlete and one of the best relay runners of all time. His greatest moments with the Club came in the 1950s, when he was crowned Greek champion in the relay and in the 400m, while in 1955 he won the silver medal with the 4X100m team at the Mediterranean Games. His greatest success, however, was in the same event in 1959 when he won the gold medal in the 4X400m with a time of 3.15.0 and the silver medal in the 4X100m with a time of 41.7." He apparently still holds a national record: "About two months later, Leonidas Kormalis further cemented his presence in the sport and the Club as he was a member of the National team that holds the national record in this demanding event at the time. More specifically, in the international races held in Cairo on 28/7/1958, Kormalis ran third along with V. Syllis, K. Moragemos and Spyropoulos, which set the best performance of all time in the country with 1.57.3." There's plenty of other modern brief coverage of his accomplishments, e.g. this ("Leonidas Kormalis: Another huge figure in Panathinaikos athletics was Leonidas Kormalis who wrote his own history in the Club. 1953 was one of the years that stood out and it is characteristic that he emerged as the Balkan gold medalist with the 4X100 and 4X400 teams of the National team. At the same time, in the same year he distinguished himself at the SISM World Championship as he won the silver medal with the 4X400 team and the bronze medal with the 4X100 team.") and this ("On this day in 1957: The feat of the 'trefoil' athlete Leonidas Kormalis in the pentathlon was significant as he emerged as Greek champion and the Club will not forget the moment. The 'green' multi-sport athlete impressed with his performance at the Panathinaikos Stadium and celebrated the title by collecting 2,201 points.") We need to use common sense. Greek newspapers are highly, highly, highly likely to have covered him significantly at the time, as he was an all-time great still considered a "legend" today – we have not searched them. People like this get coverage, and its ridiculous to delete people of such clear notability without checking any of the places where it is virtually certain there is coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these documents is SIGCOV though. And "common sense" is not the same thing as "trust me bro". Sometimes sources use hyperbolic language about people who just weren't all that. Put me down as neutral for the time being. FOARP (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except, being a multi-time national champion, Balkan champion and Mediterranean champion in a developed country ("with high literacy rates") who still holds national records 70 years after his career is all that. Countries cover their greatest athletes when those athletes are most active. Have any sources from when he was most active been searched? No. I would also say that the first one, which is over 100 words, is arguably sigcov given the circumstances; and another thing to remember is that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are missing that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." I am open to the possibility that there is better coverage available somewhere, but as it stands there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV here. Let'srun (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenCorner, Trifillakia, and INPAO all appear to be affiliated with his club/PAO and thus are not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BeanieFan11. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:50, 5 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 08:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep athletes meeting wikipedia:NATH; including champion at a main international competition. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greece at the 1960 Summer Olympics: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT, no matter how many mentions of "greatness" we have. Let'srun (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- We're allowed to use common sense. We have not checked even a single Greek newspaper from prior to the past few years. Athletes get covered most when they are active. Do you seriously think "one of the best relay runners of all time", someone with national, Balkan, and Mediterranean championships and still-standing national records for a developed country – someone who today is remembered as an all-time great – would not have been covered at all in their media in his era? Such an idea is utterly ludicrous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Once again, participation based criteria have been depreciated with WP:NSPORTS2022, and changing the argument on participation to "common sense" does not change the fact that we need significant coverage from IRS to write an article on any subject as the guidelines stand, no matter what primary or other passing mentions we have. Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Not one thing I said is based on a "participation criteria". Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. We are allowed to consider the possibility of sources existing that we have not found. In this case, it is extraordinarily likely that they exist based on all common sense; athletes of this caliber virtually always receive SIGCOV – we just have to look where it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The 2 keep !voters have failed to provide any evidence of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The evidence indicating that SIGCOV exists is actually quite strong. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  "One of the best" according to media from the sports clubs he belonged to... JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This guy seems to have had an extremely successful career; I'm with BeanieFan11 on this one. Toadspike [Talk] 13:15, 21 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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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 Iran-Israel relations. Many of the keep/oppose !votes assert that the topic is notable; as others have pointed out, that is not the issue at hand here. The issue is whether it is a POV fork, and where to discuss the topic if it is. Given the pov, WP:COATRACK, and other concerns, it appears most appropriate to merge into the parent article and discuss the content there first, creating a WP:SPINOUT if necessary due to length. There is strong support for a merge to Iran-Israel relations in particular, so that is where I am closing this. Editors are welcome to discuss on that talk page whether some of this material should be merged to other articles, as suggested in this AfD. asilvering (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy

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

This article looks like a recreation of the old article "Calls for the destruction of Israel", which was merged in January 2025 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination)). This article might as well be called "Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel" and thus it has the same problems as the previous one – it is a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Propose merge just like the previous article. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, Iran, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to all users who took part in the previous discussion: Simonm223,AndreJustAndre,XDanielx,Iskandar323,Selfstudier,إيان,Mason7512,Shellwood,Aquillion,שלומית ליר,Zero0000,Sean.hoyland,MaskedSinger,Lewisguile,Sinclairian,Boksi,Smallangryplanet,Eliezer1987,Shoogiboogi,Liz,Firecat,My very best wishes,Genabab,Cdjp1,Vanamonde93,The Grid,Lf8u2,BePrepared1907,Allthemilescombined1,Wikieditor662,Codonified,Originalcola,berchanhimez. I used a script to generate these, so apologies if I missed someone, or added someone who I shouldn't have.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (creator). I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article is a "recreation" of anything. This article is focused on a different topic: it examines Iran's official policy and strategic posture toward the destruction of Israel, as characterized by a range of reliable secondary sources. It does not merely document rhetorical calls or statements made by various actors, but rather explores a long-term, very grounded policy, which includes several aspects: military doctrine, foreign relations, proxy activity, and nuclear strategy, all directed at eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. The content, sources, and framing are substantially different from the previous article, both in scope and intent. Therefore, it cannot be accurately described neither as a recreation nor as a POV fork. Rafi Chazon (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is about Iran's relations with Israel, why can it not be at Iran-Israel relations? Why the POV framing of what is a complex issue and involves antagonism on both sides? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not disputing your whole argument, I just want to say that an article being very well researched and sourced isn't an inherent reason to keep and article if there's issues with it being an article in the first place. AssanEcho (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not just that the article is well-researched and properly sourced. The focus here isn’t on rhetorical "calls", it's on a sustained strategy, policy, or project, however one chooses to label it. Iran's actions: funding and training militant groups to encircle Israel, promoting suicide bombings, advancing a nuclear program aimed at threatening Israel, and broadcasting countdowns to Israel's destruction, are not isolated statements. they are deliberate steps within a long-term vision. And this isn't my interpretation of course, it reflects the view of leading scholars. As Afshon Ostovar wrote in a 2024 Oxford University Press publication, "The goal of destroying Israel as a Jewish entity is a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic of Iran's regional strategy." This is clearly a notable topic, with enough coverage and depth to merit its own article. Rafi Chazon (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I was not commenting to dispute your argument though I have my own issues with it (You can read them on my multi merge reply), and to comment I do actually believe you and your sources that this a concrete goal of the Iranian Government. I was just mentioning that any article's high quality is not necessarily a reason to keep it in any AFD. AssanEcho (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really does feel, based on the above, like a POV fork of Iran-Israel relations - @Rafi Chazon it's clear you put a lot of work into this and nobody is suggesting it's non-notable. It's just that the page that is specifically about the relationship between these two states is a better home for this material than a breakaway page with an eye-catching header. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge This is an overly specific page. It should be merged into either Legitimacy of the State of Israel or Foreign relations of Iran where it would be more at home. Genabab (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don’t see any reason to delete; the article seems both notable and detailed enough to stand on its own, with an appropriate link and summary in the general article. Jellyfish dave (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In this time, such an article is quite important to understanding the conflict between Israel and Iran. SleepTrain456 03:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. POVFORK. Gotitbro (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Personally, I think Vice Regent’s deletion of the article was completely out of line. As for the merits of the article itself, the scope is clear and well-defined. There’s a substantial body of reliable news reporting and academic literature that directly addresses this issue. It’s certainly notable — it’s a topic that has drawn the attention of numerous scholars and analysts, and it's clearly of interest within the broader body of literature.
This article has encyclopaedic value, as it demonstrates that a single paragraph on the Iran–Israel relations page wouldn’t come close to adequately covering the subject. The article should be retained. I’d encourage editors to prioritise collaborative solutions rather than tearing down articles that can be improved. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this AfD/merger proposal is "completely out of line". We could(and probably should) devote much more space on the Iran-Israel relations page than a singular paragraph to cover this subject. Originalcola (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation	Publisher/Source	Type
Ostovar, Afshon (2024). Wars of Ambition	Oxford University Press	Academic
Maloney, Suzanne (2024). "The Middle East's Dangerous New Normal"	Foreign Affairs	Notable / Expert Commentary
Karsh, Efraim (2023). "The Israel-Iran conflict"	Israel Affairs (peer-reviewed journal)	Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). "Origins of the Islamic Republic's Strategic Approaches"	Middle East Critique	Academic
Freilich, Charles David (2018). Israeli National Security	Oxford University Press	Academic
Erdbrink, Thomas (2015)	The New York Times	Reliable Media
"Iran: Khamenei to lead Friday prayers..." (2020)	The Guardian	Reliable Media
Pileggi, Tamar (2018)	Times of Israel	Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei says..." (2021)	France 24	Reliable Media
"Iran leader says Israel a 'cancerous tumour'" (2020)	The Economic Times	Semi Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei tells visiting Hamas chief..." (2024)	Times of Israel	Reliable Media
"Iran president sees 'countdown' to Israel's end" (2007)	Reuters	Reliable Media
"Iran's Rouhani calls Israel a 'cancerous tumor'"	Al Jazeera	Reliable Media
"Iranian President Repeats Calls..." (2023)	Iran International	Reliable Media
Goldberg, Jeffrey (2015)	The Atlantic	Notable / Expert Commentary
Hafezi, Parisa (2023)	Reuters	Reliable Media
Said et al. (2023-2024)	Wall Street Journal	Reliable Media
"Hamas received weapons and training from Iran..." (2023)	The Washington Post	Reliable Media
Fassihi, Farnaz (2024)	The New York Times	Reliable Media
Allin, Dana H.; Simon, Steven (2010). The Sixth Crisis	Oxford University Press	Academic
Sharma, Anu (2022). Through the Looking Glass	Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group	Academic
Magen, Ze'ev (2023). Reading Revolutionary Iran	De Gruyter	Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). (duplicate entry)	Middle East Critique	Academic
"Iranian protesters unveil clock..." (2017)	The Independent	Reliable Media
Azizi, Arash (2025)	The Atlantic	Notable / Expert Commentary
"Iranians Criticize Quds Day's Futility..." (2024)	Iran International	Reliable Media
Shamir, Shlomo	Chabad.org	Niche Media

Here’s a list of sources. Hopefully, these references make a strong case for the article’s importance. Cheers! KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: no one is disputing this topic's WP:NOTABILITY, but rather it is a WP:POVFORK of an existing article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you look at the list of sources most of them seem to be about Iran Israel relations so I'd actually argue that they support the merge proposal. (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 14 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.
Considering the various arguments presented, I decided to thoroughly examine WP:GNG. Significant coverage: The article synthesises extensive academic, journalistic, and policy-oriented literature on Iranian rhetoric, ideology, and policy towards Israel. It is not a passing mention in the media but a well-documented, recurring subject in both regional and international affairs. - Reliable secondary sources: Sources cited in the article include: - Academic works - Scholarly journal articles, - Books published by university presses and independent research institutions, - Major international news outlets - Think tanks Independence of sources: The cited sources are clearly independent of the subject and are not self-published or partisan in a promotional way. For example, the article references scholars who critically analyse Iranian rhetoric, as well as media coverage of official Iranian statements. 2. Topical Notability: Enduring Interest and Impact The topic has enduring geopolitical and historical significance. The ideological hostility between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel is a longstanding, well-documented theme that influences regional diplomacy, conflict dynamics (e.g., in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza), and global security discussions. It is not a transient or marginal issue. This topic appears regularly in international relations scholarship, Middle Eastern studies, and foreign policy analyses. Statements by Iranian leaders about Israel whether in the form of policy pronouncements or ideological slogans are analysed by governments, international organisations, and media outlets across the political spectrum. 3. Separability from Other Articles While the topic of this article naturally has some overlap with broader subjects (such as Iran–Israel relations or Iranian foreign policy), it isdistinct and coherent since it presents: - The ideological and rhetorical framing of Israel’s destruction as a political goal, - Its evolution across different time(from Khomeini to Khamenei), - The difference between symbolic rhetoric and realpolitik, - Its impact on proxy strategy and nuclear discourse. This justifies a stand-alone article under Wikipedia’s Summary Style guideline, which encourages subtopics to be split into separate entries when justified by their length or depth. Regarding the argument that this article could be merged into a broader one: While related, the article focuses on a specific, coherent theme: Iran’s ideological framing distinct from broader diplomatic or military relations. This deserves discrete treatment under Wikipedia’s Summary Style guidelines, as the topic spans multiple governments and impacts nuclear discourse, proxy strategy, and Middle Eastern security. 4. Neutral Point of View and Encyclopaedic Tone - It presents multiple interpretations (e.g., rhetorical vs actual policy), - It does not endorse or dismiss the idea, but rather documents how it has been articulated and understood. 5. Public and Scholarly Relevance Given rising tensions in the Middle East, ongoing discourse surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, and international debates over the interpretation of Iranian leaders’ statements about Israel, this topic is extremely relevant and is frequently referenced in policymaking (just listen to Western arguments), academic scholarship, and public debate. Some editors may view the article as being too niche or trivial - Far from trivial, this rhetoric is a core pillar of Iran’s strategic positioning shaping its regional conflicts (e.g., Hezbollah, Gaza), nuclear policy, and global alliances. It has been a recurring theme over decades, not a passing trend. Academics and foreign policy analysts routinely reference and analyse it. Regarding editors who may view the topic as outdated or less relevant: Far from it. The rhetoric continues to have real-world implications. The destruction of Israel in Iranian policy is said to have prompted Israeli airstrikes in June 2025.

KiltedKangaroo (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KiltedKangaroo, the use of LLM-generated arguments in Wikipedia discussions, especially without proper disclosure, is not acceptable. Please describe your points in your own words. — Newslinger talk 14:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is much more focused on Iranian policy and thus is neither a simple fork of the other article nor a recreation in any sense. It embodies a different scope. Nehushtani (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We only need to follow the news to see how relevant this article is and as for the article itself, it stands on its own 2 feet. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

And Comment But as an aside Vice regent if we're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, consistency should be applied across Wikipedia and it shouldn't matter whether the article is pro-Israel or anti-Israel. But when things come down to a consensus or what not, this clearly isn't the case. There is a plethora of anti-Israel articles and I don't see people calling for merging them, deleting them or WP:POVFORK.I'm not accusing you of this - I'm saying this is a big picture zoomed out issue that needs to be address for the betterment of Wikipedia.MaskedSinger (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

Merge to Iran–Israel relations. We don't need more POV forks and one just has to read the lead to see that POV fork is a perfect description. This article is an NPOV violation by design. Zero^talk 09:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran-Israel relations, of which it's a WP:POVFORK; possibly also move some stuff to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. The argument that we should "look at recent events" to show why this narrow subset of that article supposedly needs to be its own article also shows that this article's creation is a matter of WP:RECENTISM, but even then, Iran-Israel relations is a more neutral article to cover this sort of thing and no valid reasons have been presented for why we would spin off a more POV copy of it. All the presented sources would be more accurately and thoroughly examined at that article - most of them are not specifically about Iran calling for the destruction of Israel but are about Iran / Israeli relations more generally, which means pulling out just that part and trying to make an article about it without covering the rest is misusing them as sources. --Aquillion (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the previous editors here, mainly because this topic is way too broad and complex to squeeze into just a subsection of Iran–Israel relations or Legitimacy of the State of Israel. We're not just talking about rhetoric or ideology here – this covers military strategy, foreign policy, proxy wars, educational systems, and a whole lot more. Iran's approach to eliminating Israel is so systematic and institutional that it really deserves its own standalone article, especially given all the academic research and journalism we have on it. If we merge this somewhere else, readers won't get the full picture of how extensive and significant this issue actually is. Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why today, of all days, that article should be deleted. If anything, it should be expanded in order to provide even more background information.--Edelseider (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Israel attacking Iran equates to needing an independent article about Iran calling for an end to Israel when we already have Iran-Israel relations. This appears not to be a policy based reason to retain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article presents a well-sourced, analytically distinct examination of Iranian state policy toward the destruction of Israel. Far from being a content fork, it addresses a clearly delineated and academically acknowledged phenomenon that spans military doctrine, proxy engagement, nuclear strategy, and ideological incitement. To reduce this topic to a subsection elsewhere would obscure its scope and scholarly relevance. At a time when Wikipedia must uphold its responsibility to present verifiable knowledge with intellectual integrity, removing such a page risks erasing a central dimension of contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics and signals a troubling asymmetry in editorial standards. שלומית ליר (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multi Merge Honestly I don't see much in this article that necessitates it be it's own article and not be merged in with Calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran-Israel relations, or even New antisemitism (as much as I personally don't care for the articles concept myself). This article's existence is smelling of recency bias due to the current catastrophe in the middle east, and while this doesn't have much to do with this topic it does seem to be mildly biased against Iran by not mentioning any international or internal support for the various actions, policies and intions (though I do believe 100% that every example of dissent and distain is real).

AssanEcho (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Merge This does seem like a PoV fork of a few different articles. For the most part either Legitimacy of Israel or Iran-Israel relations seem appropriate destinations for this material. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article offers a well-documented and clearly focused analysis of Iran’s official policy aimed at the destruction of Israel. Merging this topic into a broader article would dilute its significance and obscure a distinct, long-standing pillar of Iranian state policy. The sustained calls for Israel’s destruction by Iran’s leadership, their integration into official doctrine, and their geopolitical consequences warrant focused, in-depth treatment that a subsection cannot adequately provide. This is not a minor aspect of Iranian politics—it is a central theme with global ramifications, deserving its own dedicated space for clarity, documentation, and analysis. Deletion would set a dangerous precedent of removing uncomfortable historical realities from Wikipedia simply because they are unpopular. Cfgauss77 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No "uncomfortable historical realities" would be removed due to (un)popularity, or at least from what I can see I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Originalcola (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nobody is suggesting that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Rafi Chazon,

שלומית ליר and KiltedKangaroo Plantbaseddiet (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Clear-cut POVFORK of a few articles. Orientls (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having a separate article allows for an appropriate amount of detail that couldn't be sufficiently covered by the proposed merge target without derailing the focus of the latter. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds good to me, here – obvious POVFORK. I'll also note an active canvassing attempt (archive) regarding this AfD, including an explicit call for the process to be stopped, including a link to this very page (archive). Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To frame as "censorship", a valid AfD which follows from consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination) is something. Just to clarify: nothing is being deleted here, the content exists at other places, whether we need a separate article on a subtopic of an article which we already decided to merge is a very valid proposition. This canvassing then to target the AfD is unacceptable. Gotitbro (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nom & keep article The article's scope and content look pretty different from the previous. Also: this here separate article lets us have a deeper level of details/sources that can't be properly contented at the proposed merge target. Retain this well sourced article, which cannot be considered a fork, as its subject matter is highly specific. XavierItzm (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran-Israel relations and Legitimacy of Israel to avoid WP:POVFORK. The canvassing mentioned upthread is quite worrying. Lewisguile (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having gone through and edited this article significantly just now, I think it is essentially the same article as before the merge. It also has major problems. Some whole sections are/were sourced to a single writer, and this makes the POVfork issues worse. It's also an odd focus, when we do t usually focus on inter-state grievances in this sort of detail. Should we, for instance, have an article Israeli rhetoric on Iran? Or Al-Qaeda's policy on the destruction of America? Because that's currently what this feels like—a one-sided take on something that, while it's obviously true, is better placed within context elsewhere rather than feeling like it's written with an agenda. Lewisguile (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, as of the posting of this reply I don't believe anyone replying with arguments opposed to merging or deletion are canvassers or writing with bad faith, even if I think some arguments are more emotional than rational personally. AssanEcho (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is common, in cases where an AfD centers around a PoV fork to get a lot of editors saying they want to keep because the topic is notable. We know the topic is notable. Because there is a whole other article on it. Nobody wants to delete Iran-Israel relations. But, frankly, when Israel starts bombing a regional enemy and suddenly a POV fork appears that wants to assert that really it's the enemy's fault there's a pretty serious WP:NPOV concern that makes such a POV fork rather problematic. Reliable information should be retained on the appropriate destination page but this appears to be a POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point re: "notability". Lewisguile (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The off-wiki canvassing and abuse of process is also concerning. Not surprised its happening at anti-wikipedia accounts on Musk's X (who's views about our project we know pretty well). Gotitbro (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That will hopefully have minimal impact as the closer will discard any !votes from non-extended confirmed editors. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rafi Chazon, Edelseider, Jellyfish dave, etc. SleepTrain456 03:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Merge with Iran–Israel relations - As in the previous discussion the issue here isn't notability, that really isn't in dispute. I don't think this article is a recreation of the previous article has severe NPOV issues as in the previous deletion, but I think it would be better served merged into this existing article especially since this topic is so intertwined with Iranian-Israeli relations. I don't know if this is a POVFORK but I don't think the article should stand either way. Originalcola (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Changed vote[reply]

Oppose - After looking at the Legitimacy of the State of Israel and Iranian-Israeli relations articles I couldn't see any disputes to suggest this page was created as a POV fork. The argument that this is a POV fork because of the focus on one side's viewpoint doesn't seem to hold here, the current article does seem to be written fairly neutral. I also think that my initial concerns about it being too intertwined with Iranian-Israeli relations were unfounded and that the topic can be covered outside a main article. A merge may add undue weight towards this topic on any page it's merged into, so keeping it separate may be a better choice here. The current title is ok as is, and I don't think that the article is the same as the previously deleted article despite being superficially similar in topic. Originalcola (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iran-Israel relations. We do not need multiple articles on the same topic. Hauskasic (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as per the creator). As per Rafi. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge. This is different from the more general page Calls for the destruction of Israel. The calls by the top Iranian officials for destruction of Israel lies at the heart of the Iran and weapons of mass destruction controversy. This is important as the alleged casus belli of the currently ongoing war. Israel calls their recent attack a preemptive strike because the destruction of Israel was the openly and officially stated goal of Iran. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article deletion as proposed by OP. Article seems a decently well-written (with scholarly/academic treatment of the subject) on a major subpart of Iranian national policy for multiple decades. Seems well explicated for an encyclopedic treatment, well sourced, and is sufficiently large to be inadequately covered inside another, more general, article on calls for the destruction of Israel. This argues for keeping it, as a contribution to the expansive encyclopedia of human knowledge, Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is a well-written, thorough exploration of a significant documented phenomenon, and this nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Qualiesin (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, largely for the reasons given by

שלומית ליר above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant POV fork crafted from a variety of articles to push a Zionist POV in the backdrop of Israel's attack on Iran. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extraordinarily assumption of bad faith argument and is not a legitimate reason to delete. — Czello ^(music) 10:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Legitimacy of the State of Israel: Per the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination) and because the article is a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. TarnishedPath^talk 09:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ie oppose delete or merge) as this is a valid narrower topic not directly related to "legitimacy". Also the article is already big enough to split off a potential merger target. The broader article would be Iran–Israel relations, but this is already quite large. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge: I don't see this as a content fork, and instead has a well sourced presentation of Iranian policy which goes beyond the Iran–Israel relations article. — Czello ^(music) 10:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what the scope of this article has that would not already be in scope of Iran-Israel relations? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relations article currently sits at over 9k words. Per WP:AS, this is at such a size that it should be split. Presenting a deeper dive into Iranian policy, which goes further than just the history of their relations and their current situation, can justifiably be presented as a separate article. — Czello ^(music) 10:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about the issues raised surrounding NPOV and accuracy, and was wondering if a move to "Iranian foreign policy regarding Israel [after 1979?]" or similar may allow a shift to a slightly broader framing that remains a subset of the broader Iran–Israel relations. CMD (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I would agree that would be a valid article scope. However, I would prefer Iranian-Israeli relations (post-1979), because that could include both Iranian policies towards Israel and Israeli policies towards Iran. With your approach it would necessitate a parallel article Israeli policy regarding Iran (post-1979) and because policies are often reciprocal, a lot of content would be duplicated. Nevertheless, I think you suggestion is a good compromise.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the name of the article reads a bit awkwardly, it does not seem to be a POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel; to the contrary it seems a much more understandably scoped. And while I'm not familiar at all with the history here, it also doesn't look much like the linked previous version of Calls for the destruction of Israel. There's possible overlap with Iran–Israel relations, but agree with Graeme Bartlett that this seems an understandable sub-article, as a specific article on one aspect of a foreign policy. Perhaps there's a different way to package or rename this, but none of the proposed targets so far work. CMD (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I'll explain this more below later today. The history is that for 1 year+ I struggled to understand what is the difference between anti-zionism (opposition to the existence of Israel), "Calls for the destruction of Israel" and saying Israel is not a legitimate entity (see this discussion and this one). Eventually, after reading a lot of the material I arrived at the conclusion that all of these articles talk about the same idea: that the creation of Israel was unjust. Critics of this idea tend to frame it in a negative way ("destruction of the state of Israel"), whereas proponents of the idea frame it positively ("returning Palestine to its indigenous inhabitants"). If someone had created an article called "Undoing the injustices of Zionism", I would similarly call it a POVFORK and propose it be merged into anti-zionism or legitimacy of Israel.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this article topic isn't the general topic of destruction/legitimacy, it's specifically about one country's foreign policy (however accurate or poorly framed it may be), which "Undoing the injustices of Zionism" would not be. CMD (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis if its about Iran's foreign policy then makes the scope overlap with Iran-Israel relations. That is the standard naming convention for foreign policies on wikipedia. The fact that both articles have too similar of a scope makes it a "fork". The "pov" part in "povfork" comes from the fact that its framed not with a neutral POV, but rather with a blatantly pro-Israel/anti-Iranian POV. (BTW, I would be OK with an article called Iran-Israel relations (post-1979), as such a framing would divide by history and not by POV).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relations articles do not cover all of foreign policy, and aspects of foreign policy do not make up all of a relationship. The standard convention for foreign policy articles is "Foreign policy of X", but sub-articles have whatever name most suits that topic. Open Door Policy for example covers a specific aspect of United States policy regarding China, which would not fit into the extremely long China–United States relations. CMD (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but Open Door Policy is a neutral framing for a split. This is not. See Berchanhimez's statement. They were very thorough. Simonm223 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez's statement was after my post was made, and my statement and the questions I raised refer to those made at the time of my post. CMD (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware they commented after you, thus "see below," but the conversation is ongoing and they quite thoroughly rebut the "not a POV Fork" argument. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez's statement proposes putting information into multiple pages, so it is hard to read that as rebutal of not a POV fork. The page is not a CFORK of any of the pages mentioned, so regardless of how it presents regarding POV (I have suggested another idea above), it is not a POVFORK. CMD (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article presumes that its stated topic is true, yet while researching another article I found that it's more disputed than pro Israel advocates let on. Specifically as I understand it Iran's stated goal is a one state solution where every resident has an equal vote. To characterize this as "destruction of Israel" (even though some Iranian officials use this kind of rhetoric) is not an unbiased framing. The category "incitement to genocide of Jews" is wholly misplaced because there was never any agreement that this was Iran's goal even back when Ahmedinejad was in office. (t · c) buidhe 11:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while contentious, it's accurate and well-sourced. I'm a big opponent of forks, except where the main article gets so big that it's getting difficult to navigate. A deletion would erase a notable topic and make us appear to countenance the policy; a merger would be unmanageable. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced does not mean it gets an article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. TarnishedPath^talk 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear-cut POV cruft per several editors above. There is nothing useful for merging the article somewhere else, let alone keeping it. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Czello and CMD. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scope is clear and the topic notable. Any POV issues can be addressed through editing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after giving ample time to merge any useful content not already at destination(s). I would also support it being moved to draft space or a userspace pending those merges rather than leaving it up while merges happen. My reasoning is basically the same as others, mostly POVFORK but I am also very swayed by the arguments of buidhe above regarding how it's basically impossible to treat this topic with the context necessary in a separate page here. That has, as buidhe correctly points out, made it even easier for this to become a POV pushing page.
If after merging and considering WP:DUE and WP:NPOV at the destination pages there is a concern for the size of the article in question, then splits can be considered from those articles through normal split processes - not by splitting out one POV like this. To clarify this - even if there was a valid reason to split some parts of the other article(s) out, this is not an appropriate way to split for size reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant and notable part of Iranian policy that they emphasize heavily, so the idea should be kept, but it probably could use a better name. Or possibly merge into Death to Israel, which may have been where that calls for... page should have gone. Its supposed POVness is kindof misleading because the topic. People are quick to think anything related to Israel will be POV, but it is a fact that this is a significant part of Iranian policy. I remember reading in the past few months that Iran had cut back on the Death to America chants I think after Trump was elected. I cant find any sources atm. Metallurgist (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it’s a significant enough and relevant enough policy that it deserves an article of its own. I don’t see how it supposedly violates WP:NPOV, the article is well written. LivLovisa (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets the requirements for notability under WP:GNG via sustained coverage in scholarly and reliable sources. It is not a WP:POVFORK but a valid sub-article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE focusing on Iranian state strategy. Concerns about title or balance should be addressed through editing, not deletion. A merge would obscure relevant depth and minimize a topic that clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. Whizkin (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Oppose) The article is not POV pushing, but the nom is an attempt at POV pushing. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Czello and others. The article is undeniably notable in my view, and any POV issues can be handled in the usual way, i.e. editing and discussion. GhostOfNoMan 12:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the pages I think that I do not see any POV forking in this article (if I am blind, please point to me out). I see that the article is well developed so it should not be deleted. Merging is a viable option, but it should be discussed on the talk page if this is going to be kept, but I do not see any convincing argument that would suggest a merge. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Graeme Bartlett and Bearian, et al. It's also a minor point that the main page on Iran–Israel relations is some 130k bytes already, and it is possible that this topic, which is clearly notable, would be subsumed if not otherwise its own standing article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Rafi Chazon, KiltedKangaroo and שלומית ליר. This isn't a WP:POVFORK, since it does not ascribe to a particular POV; what it is is a WP:SPINOFF, and that's fine given the breadth of the subject. IR-ILs relations encompass more than just the current regime's policies on Israel, and if there's enough content to fill a separate article on this particular aspect of them (and there clearly is), then we should have one.

PS: reminding everyone that Israel is the only country for which we have a "legitimacy of the state of..." article, which should be a huge blinking red marker as to what's a POV fork and what isn't. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to repeat what i said to Rafi Chazon, which is that an article being high quality is not inherently a reason to oppose it. Ideally all articles regardless of how "safe" they are to AFDs are high quality, well researched, coherent and informative articles. This article being of high quality as far as i can tell, that Rafi Chazon clearly spent many many hours on this still doesnt personally diswade me from arguing it should be merged with other articles like i argued in my comment, and also if youve kept this in mind and your argument as to why this article should be kept doesnt have to do with it being well refferenced then please do post!

AssanEcho (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - While the topic of the article can work (though it would probably be better to slightly expand the scope to anti-Israel positioning in Iranian policy than just the destruction of Israel), that article as it currently is has very little of in Iranian policy and is more quotes and statements by various political and military actors. So, on those grounds the article does not currently meet its scope and should be deleted if no one is going to put in the work to rewrite the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Legitimacy of the State of Israel as POVFORK. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (which many editors are calling "Oppose"). The topic is notable and sufficiently discrete. This is a unique aspect of relations between nations in the modern era. As for it being a POV fork, this article is not the result of any content disagreement at the articles suggested as merge candidates. It is not surprising and not a reason to delete when new articles about notable topics are created in the wake of an outbreak of war. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an obvious POVFORK but also per WP:COATRACK. This article hinges on using a handful of sources to make the argument that Iran is intent on destroying Israel. Then there's a large compilation of WP:BADTHINGS (mainly antisemitic statements from Iranian leadership) that aren't sufficiently tied back the main subject of the article. Some portions of this may be salvageable and merged into Iran–Israel relations. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article covers a notable topic that aids readers in exploring the current conflict. As explained by Cullen328 above, this is not a content fork as some have contended. Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or Merge as this is a POVFORK 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like a POV fork. Possibly an encyclopedic topic but in dire need of a new title at a minimum. Israel in official Iranian state policy or something to that effect. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is wondering what is with the slurry of comments here from people who do not regularly participate in AFD: https://www. breitbart .com/tech/2025/06/17/cover-up-wikipedia-editors-propose-deleting-page-on-iran-advocating-for-israels-destruction/ is the answer. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"editors on Wikipedia proposed deleting..." This is of course true. However, editors on Wikipedia also created and wrote the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose There is no POV pushed here, much less one against consensus; nobody disputes the fact that Iran - both hardliners and reformists - wants to destroy Israel. Furthermore, this subject has been discussed extensively by academic and media sources. Closetside (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any further edits should be neutrally aligned. This article is very notable. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This stuff is separately covered in other Iran–Israel articles. FujaFula (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete with content being merged into either Legitimacy of the State of Israel or Iran-Israel relations per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination). Yes, this topic is notable, but it is already covered on Wikipedia. This is a classic case of a WP:POVFORK. I think keep/oppose !votes which only address whether or not the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia are missing the point a little. This is a worse version of pages that already exist. Per EvansHallBear's !vote above, WP:COATRACK and WP:BADTHINGS apply as well. I'm in favor of merging any salvageable bytes and deleting whatever is left behind, no firm opinion one way or the other on leaving behind a redirect since redirects are cheap and are often allowed to have POV titles to a degree. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to mention that this article is strikingly similar to the problematic "Background" section that used to be in the article about the June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran article before that whole section got purged and was rewritten from scratch because the old one was a COATRACK. This article is mostly just a compilation of every offensive statement any Iranian official ever made, either in government or in the military, every time someone said something along the lines of "Israel, your days are numbered", some version of "God will destroy Israel", or antisemitic phrases to say the same thing. Would such a page exist for any other bitter rivalry or armed conflict? I consider myself to be a hardcore supporter of Ukraine, but if an article were just a list of Russians saying about a hundred different versions of "time's running out for Ukraine, you are a fake country and we will destroy you", even I would have to agree that's a bad excuse for an article and it would have to be deleted. I also have a feeling it wouldn't be difficult to make such a compilation of every time an IDF member or Israeli government official made offensive or dehumanizing remarks about Palestinians, but I have a feeling not many would support that being an article, either. In any conflict like this, there's an ocean of bitter and hateful comments to be found. The president of Azerbaijan has repeatedly called Armenia a fascist state that needs to be destroyed. Should we make an article out of that? No, we need less coatracks, not more. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Bagabondo (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete' per Vanilla Wizard. Also infringes WP:NPOV. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For better or worse, this topic has sparked significant debate over the years, as reflected in the sources. I fully understand how some editors WP:LIKEIT and others WP:DONTLIKEIT, but we should assess notability objectively. In this case, the article clearly meets the WP:GNG, with no conflict with WP:NOT. There’s absolutely no reason objectivity and a fair summary of the sources can’t go hand in hand. I’m big on merges, but the article is too big for Legitimacy of the State of Israel, so that’s not an option here. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A classic example of a WP:POVFORK. According to a finding in the recent ArbCom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 When the status quo version of an existing article does not match an editor's preferred version or point of view and attempts to change it are reverted, new articles describing the same subject from a different point of view ("POV forks") are often created [in the Israel-Palestine topic area]. The subject of this article can be entirely handed in the Legitimacy of the State of Israel and the Iran–Israel relations articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no pov and the article is to big for Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge It is undoubtedly a POVFORK. Legitimacy of the State of Israel is certainly enough for this subject. Azuredivay (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - transparent WP:POVFORK. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK but much of the content would be useful in another article. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are dozens and dozens of sources such as "Iran leader says Israel a ‘cancerous tumor’ to be destroyed" from the Associated Press of Iranian leaders -- as well as the dozens of others listed by other editors above -- demonstrating that this is a fundamental aspect of national policy that goes far beyond questioning the legitimacy of Israel, and this fact is demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt with the more than 50 sources in the article. The existence of these sources demonstrate that the general notability guideline has been satisfied as well as proving that this is not "a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel" as the nominator has claimed without any evidence. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn and others. This seems a fundamental aspect of Iranian policy, widely covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a clear WP:POVFORK, which is a persistent problem in this topic area. The article's content can be adequately covered at Iran–Israel relations. Day Creature (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran–Israel relations. Blatant WP:POVFORK, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename à la United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China. Not everything can be fit into Iran-Israel relations. Can either make the article about the Islamic Republic of Iran or just Iran. The latter option would require expanding the article somewhat, so the former is the most straightforward (i.e. something like Foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward Israel). However, for WP:NPOV, any retained edition ought to amply reference any relevant pages so as not to violate the policy e.g. by "omission", as this article is necesarily about one side/direction like the U.S. article. Rethliopuks (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could easily belong within Legitimacy of the State of Israel; however, it is quite lengthy and well sourced, so that effort may need to be handled cautiously to ensure important information is not lost during the downsizing. Fdssdf (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's aWP:POVFORK.GolsaGolsa (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article includes factual statements, much of which is extremely important for readers to know. It's as important as what happened during Hitler's reign, and any attempt to bury it by deletion or merging speaks volumes to the importance of keeping it. Atsme 💬 📧 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is well-sourced and not OR. Nor is it a POVFORK since there is more than enough neutral material for this to be a separate article than the article about the legitimacy of the state of Israel. It also isn't the same topic; the current Iranian regimes attitude about the destruction of the state of Israel is a separate topic from the state of Israel. It is a subtopic of Iran-Israel relations, but there's enough clear material here for a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward Israel per Rethliopuks. The modern Iranian state's policy towards Israel is certainly a notable topic independent from Iran–Israel relations, and I think a rename would get around the WP:POVFORK issues by broadening its scope beyond collecting statements from Iranian leaders that they hope there's a second Holocaust, which I think runs afoul of WP:COATRACK. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 18:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose/Rename. This clearly is a distinct, notable subject from general Israel-Iran relations. A rename to "Foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward Israel" might be warranted to avoid POV issues, but given that the vast majority of that foreign policy is an explicitly stated, repeatedly clearly reiterated intention to destroy Israel, the current name doesn't really violate POV. It is still an independently notable subject given that it's a driving force between half a dozen regional conflicts, it's a core element in the Israel-Iran proxy war, it is the motivation behind the ostensible Iranian nuclear weapons project which inspired Israeli and possible US action. Failing to have a Wikipedia page on this subject is an abdication of responsibility and neutrality. This is an actual notable decades old policy. Specific government policies have Wikipedia pages all the time, such as Wet feet, dry feet policy, One China, One-child policy... In this region, there are even pages for hypothetical, unimplemented policies of note such as Proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Jbbdude (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran–Israel relations and/or Legitimacy of the State of Israel as a POVFORK. Isi96 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Skimming through the article I don't understand how most of the sources directly support the claims in the article, besides Iranian leaders wanting Israel to disappear or saying it shouldn't exist or saying it will undoubtedly disappear which to me sounds like opinion or statements made to increase popularity. Executing such a plan to eliminate Israel would require coordination, so with such a title, I'd expect to see direct evidence such as sources discussing Iranian government plans or laws or decrees. I can't find them. Some of the references mention Gaza, Hamas which are undesirable in Israel and this was made in the middle of a conflict so I am concerned about objectivity. The US is a strong supporter of Israel and there doesn't seem to be any non-US sources being used for major claims in the article. I find this article as being strongly pro-Israel rather than being neutral. I am also concerned about most opposing opinions here since I think they don't take Wikipedia policy into account and I haven't seen such a thing before. I live in a country where Israelis own media companies, all large department store chains and can afford to run, and have run multi page newspaper inserts and long, widespread PR pieces so maybe that's why I am concerned. Pancho507 (talk) 01:25, 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 merge‎ to Humza Yousaf. Noting that this is one of the most inadequate deletion statements I've seen lately. You need to use more than one word to explain what should happen with an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf

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

Fancruft Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humza Yousaf, there isn't enough there to have a separate article Giuliotf (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Economics, Lists, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "fancruft" is rather preposterous and not a rationale for deletion. These sorts of lists are common for world leaders nowadays and I would consider a speedy close if you can't bother writing more than one inapplicable word. But I agree with Giuliotf that this is quite short and can be speedily merged to the main article – Premiership of Humza Yousaf#International visits is the obvious place for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 So you are saying this is important information that deserves its place in an encyclopedia? Can you explain why? Yousaf went on 4 short trips abroad, nothing of note happened, and he returned safe and sound. I see it as similar to overly detailed descriptions of Pokemon. It would be worth merging if there was something to merge, but there is nothing of substance here. Am I missing something? Was there a diplomatic incident I am unaware of, was he attacked by a rabbit, did he invent Cubism during one of these trips? Polygnotus (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So make that argument upfront, not some meaningless "fancruft." Not sure why you need to make up this random crap about Cubism. Category:Lists of diplomatic trips, Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state, and Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of government have dozens of these lists, and few of these folks got into diplomatic incidents. So I agree that 4 short trips don't need a standalone article, but yes, this is still certainly encyclopedic information relevant to his premiership and inclusion in that article is more than appropriate. I'm rather baffled by the suggestion that there's nothing of substance here: the Brussels trip is already covered at Premiership of Humza Yousaf#European Union, and working on climate issues and British–Irish collaboration are important actions taken by a premier. — Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 British–Irish? I guess that would be worth reporting on. Yousaf is Scottish. Would it surprise you if I told you that those cats are full of unencyclopedic fancruft?

If nothing out of the ordinary happened during those trips, and he just went there, shook a few hands and had a few conversations (which is his job) and then returned home without any incident, then what is there to report on for an encyclopedia, other than the bland fact that it happened? And we certainly don't need a separate article for what can be described in a sentence or two on the BLP.

If he invented Cubism, got attacked by a rabbit, or got caught on a hot mic calling Kim Jong Il "adorable" which caused a diplomatic incident then at least there would be something to write about and then we could have a stand-alone article about the North Korean declaration of war against Scotland. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"full of unencyclopedic fancruft" Okay, feel free to nominate them all for deletion. Sorry people think it's relevant to report what our political leaders do for their jobs. Bye! — Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is relevant to report what he does for his job, which is why I haven't nominated Humza Yousaf for deletion, but I don't see why we need a separate article about his 4 trips. If he had made 50 trips and there was a lot to say about each one and a lot of media coverage then WP:SPLITTING would be a good idea. I don't think that is the case here. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting#When_to_split. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I already agreed that a separate article is unnecessary... — Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selected content and citations back. While Scotland is a separate country, it's not sovereign or separate from the United Kingdom. The trips are not so important, therefore, for a separate list. I am partly Scots in ancestry and have visited Scotland. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to officially distance myself from Bearian's comments. Polygnotus (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Humza Yousaf per nom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:52, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomothete

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

Not a proper dab page: one entry is a definition and the other is a description or title in the same manner as, say, senator. You wouldn't list every person elected to that office in Senator (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like an improper dab page creation. Fade258 (talk) 13:09, 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 14:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Jones (entrepreneur)

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

An orphan article. Most of the sources are small mentions like confirming she sat on boards and some dead links. Trivia like "Jones donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party in September 2019" doesn't add to notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to redirect to Lawrence Jones (businessman) or UKFast, with a preference for the latter, since that's where she gets her notability from. There's some sources, but they do not describe her outside of these contexts, and the'y certainly aren't GNG qualifying. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UKFast no longer exists, merged with ANS in 2022. Inasmuch as that is her claim to notability, maybe just delete. Her husband Lawrence Nigel Jones is a convicted rapist serving 15 years in prison for multiple criminal offences. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not sure if Gail Jones would want her article to be redirected to her criminal husband. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom; passing or trivial coverage and notability (if any) is a few sources are through her husband. Not sufficient to meet WP:BIO WeWake (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Buried under the anthill of poor sourcing is not so much "trivia": a BLP violation connecting her with her husband's crimes and a possible campaign contribution that hints at bribery. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 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. Star Mississippi 01:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Rana

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

Per WP:TNT. There is absolutely nothing verifiable in this article and the one cited source goes to a compromised domain with no content. Searching on Google turns up shockingly little information: as far as I can tell he is mentioned in exactly two contexts: in a list of previous Directors General of ISI in recent news articles announcing the appointment of more recent holders of that position, and in writings about the Taliban that occasionally tangentially mention Naseem Rana as having been present during one or two events that took place during his tenure as DGISI. The alternative to deletion is reduction of the article to the following:

Naseem Rana is a Pakistani general who served as the director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1995 to October 1998.^[1] He was reportedly present at a meeting between Prince Turki al-Faisal and Mullah Omar in 1998.^[2]

Not even his birthdate or the Urdu spelling of his name seem to be verifiable (searching Google for نسيم رانا produces zero relevant hits), or for that matter whether he is still alive. I would say people need to find and add more sources (since surely they exist - this guy was supposedly an important military official involved in historic and much-studied events) but even if sources can be found, the current article is still WP:TNT bad so it's better to wipe it and leave open the possibility of starting fresh when/if more sources can be found. -- LWG ^talk 04:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. -- LWG ^talk 04:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del without prejudice. Close to no source being tagged since 2012(!). --Altenmann >talk 05:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lijil (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some outside Pakistan say the head of the ISI is the second- or third-most powerful person in Pakistan. They are much more powerful than their counterparts in the CIA, the FSB or MI6 and wield domestic power. If this person held this position, we should be able to find sources. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The head of the ISI is clearly a notable individual by any standards and the fact he held the post is verifiable. We can quite easily delete unsourced info and leave a WP:STUB. There's nothing wrong with stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Messed up reading Metacritic and only looked at the Xbox tab. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 15:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaonic

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources cited in article are not reliable, and searching only turns up a Gameplay (Benelux) review indexed in MobyGames. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metacritic search comes up with Vandal and IGN reviews, showing it does pass the notability bar. It also merits WP:TROUT for not looking in such a blatant place as Metacritic first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to Vandal and IGN, there is a review by Sentinel & Enterprise: [4]. --Mika1h (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Metacritic reviews alone would indeed put this past the bar of coverage needed for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:32, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Glaves

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

An orphan article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A number of provided sources are primary. Google news hits = 4 including 2 by her employer British Geological Survey. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Nomination lacks due diligence. The citation for the Ian McHarg Medal convincingly establishes her notability. I fail to see how Google news hits is an argument. Certainly this detailed piece from 2021 is not in hot new news. --Altenmann >talk 05:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google news is an indicator of coverage in media. The 2 sources you list are primary sources. The award is from European Geosciences Union where she was president and the British Geological Survey is her employer. We need independent sourcing. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is your opinion. Disagreed. Sources from highly respectable organizations are good. --Altenmann >talk 06:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." LibStar (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I agree with Altenmann. She fulfils WP:NPROF criteria 6 by having been the president of European Geosciences Union from 2021-2023, although I would have liked to see a source for this other than her employer. She doesn't have a lot of citations for her research. She also won a medal (count towards criteria 2 - and while the source for this is the organisation that awarded the medal this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) and edited a journal, which counts towards criteria 8. Her notable contribution to research seems to be data sharing in marine sciences, as stated in the [medal info|https://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/ian-mcharg/2016/helen-glaves/]: "she has contributed to significant advances in the stewardship of and access to marine research data". Lijil (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The problem is that if I compare her to other academics, her achievements so far are weak. With an GS h-factor of 7 she is far short of WP:NPROF#C1, particularly since almost all the papers are big team efforts where she is one of many. The Ian McHarg Medal is a divisional medal, so not the highest (although not a trivial one). The only thing which passes notability is being President of the European Geosciences Union. Their membership numbers are large, and they publish a lot of journals. While I am not a fan of notability for academic administrators who do not have major research chops, I have to call this a pass of WP:NPROF#C6. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPROF #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Google News may well be "an indicator of coverage in media", all very well for sportspeople, musicians, even politicians, but academics are not typically all over the newspapers etc unless something is going horribly wrong. PamD 15:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PamD: well-said; scientists often get in the news only when they are wrong. An article being an orphan is correlated with lack of notability but isn't necessarily connected. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 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. Star Mississippi 01:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Palestine Advocacy Community

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

The sources in the article don't seem to include any substantial information about this particular organization, they either 1) mention it as having been affiliated with a protest or petition gathering w/o further detail or 2) mention it as part of a broader story about multiple other similar organizations. A WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, google scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any additional coverage so I don't think the subject meets WP:NORG. I also don't see a clear redirect/merge target. Zzz plant (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Palestine, and Ohio. Zzz plant (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kudos on the intro that covers it all! gidonb (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there any pages that discuss individual advocacy efforts for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? If this org is involved with BDS it may be useful to carry the present sources on the article elsewhere. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I couldn't find anything like that; I did add a ref for Cleveland to Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Gaza war (this group was mentioned as having been present at a protest lobbying for a ceasefire resolution). I'm not sure it would make sense to add info about all BDS-supporting groups, even non-notable ones, to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Zzz plant (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, since the most notable event relating to the subject is included elsewhere, deletion of the article will probably suffice. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:05, 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 01:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yeon-woo

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

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and South Korea. Stvbastian (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBADMINTON. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NBAD shoud pass the WP:SPORTBASIC. And the article fails Stvbastian (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It probably fails the criteria of WP:SPORTBASIC but I noticed that the article is just created on 17 May 2025, which I assume a new and as per alternative to deletion, I would prefer Draftify. Fade258 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to give the creator or any other editors time to find sources that meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 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 merge‎ to Houri. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

72 virgins

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

This is just an islamophobic WP:POVFORK of Houri and Palestinian suicide attacks with no content whatsoever other than a quote from the book Sunan al-Tirmidhi and an immediate "In popular culture" and an excerpt of the "72 virgins" section of the Palestinian suicide attacks article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My understanding is that there is a consensus in academia that this 72 Virgins thing is basically just a myth with very little to no basis in Islam. Perhaps if it was put more in line with this the article would be better but as it stands, despite the first line, it aims to legitimise this false view and should be removed. Genabab (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article used to be a disamb page that clearly listed it as a misconception before Closetside decided to change it completely 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known legitimate Islamic teaching, graded as hasan (good). We can include the view of some that emphasizing the literal interpretation is Islamophobic, but we must include the traditional view that this teaching is legitimate and was spoken by Muhammad. If quoting a real Islamic teaching, which many find objectionable, is Islamophobic, quoting Leviticus 18:22 is antisemitic and quoting Romans 1:26-27 is Christophobic - a ludicrous position. Closetside (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There Are No 72 Virgins Waiting for Anyone in Paradise, and this article is false. Not a single islamic source calls it a legitimate teaching (other than isis, and they aren't even muslims) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The teaching is traditionally accepted. See its hasan designation or Islam Q&A. While some scholars (like the one referenced above) rejects it, this is not the traditional view.

Off topic, ISIS is an Islamic terrorist organization. Just because the vast majority of imams reject their interpretation of Islam doesn't mean that they aren't Muslims. This is equivalent to saying the Crusaders weren't Christian due to their antisemitic massacres because Christian antisemitism has been rejected today by the vast majority of Christian scholars, or Sabbatai Zevi wasn't a religious Jew because the vast majority of Jewish scholars rejected his claim to be Messiah. Closetside (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is weak per Al-Wadi'i and Ibn al-Qattan^[3]

And your argument of it being a legitimate Islamic teaching doesn't make it due to have its separate article while also having the "Houri" article. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment: The perceived legitimacy of the tenet is utterly irrelevant. If sources report on it, including arguing against it, it exists in some form. @Abo Yemen, the link you provided therefore wholly supports that this is an existing concept. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore disambiguation: This is clearly a WP:POVFORK and if it weren't for the fact that something useful existed prior to closetside's POV pushing, I'd recommend deleting. As something useful previously existed I'd suggested restoring to that. TarnishedPath^talk 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of 72 virgins as a concept meets WP:GNG and has been the subject of much academic and journalistic WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time. Any WP:NPOV concerns should be dealt with on the article, but it is notable as a standalone topic. It should absolutely be covered with the appropriate context as a canard. See:

Guardian article on the topic

academic book chapter

explainer in Slate

Extensive use by would-be terrorists covered in reporting and academic literature: [5], [6], [7]. Longhornsg (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't like stereotypes either, but we have lots of articles about them. The tone of the nomination is "I don't like it." That's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so you ignored the fact that this is a WP:POVFORK just because you didn't like how my nom sounded? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, just because there is sufficient coverage it does not mean there should be a standalone page. The material is already covered at Islamophobic trope#72 virgins where it has adequate prose dedicated to it. This page should go back to a disamb. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, btw, the article seems to have something to do with Palestinian suicide attacks, and thus be covered by WP:PIA, doesn't this make non XC users unable to vote here? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cheesedealer: it definitely shouldn't be allowed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two comments that my script flagged as having been made by non-XC users. I hope that's alright. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore disambiguation. Anything significant is already covered in other articles as mentioned by the nom. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Plantbaseddiet (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The concept is already being covered elsewhere. I'd also be fine with restoring the disambiguation page, specifically this version. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer consensus between the options discussed. BD2412 T 03:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Merge to Houri. The idea of the "72 virgins" seems to be an extreme extension of the idea of the Houri, which is better attested. Much of this article seems to be devoted to refuting the idea that Palestinian suicide bombers believe or are encouraged to believe that martyrs will have 72 virgins as their wives in paradise. But this belief is specifically associated in the article with ISIS and Boko Haram, neither of which is a Palestinian group, so the relevance of that section is unclear. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix if there are problems. The fact that there may be misinformation out there, whether it's fueling Islamaphobia or motivating suicide bombers, makes it all the more important that we have a reliable article on the topic. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Longhornsg, which demonstrate WP:GNG. Astaire (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, the real care should be taken to make sure the resultant article is NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I came into this page thinking delete or redirect, but there are definitely enough sources for GNG. Merge Islamophobic trope#72 virgins, which is a better choice by far but I think that there is more useful information on the page (and in the sources that Longhorn found) than currently on that page. Pagedecide says a lot about adding context but I don't think the Islamophobic page adds needed context to this article. (An unrelated aside, but that page itself needs lots of clean-up as well.) Moritoriko (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Houri. It is an interpretation of this concept. Rolluik (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – to the Islamophobic trope of the 72 virgins, though not entirely opposed to merging to Houri either per Metropolitan90. Lf8u2 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Alert: Talk:72_virgins#72_virgins:_Myth_or_Sunni_Islamic_doctrine Closetside (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Houri and Islamophobic tropes, it’s a POV fork removed from its context, per WP:PAGEDECIDE it doesn’t serve readers well. Kowal2701 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Houri or one of the other targets mentioned above, as appropriate to POV forks. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 07:07, 23 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. A strong case has been made against the ATD Star Mississippi 01:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Airlines flight 3506

(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 ..) – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. XYZ1233212 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Puerto Rico. XYZ1233212 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL incident. Speaking frankly: there is zero need for an article on "airliner blew a tire". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: do not redirect. Airliners don't blow tires every day, but it's close, and there is nothing worth covering here even in the airport article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with this. Was on the fence about a week back, but there really is little point to even listing and redirecting to it here (despite it already being added). I'm not going to edit my vote this late in as it makes little difference, just wanted to say I don't oppose deletion. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or delete pending others' viewpoints): Definitely a minor incident and good that no one was hurt. This could potentially be redirected to the airport it took place at with relevant information. I believe this incident could be summed up in a few sentences under that section. 11WB (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luis_Muñoz_Marín_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents: I've added it there as an incident. It's not notable enough for a separate article. Laura240406 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Redirection allows some of the information to be retained. 11WB (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read some of the other entries on that sections list, I am on the fence about whether this incident is even notable enough to be included there. I will stick with redirect for the moment though and wait for others' opinions. 11WB (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport § Accidents and incidents: Purely a minor WP:ROUTINE aviation incident unlikely to gain WP:LASTING and other long-term effects; redirect as WP:ATD per @11wallisb and @Laura240406, although a redirect to Frontier Airlines § Accidents and incidents is also possible. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE. As for redirection, I'm currently uncertain whether this article is notable enough for even a mention on the airport accidents list. 11WB (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Does not meet the bar for notability for a standalone article, but no issues including it in the list of accidents at the airport where it happened.

nf utvol (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect to the airport article, as this minor incident does not even meet the WP:AIRCRASH criteria for inclusion in airline/airport/aircraft articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No evidence of notability. Article (under slightly different title) was already deleted previously. If it turns out to be notable (having lasting effects, continued coverage, etc.), it can always be recreated. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information does already exist here so a redirect does make the most sense to me. I definitely agree with your point regarding WP:LASTING, however. 11WB (talk) 21:00, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Ji (Ming dynasty politician)

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

Unreferenced article with little verifiability. Not much to expand on and demonstrate sufficient notability against possible deletion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His article in zh.wp is more fleshed out, but sourced almost entirely to History of Ming vol. 171 ([8]). Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sourcing per per zh.wikipedia refs. Wang Ji was apparently an important figure in his day. Even if most of what we know comes from one ancient, prominent source, this is a useful article. This sourcing issue is true of many historical figures from very long ago who may be sourced only to Josephus or Thucydides yet we keep them. The article needs to explicitly state in the text that what we know comes from one ancient text. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. He was Minister of War of the Ming, according to the Ming Shi via Wikisource, and as summarized in his zhwiki article. Thus, he was a politician who held national office. Toadspike [Talk] 09:58, 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 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 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XIX. Solar Sphinx (book)

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

Self published book. Not independent and lacking WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBOOK. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:49, 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 keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Museum (Netherlands)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Basically unchanged for 10 years. GoldRomean (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The museum itself is notable even it the article was a poor reflection of it. I've updated it with at least some basic information to help it along. Myotus (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of the GNG and NORG. Nomination is in clear defiance of NEXIST, BEFORE, and DEADLINE. List of sources gidonb (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some references, and think there will be more out there under the museum's various names. Tacyarg (talk) 23:44, 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 02:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student Assembly Against Racism

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

Unreferenced for 20 years and no hits in google news. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of these - Two IP articles involved, both created from the University of Livepool. This one is un-sourced, created by an IP in 2004, has only one sentence. You might also Delete National Assembly Against Racism from 2005. It was also created by an IP. Appears to be the same thing. — Maile (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources exist outside of this one article for the subject, and as OP mentioned, it's been left unreferenced for 20 years. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:08, 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. Star Mississippi 01:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Staff Officer (Bangladesh)

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

The infobox is not referenced at all (it does not contain any single reference about the information), the first Principal Staff Officer Brigadier General Abul Hasanat Md Abdullah's appointment date seems to be fake, Major General Nurul Islam Shishu's reference is not trustworthy. The Took Office and Left Office parts are not true, where are references regarding this? According to the official website of the Bangladeshi Armed Forces Division, the office was created in 1991, and Brigadier General Abul Hasanat Md Abdullah was the first Principal Staff Officer but when he was appointed it is not written there. Armed Forces Division's name was Commander-in-Chief's Secretariat and Supreme Command Headquarters and also Supreme Command Headquarters Division in the 1970s and 1980s decade. The article needs many authentic references regarding the appointees, their appointment dates (when they took office and when the left office), if many authentic references are not found it must be deleted. PauKau (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most information in the article is not real including the infobox. 37.111.194.13 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about removing the information that isn't supported by reliable sources? There are past versions, such as [9] or [10] that seem better, even if still in need of improvement. Deletion of the article is not a substitute for normal editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Worldbruce, please improve the article like you have improved the Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) article, Mir Shawkat Ali was Chief of General Staff according to Banglapedia.

This article's infobox needs to be removed and so many things need to be changed, please improve the article, I think the title of the article should be renamed as Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces Division as the appointment holder Chief of General Staff is also considered a principal staff officer of the Bangladesh Army.

Long Live Bangladesh. 37.111.210.147 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, @Vinegarymass911:, please say something about this article. 37.111.210.227 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as User:Worldbruce is not improving the article. 37.111.207.215 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reliability is paramount. Ping me if the article gets fixed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:25, 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. ✗plicit 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Kalita

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

Heavily promotional and very resume-like Amigao (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show WP:ANYBIO, general notability guidelines and significant coverage and didn't found significant coverage in mentioned references. Fade258 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it is a promotional article. And cited references do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support nom; no lasting or significant coverage about the individual; notability is thin WeWake (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only non-incidental coverage is the single interview in question-answer format (not independent of the subject). There is therefore no secondary coverage that meets notability guidelines. Crmccull000 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Been notable is more than passing mentions on publications, fails significant coverage, fails WP:ANYBIO Allblessed (talk) 22:45, 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 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy (software)

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

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is most appropriate here (or userfy with complete rewrite and new sourcing): I agree with the OP. This article, especially the configuration and version control sections read as promotional and violates WP:RSPX due to having two Twitter references. I don't know anything about this software, however this article likely needs a swift return to userspace or failing that, deletion. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't found significant coverage about the topic to justify it's notability. I barely see the coverage about the topic. Fade258 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly referenced, WP:GNG is not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 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 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Reubenstein

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by an account with very few edits. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BIO more broadly. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the citations in the article, bar one are not independent. The one that might be independent (not sure) is Michael West Media (a WP:SPS?) which does not cover the subject in-depth. A search I conducted only found articles written by the subject and a couple of news articles about defamation action which the subject was involved in which wouldn't be enough per WP:BLP1E. I agree with LibStar's assessment that this doesn't meet either WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BIO. Please ping me if multiple sources are found which are independent, cover the subject in depth, are secondary and are reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 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 02:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Apart from Their Children

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 18 years ago. The 2 sources provided BBC and Guardian are not SIGCOV. This fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like "Matchmothers" (with varying capitalization) is also a common name. Anerdw (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches for "matchmothers" and "mothers apart from their children" yield CORPTRIV (mostly directory entries) and forums, so not RS. The archived Shebytes is also a directory entry. BBC mentions the organization in passing (and wouldn't be independent anyways). The Guardian is not independent: "For more information see our website at Matchmothers.org". Anerdw (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual for an organization that's been around so long to generate so little WP:SIGCOV, but here it is. Proquest search turns up almost exclusively mention in advice columns and a couple of book reviews. It may not help that they've chosen the nearly unsearchable backronym identifier "MATCH" to represent themselves, but searches for the full name and domain name also yield next to nothing. FalconK (talk) 00:23, 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 02:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (pressure group)

AfDs for this article:

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

1 unverifiable source provided in 18 years of article existence. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searching found nothing relating to a British political group to support this article. this IMDb link to a summary of the documentary (which was from 1986 not 5) shows that it did exist but I don't think it is notable. Moritoriko (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any media coverage, other than the programme listing on BBC Genome. p166 of Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration (search for "Ramsgate") has non-independent recollections from two people associated with the group: Ramsgate Critical Massers [...] were enthusiastic campaigners for environmental and social issues, and soon became well known in the East Kent area, even appearing on the local TV news. [... Aubi Fadra] was the secretary of the Ramsgate Flat Earth Society and Critical Mass from 1983/7. But searching for those names didn't find anything more. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thing they formed a coalition, but it was just news. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 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.

[1] Shah, Sabir. "ISI gets its 25th chief: The saga of premier intelligence agency". The News.

[2] Khan, Adnan. "What Pakistan would have gained by protecting bin Laden". Maclean's.

[3] ttps://dorar.net/hadith/search?q=%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90+%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8E+%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A9%D9%8B+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%90+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90&searchType=word&st=w&xclude=&rawi%5B%5D=

[1]

[2]

[3]