Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 14

< June 13 June 15 >

Purge server cache

Baltagiya

[edit]
Baltagiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:wikipedia is not a dictionary 176.28.150.183 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article doesn't just provide a definition for a word, it's a clear outline of a social phenomenon in a country, a social class that exists that is unique to the country of Egypt. Compare this article with the article for British chavs (Chav). "Baltagiya" isn't just a direct Arabic translation of the word "thug," it's an actual social class that has similar characteristics and in my opinion this warrants its own article. Kabahaly (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in its current state doesn't represent the topic like it's a social class or a phenomenon. It represents it as a word for thugs. Thus it worth deletion. 176.28.150.183 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a reasonable reason for deletion. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:V. Besides being horrendously written, there is zero evidence that this is a social class. I wouldn't oppose a draftification. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is bad only in part, yet it is neither unfounded nor irrelevant. It needn't be a social class, for this is no encyclopedia of Marxism. The article just needs more work. Draftification would certainly not speed up things. 217.244.108.62 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Mohamed Waheed Hassan. ✗plicit 00:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international presidential trips made by Mohamed Waheed Hassan

[edit]
List of international presidential trips made by Mohamed Waheed Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG. It can easily be added to the main article. Visiting 13 states does not warrant a separate article. Hauskasic (talk) 21:48, 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 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! 22:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chirico

[edit]
Steve Chirico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former mayor of a town with a population of ~150k. Looking at a List of mayors of Naperville, Illinois, the only other one with a Wikipedia page is A. George Pradel, whose notability argument is a bit stronger given that he was in office for 20 years, while Chirico was only in office for 8. Chirico seems to have only gotten routine coverage from local outlets, and I don't see any argument for why he rises above any other local mayor in terms of notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (as author). At the time I created the stub, the rule of thumb had been/appeared to be that 100,000+ was a cut off of sorts for mayors getting articles. WP:POLOUTCOMES does note that mayors of regionally specific cities can meet notability guidelines and I would argue Naperville is a regionally significant city in the Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, IL–IN MSA. I am not sure I am seeing such notability for this subject despite Naperville's stature. Reviewing a Google News search, there was some national attention for a maskless wedding appearance in the COVID-era due to his niece's influencer account, but I don't think that meets any sort of significance. On Internet Archive I only found high school wrestling articles that would not contribute to notability. --Mpen320 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Coatti

[edit]
Alessandro Coatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the relevant guidelines, WP:NPROF and (regrettably and highly unfortunately) WP:NVICTIM/WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: His killing might be notable, based on the coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be too soon to tell, as the coverage has to be sustained for it to be notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 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 Hamilton, St. Joseph County, Indiana as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terre Coupee, Indiana

[edit]
Terre Coupee, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

O-kay, here we have quite a mess. The spot labelled on the topo fairly screams "rail spot", but searching immediately pulled up a couple of maps, the first of which is a plat map which is plainly not the spot labelled by GNIS. This map provides an answer, of a sort: it shows the GNIS spot as "Terra Coupee Sta.", but it also labels a town due north from there as "Terra Coupee", which is consistent with the plat map. The topos, however, label that town as Hamilton. The article on the latter claims the post office there was initially named "Terra Coupee"; the cited county history has this to say: "The town of Terre Coupee, also known as Hamilton from Hamilton's tavern,^ was located on each side of the Chicago road, the old Sauk trail, in the southeast quarter of section nine, township thirty-eight, range one east. The survey of the town was made by Thomas P. Bulla for Jacob Egbert who acknowledged the plat April 12, 1837. Additions made to the plat were acknowledged January 30,. 1841, by Jacob Egbert and Jonathan Hubbard. Terre Coupee, or Hamilton, as it is more frequently called, was for a time a very prosperous town, located as it was on the great through line of travel from the east. But with the building of the Lake Shore railroad through New Carlisle the greatness of Hamilton declined; and even its original name of Terre Coupee was transferred to the Lake Shore railroad station, two miles east of New Carlisle. The plat was vacated by order of the county commissioners, June 10, 1841. So maybe we need to spell this out in the Hamilton article? Anyway, the "current" spot of this name is clearly not a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:36, 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 speedy keep‎. Procedural keep, nominator was a sock and no Delete arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PUK insurgency

[edit]
PUK insurgency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article misrepresents the sources. The sources dont mention anything about an “insurgency” — the sources only mention minor clashes (only one major clash), between PDK and PUK over a few years, not an organized campaign. Also the fact that, it wrongly labels the result as an “Iraqi victory,” even though no source actually says that and iraq was clearly not involved in these clashes. The article is misleading and not backed up by the sources. --DataNomad (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on making a seperate page for the clash in 1978 bradost cause this is real DataNomad (talk) 12:42, 4 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 01:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O'Loughlin Farrell family

[edit]
O'Loughlin Farrell family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources cover this family as a concept. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was full of sources that discussed the family connections and rugby heritage, and I have added additional sources to the lede which refer to "the O’Loughlin/Farrell family" and "the Farrell-O'Loughlin family". EdwardUK (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural close as the nominator was a sock and there are no Delete arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Erbil massacre

[edit]
1996 Erbil massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: All the sources of this article are biased and fail to meet reliability standards. This event hasn’t been reported by any independent or international media. DataNomad (talk) 01:47, 7 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! 23:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack Grange, Indiana

[edit]
Tamarack Grange, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name should already be a warning, but the sans-serif font on the topos shows that the label is for the building on the corner, which is a Grange hall. Or was, since it has long since been converted to a house, but it is listed in the 1915 proceedings of the National Grange as having an anniversary celebration. Possibly the post office is associated with it, but one cannot really be sure. At any rate the label from the topo was correctly categorized as a "populated place", but as is frequently the case, the assumption on the article creators that this translates to a settlement, er, "community" isn't borne out once researched— or when you read the source map. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 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 Mediawan. ✗plicit 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misfits Entertainment

[edit]
Misfits Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reversed redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Lots of mentions and db entries. Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy McKinney

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Freddy McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted last year through AfD, was restored through Refund (not exactly sure why), but same issues still apply. Onel5969 TT me 18:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftify - Why was this moved to mainspace?? EF5 21:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redraftify - Filmssssssssssss moved this back to mainspace without ensuring the article was up to quality standards and as of yet I don't see concrete evidence of this person's notability cited in the article. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like EF5 saw promise and sources in February and wanted to work on the article as a draft, after which Filmssssssssssss moved it to mainspace without any additional explanation. I've notified these two. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EF5 was the editor above who questioned why it was moved back into mainspace. I would have re-draftified it, but it is ineligible for draftication now that it has been moved back. However, the result of the AfD could result in it being moved back to draft by consensus. Onel5969 TT me 22:23, 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 List of film festivals in Oceania. with the history preserved should the creator need it offsite. Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

[edit]
SmartFone Flick Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... keep in mind that coverage is going to be what establishes notability here. The festival may have big names associated with it, but that notability won't be inherited. I've found what often establishes notability are things like say, Variety writing about the competition.
    At first glance what stands out is that a lot of the sourcing is either a press release or heavily based on one. For example, this FilmInk source looks to be either a full reprint of a press release or so closely reworded that it might as well be one. This one by The South Sydney Herald is a local paper covering local people. The issue with local sources is that it's so routine for local papers to cover "local person does good" that it can be seen as kind of weak (at best) or even routine. Then there's this from IF Magazine, which is a routine database event listing.
    Right now the page is so crammed full of press releases, routine announcements, and local coverage that it's difficult to pick out exactly what can be used to establish notability. I'm going to do a rundown of the sources on the AfD talk page, as there are so many. I'm not saying that this can't be notable, just that right now it's so stuffed full of unusable and weak sources that it comes across like it's not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Left a very long note on the talk page. Most of the sources aren't usable and are used to back up very faint claims of notability. There are some potentially usable sources, but there are none that are really solid, slam dunk sources. My recommendation here is to reduce the page to just the basics, using the sources that seem decent, and then judge notability based on that. There's so much unintentional WP:PUFFERY in the article that it really does make this seem non-notable at first glance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of film festivals in Oceania. There just wasn't enough coverage to really and firmly establish this as a notable event as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There's enough to where it should be mentioned somewhere, so I think the list page would be a good compromise. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the point in losing all the work that I've already done on it. There are way less notable events and items on Wikipedia that are poorly sourced and seemingly added with about 10 minutes of work put into them. I'd like to see a few more opinions first. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles on potentially non-notable topics is not a reason to keep an article. It just means that those articles either haven't been improved to establish notability or (more likely) haven't been nominated for deletion.
    Seeing an article get deleted and losing work hurts. I've had articles get deleted by way of redirects and entire swaths of content removed. It stinks, but that's just how it works on Wikipedia. If something doesn't pass notability guidelines or follow policy, it gets removed. I've had to abandon entire drafts because the topic just didn't pass notability guidelines. It's so common to find that something doesn't pass GNG (or the topic specific guidelines) that I have taken to finding sourcing first and creating the article second - and making sure that the sourcing is as good as possible.
    This particular article falls under NEVENT, which is pretty tough to pass as the sourcing threshold tends to be higher. Many events publicize themselves by sending out press releases, so sourcing tends to get more closely scrutinized to make sure that it's not a reprinted or slightly rephrased press release. The other issue is that local coverage is kind of viewed as a given with events, so a local paper covering a local event or person doesn't really show a depth of coverage unless the outlet is particularly major or well thought about. The issue with the sourcing here is that much of it was primary, press releases, or didn't really go into depth about the festival. What was possibly usable was questionable or felt like they were likely based heavily on press releases.
    If you want, you can ask for advice at WP:FILM and WP:3O, but offhand I think it's likely that this will redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

[edit]
Merav Ceren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to South Korea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Myeong-o

[edit]
Jeong Myeong-o (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only provided sources are databases/results. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have coverage for example at "韓基連(한기연) 鄭明五(정명오) 金智守(김지수) 경보 10,000m 한국신 동아일보 | 1990.05.02 기사(뉴스)" [Han Ki-yeon, Jeong Myeong-o, Kim Ji-su Korean new 10,000m race walking]. naver.com (in Korean). Subject set the Korean national record in winning the national championships in 1986. --Habst (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Korea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics where his name is mentioned. The source provided by Habst is a brief mention. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Korea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The sources provided in the article do not help in establishing notability since they are simply databases (hence they are not secondary). Searches performed on (but not limited to) Google or Newspapers.com didn't turn up any sources that would help establish notability. I also tried searching on South Korea newspaper archives and the best that I managed to find was an announcement that he passed away from The Chosun Ilbo and similar sources like the one Habst linked above, none of which provide significant coverage of the athlete. All in all, there doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per AWF's analysis. I agree that the given sources fall short of the SPORTCRIT SIGCOV requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Are you even sure the person who passed away is the same person? Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ujawal Jha

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ujawal Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined at AFC but moved to mainspace, fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comments. — tony :) 16:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per nomination. No significant media coverage. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, nothing productive here and fails even the most basic of criteria. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:21, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robo Rampage

[edit]
Robo Rampage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero in-depth sourcing showed up in searches. Was a redirect, but was restored as a result of an RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_27#Robo_Rampage. Onel5969 TT me 16:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very much pro forma here, we are nominating a one sentence article. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't found any secondary coverage in a web search. For context, this was BLARed and then RfD'd. The RfD [2] resulted in consensus against a redirect, but no consensus on what alternative (restore as article or delete) to take, so the article was restored. It was then PRODed, which was contested with the argument "redirect as preferred alternative" and BLARed, but because there was consensus at RfD against a redirect the article was restored again. So, after visiting every deletion venue under the sun, we end up here.
@1234qwer1234qwer4, Pppery, Fancy Refrigerator, Helpful Raccoon, and Kvng: Pings to those involved in the aforementioned saga. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf, Tavix, Steel1943, and Enix150: Ping RfD participants as well, as some opined on notability and they are (for better or worse) the folks who sent this article back here. Toadspike [Talk] 09:05, 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 delete‎. Complex/Rational 21:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moloney

[edit]
Chris Moloney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sigcov after Googling, and the sources in the article aren't enough. Only the Sports Business Journal seems significant. The Reuters and MarketWatch articles don't mention him, the Bizjournals bio isn't a real article, and the rest are WP:PRIMARY or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples. Thank you for reviewing the article. If I could find more secondary and reliable sources on the internet, would it be possible to prevent the page from being deleted? Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sergiomarcus: of course! The purpose of a deletion nomination is to give people time to find sources and even improve the article if they can. Even if you can't find sources now, there's nothing stopping you from recreating the page if the topic becomes notable later. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 10 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 16:00, 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 List of libraries in India. ✗plicit 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desasevini Grameena Vayanasala

[edit]
Desasevini Grameena Vayanasala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find notable RS about this in the usual sources. Some items exist but are compilations of wikipedia content (i.e. this one which is in Spanish Amazon for some reason). Maybe there's something it could be merged to instead, but otherwise it hasn't been sourced for 15 years... Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yanran

[edit]
Chen Yanran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; no serious sources. Ponazzi (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Bartek, Marek (2024-12-16). "In Conversation with Yanran Chen". Numéro Netherlands. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen is a rising star in the art world. She made a striking debut at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas, unveiling six sculptures from her latest project in collaboration with Liu Cixin, the Hugo Award-winning author of The Three-Body Problem. Yanran's artistic vision reflects profound introspection and a keen awareness of the complexities of the external world. Her work is deeply influenced by the bold storytelling of Japanese manga and the avant-garde aesthetics of experimental French cinema. She has also collaborated with renowned global brands and media outlets, including Balenciaga, Songmont, and R13."

    2. David, Fito (2023-02-13). "Yanran Chen: Exploring the Dream W". Vanity Teen.

      I cannot link this article because it is on the global backlist at meta:Spam blacklist. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2024-11#vanityteen.com. I see no evidence that the magazine is unreliable. The article notes: "Yanran Chen @yanran_chen_ is a Chinese artist known for her surrealist illustrations that explore the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. She is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with Balenciaga, Issey Miyake, and Moleskin. Her colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror, and is influenced by old Japanese horror comic artists Kazuo Umezu, Shintaro Kago, and Suehiro Maruo. Her art reflects her worldview as a teenager and artist in the 21st century, mixing beautiful and ugly, bizarre and real, and opposing forces and concepts that coexist in her work."

    3. "Chinese teen's sci-fi art series showcased in Las Vegas". China Daily. 2024-11-21. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "The Playpower Collection, an innovative art series by 19-year-old Chinese artist Chen Yanran and her studio Accro Studio, was presented at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas over the weekend. ... Chen, born in 2005, serves as the lead designer for the Playpower Collection. Her distinctive, postmodern sci-fi aesthetic aligns seamlessly with the themes of Supernova Era."

    4. Patidar, Natasha (2025-06-12). ""Neon Dreamland": A Journey Into Yanran Chen's Surreal World". The Beijinger. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Last weekend, I stepped into a space that felt like stepping into someone else's subconscious – a neon-hued, oddly tender and strangely futuristic dreamscape. Yanran Chen's first solo exhibition, “Neon Dreamland,” housed in the newly opened ART FOCUS space in Beijing's vibrant 798 Art District, is less of an art show and more of a portal into an alternate dimension. At only 20 years old, Chen has already established a distinct visual language: rooted in surrealism but infused with the glossy, fast-moving energy of anime, science fiction, and digital culture. Walking through the exhibition, I found myself repeatedly stopping, not just to admire the technical detail, but to process the emotional tension in the works. It's a world where innocence and eeriness coexist – where childhood nostalgia meets artificial intelligence."

    5. Wilson, Abbie (2025-05-28). "Artifice as Emotion: The Posthuman Aesthetics of Yanran Chen". Our Culture Mag. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s Neon Dreamland, her first solo exhibition in China, isn’t a debut — it’s a simulation of one. Hosted in the new immersive art space ART FOCUS, nestled in Beijing’s 798 Art District like a glowing node in the city’s nervous system, the show feels less like stepping into a gallery and more like logging into someone else’s subconscious — someone raised on anime, speculative fiction, and the ambient dread of being terminally online. Chen, born in 2005, doesn’t make work that suggests influence — her sculptures, installations, and illustrated avatars breathe the language of the posthuman without needing translation. She doesn’t channel the digital age — she excretes it. The exhibition opens with her personal work — The Mechanical Lifeform, Dinner, pieces that first turned heads at ComplexCon LA, though even that setting now feels quaint compared to the eerily calm, ultra-designed zone in which they’re currently housed. These works don’t explain themselves — they glisten."

    6. Payos, Alyanna Raissa J. (2025-05-28). "Yanran Chen's First Solo Exhibition In China Is Out Of This World". Vogue Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s artistic universe is a world without borders. Cyberpunk chimeras, peculiar female figures, and surrealist scenes beyond imagination are brought to life in her latest exhibition. Titled “Neon Dreamland”, it marks the 20-year-old artist’s first ever solo show in China and is also the opening exhibition of the newly launched ART FOCUS space by Tang Contemporary Art."

    7. Hu, Denni (2025-03-28). "Gucci's Bamboo Universe Unveiled in Shanghai Exhibition". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Also included in the exhibition are four figurines created by Yanran Chen, the 19-year-old Chinese sculptor known for her work that blends body horror and surrealism. Marrying fashion and fantasy, Chen’s dolls, perhaps her alter egos, are seen carrying miniature bamboo bags and modeling looks from recent collections. "

    8. Trang, Quỳnh (2022-10-06). "Discuss with Chloe Chen, the young artist, on her amazing surrealistic illustrations". Harper's Bazaar Vietnam. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Emerging illustrator Chloe Chen (Yanran) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with brands like Moleskine and Balenciaga. Studying in Japan, the young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at three. By 13, she had started to create extraordinary illustrations rich with imagination and creativity. Most of her work excavates the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. At first glance, Chen’s artistic universe might seem playful and light, often featuring girls submerged in the intangible space between childhood innocence and jaded adolescence. But lean closer to the canvas and you’ll plunge headlong into a quizzical realm where nightmares and mysteries swirl alongside soul-deep ruminations on the self. Chen’s colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is entirely infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror."

    9. "陈嫣冉的超现实主义插画，来自于漫画、梦境、人与时间的灵感交集" [Yanran Chen's Surrealist Illustrations Draw Inspiration from Comics, Dreams, Humanity, and Time]. Elle China (in Chinese). 2022-09-19. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "新锐插画师陈嫣冉（又名Chloe Chen）只有17岁，但她的超现实主义画作已经促成了与Moleskin、巴黎世家等品牌的合作。这位年轻的中国艺术家3岁时第一次拿起画笔，13岁就可以创作出充满想象力与创造力的插画作品，而如今，她正于日本深造。她的大部分作品挖掘了不受时间与空间限制的梦境世界。"

      From Google Translate: "Emerging illustrator Chen Yanran (also known as Chloe Chen) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist paintings have already led to collaborations with brands such as Moleskin and Balenciaga. This young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at the age of 3, and was able to create imaginative and creative illustrations at the age of 13. Now, she is studying in Japan. Most of her works explore the dream world that is not restricted by time and space."

    10. Dai, Xiaoli 戴小橦 (2024-03-23). "国际潮流文化盛事ComplexCon来港 点燃时尚消费新热度" [Global Street Culture Event ComplexCon Comes to Hong Kong, Igniting a New Wave of Fashion Consumption] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "除了潮流品牌，展区内还有来自世界各地的艺术家们携最新作品亲临现场与公众交流。来自北京的05后新锐艺术家陈嫣冉的作品展位成了不少参观者打卡的热门点，她这次特别带来了新作品“梦魇机器人”。记者注意到，她作品的主人公大都是留着短发的少女，陈嫣冉表示，少女的想象一定程度上源自于她对于本我的追溯，“部分是我艺术人格的视觉化呈现，但并不是说这些角色完全代表我自己。”这次的“梦魇机器人”则是希望通过赛朋博克的机械外壳，探索敏感纤细的人心变化。"

      From Google Translate: In addition to trendy brands, artists from all over the world also visited the exhibition area with their latest works to communicate with the public. The booth of Chen Yanran, a post-05 emerging artist from Beijing, became a popular spot for many visitors to check in. This time, she brought a new work "Nightmare Robot". The reporter noticed that the protagonists of her works are mostly girls with short hair. Chen Yanran said that the imagination of girls to a certain extent comes from her tracing back to her true self. "Part of it is the visual presentation of my artistic personality, but it does not mean that these characters completely represent myself." This time, the "Nightmare Robot" hopes to explore the sensitive and delicate changes in people's hearts through the mechanical shell of Cyberpunk."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Yanran (simplified Chinese: 陈嫣冉; traditional Chinese: 陳嫣冉), also known as Chloe Chen, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 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 speedy keep‎. Deletion does not seem like the proper remedy for the issue stated in the deletion request, as it seems like the nominator is implying a merge is appropriate. Others have noted this below as well. Fuzheado | Talk 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran

[edit]
June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We also have June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel that I believe needs to be deleted at this point. This is clearly part of a single, escalating conflict involving consecutive and interrelated military actions by both Iran and Israel. Splitting the narrative into two separate articles, one for Iranian strikes and another for Israeli strikes fragments the context and misrepresents the nature of events unfolding as a bilateral conflict. These events are not isolated incidents but part of a sustained campaign that both sides acknowledge will continue for weeks. As such, they warrant a single unified article that treats the conflict holistically, rather than from two opposing angles. Crampcomes (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. We definitely need one, unified article for this. Iran has already accepted Israel's attack is a declaration of war [3] and I dont see the strikes de-escalating anytime soon. Abu Isa 🇴🇲 14:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other relevant discussions currently taking place:
Maybe admin help will be needed to sort all of this out. JBchrch talk 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s my counter proposal: Merge both articles instead
Both articles are currently nominated for deletion, which is wrong because then which article will represent this conflict? Both should be merged and renamed to 2025 Iran–Israel strikes for now.
1. If the crisis continues for the next few days (extremely likely), then we rename it to 2025 Iran–Israel conflict. If it continues on its current scale for the next few weeks & news sources depict it as a war, then we rename it to 2025 Iran-Israel war but no need to rush for that now, it’ll be a different discussion.
Either ways, if it becomes clear that this is a full-blown conflict and news sources continue to report it as such for the following weeks we should then rename 2024–2025 Iran-Israel conflict —> 2024 Iran-Israel strikes as they are by that point a separate low-level event, which served as a prelude to the long running tensions leading up to this current conflict. First, this'll prevent confusion between the Iran-Israel conflict of 2025, and second, it’ll reflect the small magnitude of the 2024 events as opposed to this. (By the way, this isn’t original research. News articles tend to reflect this now that the two countries are heavily bombing each other.) 88.238.37.182 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, first procedurally, as this is currently bolded article in the main page's In the news. Secondly, even if there would be a single war, that potential article would almost certainly require splitting per WP:SIZE, with one article for Israeli airstrikes. Not to mention undisputable notability. Brandmeistertalk 14:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Unwise in my view to flag for deletion a main page article that is clearly notable. We can discuss merging separately.
JBchrch talk 14:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - individual military operations routinely get their own articles, this is like arguing that Operation Overlord shouldn't have its own article because it was part of "a single, escalating conflict" (WWII). There are articles dealing with the conflict as a whole, such as Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). There should probably be an additional article for "2025 Iran–Israel conflict" that covers both the Operation Rising Lion and Operation True Promise III. But it's completely reasonable for both Operation Rising Lion and Operation True Promise III to get their own articles, I can't see any reasoning by which they don't meet Wikipedia's present notability standards.
Mosi Nuru (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree Alis0451 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: As no valid reason for deletion was provided. This AfD reads more like a merge request. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:23, 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. The discussion has been derailed with bludgeoning and personal attacks, but I see a general agreement that there is insufficient quality sourcing to write an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

[edit]
Randy Cooper (Model maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.
    As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.
    Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.
    Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response.
    Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications
    The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic),  Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!
    And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b "aren't online"? You know better than to require online sources... Toadspike [Talk] 07:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying I can't verify them, so I can't say how extensive they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on independent sourcing that speaks to notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote something similar earlier in the conversation. By now, people may not be reading what I wrote, so I'm writing again. Because of the ignore all rules rule that was made to make sure that articles that are obviously notable are not deleted because of rules, I think that voters should think about whether they believe this article is notable rather than about policy. As I said earlier, why would non interview sources be any more credible than interview in this case? Many credible sources found him notable enough to write about. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of bludgeoning or you will lose access to edit this discussion. That's your opinion to which you're entitled, but it does not overrule consensus which is what you have consistently been trying to do. Star Mississippi 02:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The consensus so far is to keep. Are you trying to divert from a consensus you don't like by accusing me of bludgeoning? "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I don't like being lawyered. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could write a longer statement about how IAR, while being a good reason to be bold, is not a free pass to ignore broader consensus whenever one wishes to or how the common sense of "noteworthiness" or "celebrity" is not actually what is meant by the guideline we've unfortunately titled Wikipedia:Notability (the former more commonly considered under WP:SIGNIFICANCE), and instead we mean "can we write an article meeting the core content policies" (q.v. WP:WHYN).
    I'm not sure how much that would actually help though, so I'll — while acknowledging the fact that we have discretion to bend even the core content policies (barring WP:NPOV) given a Very Good Reason — simply opine that editors have failed to establish the no doubt Very Obvious Very Good Reason we should be measuring the Obvious Notability by something other than the usual standard, which does in fact require sources to be independent of the subject, among the other requirements (direct and in-depth, reliable, secondary). Given that, in my opinion, we lack both the Very Good Reason or the sources that can meet the usual standard, I see no other option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need IAR, it meets GNG ("...now I know my ABC's") Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am convinced by above explanation and nomination statement. Notability has not been shown by the participants in this discussion. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Now for the real meat and potatoes, I am not seeing sources that meat [;)] the requirements for Notability as Alpha has explained above, emphasis on secondary. I tried looking his name up in conjunction with different movies that he worked on or even the models that he sells but I couldn't find anything. (Unfortunately?) As a species we usually value the person that put the design on paper more than the person that puts that same design into the real world and this seems to be a similar case. Moritoriko (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last sentence sounds like whataboutism. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ENGVAR, wikt:encyclopaedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I caught my own mistake, but you saw it first. However, there are so many bad articles on Wikipedia. This is a decent one. Why waste time when there is so much to do? Orlando Davis (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you didn't understand my last sentence. What it means is that we have an article about Sagrada Familia and about the designer Antoni Gaudí (the person that put the design on paper) but most of the stonemasons who have carved the intricate detail (the people that put the design into the real world) haven't received coverage for them to meet GNG.
    Looking up the movies he worked on, the large pieces that receive coverage (DeLorean time machine for example) seem to be designed by someone else and Cooper just worked to make the design a reality. Moritoriko (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Often, model makers are respected for their craftsmanship, and it doesn't matter that they don't design. The talent is in the handwork. For example, model makers of ships and aircraft. Norman a Ough didn't design the ships he made for movies. However, Randy Cooper has designed his own work. Also, there is the fact that the modeler's unique style in the models makes the models uniquely his own, even if he follows a design. Anyway, what matters is what Randy Kryn said: the article passes GNG. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. it was declined multiple times, but the editor is not required to follow AfC recommendations so we ended up here. Star Mississippi 01:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it was declined so many times is that many reviewers tend to have a deletionist bias and often don't even read the articles that they turn down. They assumed that no changes had been made when changes had been made. Several other experienced editors on this forum believe it is a worthy article. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is encyclopedic; editors often get that confused. You can say positive things about a subject if credible sources have said those things. Reviewers are not necessarily experts. Some have less experience than I do. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some parts that I considered when making that comment:
    He considers himself "really lucky because a lot of people don't get a chance to do what they really want to do." (who cares?)
    Cooper has said his favorite kits as a child were the Saturn V and the Apollo kits. (who cares?)
    Having transitioned out of the film business,... (tone, He left the film industry)
    I looked through the IMDb pages of Solar Crisis, Batman Returns, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man 2, and he isn't mentioned at all. I'm really not sure what the claim of notability is supposed to be? He built some props for a couple movies and now designs his own model kits. Moritoriko (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say who cares but that's how to write boring articles. Those are interesting facts that make it readable. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. It seems to me like you're just making stuff up. We don't use IMDB on Wikipedia. (If it was up to me it would be ok) Stargate, Starship Troopers, and Bicentennial man are referenced on Metacritic. The rest by Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller. The fact that he has articles and has been interviewed by so many credible sources means he is a notable model maker. Orlando Davis (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember the name of the guideline or link thing that I was thinking about when I said "who cares", but yes it was a bit crass. If anyone else reading this has an idea of what I meant to say, I'd welcome suggestions. I know we don't source from IMDb on Wikipedia, but what is important is that the 4 movies I mentioned are not the ones that you have sourced to Metacritic. In fact they are sourced to a source from 1979, more than 10 years before any of them came out. I don't see any comment about the last point but I found the hot link I wanted for it, WP:FORMAL. Moritoriko (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The date for the article was wrong. It is 2014. I just changed it. Thank you for pointing that out. If you want to change the article in the areas you pointed out, be bold and do it yourself. It is a trivial issue in my opinion. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many articles have you written? 1? And you think you're ready to be involved in an AFD debate? Orlando Davis (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft as a WP:ATD, to provide further opportunity for research and development. BD2412 T 01:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete owing to insufficient reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is insufficiently established - per others here and the additional five AfC reviewers who rejected the draft on grounds of notability. I would not oppose returning it to draftspace for development if anyone thinks the issues can be addressed (the possible notability of his company has not been discussed, for example), but with restoration subject to WP:DRV. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:00, 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. ✗plicit 14:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolakis Deligiannis

[edit]
Nikolakis Deligiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the claim that he was a member of the Greek Senate could be corroborated, then he would pass notability criteria. However, that isn't in the single source provided. Searches turned up zero. Has been tagged for months for better sourcing, without improvement. If more sourcing is provided, please ping me, but based on what I was able to find, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Greece. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless somebody can actually locate proper verification that he actually held the WP:NPOL-passing offices he's claimed (but not sourced) to have held. We have seen hoax articles created which falsely claimed that their subjects had held NPOL-passing offices they never really held — so notability under NPOL doesn't hinge on saying that the person held an NPOL-passing office, it hinges on reliably sourcing that the claim to holding an NPOL-passing office is accurate. But I haven't been able to find any verification either, and indeed the sole source present in the article briefly namechecks the existence of someone named Nikolakis Deligiannis while failing to verify the NPOL claim at all. So, like nom, I'll reconsider if somebody can verify the claim with proper sourcing, but it can't stick around unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ideally, an editor who can read Greek could take a look at the sources for the Greek language articles on the elections or legislative sessions and see if there is a list of members anywhere that includes him. (per WP:BEFORE). While it seems to me likely this particular article is about a real person (mostly because he has a few family members with bios that have some sources), I do see the problems with letting an unsourced article continue to exist because its likely mostly true. WP:V is important here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- agree with nom points, and also by TulsaPoliticsFan about having a greek language familiar wikipedian check in or possible new RS to support the article, my searches so far shows no significant hits, though this could be the limits of my current language understanding, also checking into the article's alt languages even the Greek wiki version does not have sourcing. if any sources can be found for review then "draftify" can be an ATD while it's being improved.Lorraine Crane (talk) 08:01, 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 14:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuele Pugliese

[edit]
Samuele Pugliese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics, nor for kick boxing HeinzMaster (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Pradhan

[edit]
Aditya Pradhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sole cited source only has one sentence about the subject. Found coverage about researcher or engineering student with the same name, but base on context they are not the same person as the subject of this article. Could not find significant coverage about this particular Aditya Pradhan in either English or Japanese. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women

[edit]
Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's query was SIRS, not the existence of sourcing. Relist for those sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are the good guys (Bröckers/Schreyer)

[edit]
We are the good guys (Bröckers/Schreyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi, this is a book written by two 9/11 (and other) conspiracy theorists and completely irrelevant. The article uses almost no references and the author of the article is under investigation in de.wikipedia.org for excessive usage of KI and lots of fake references. Jo1971 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article was created in the German Wikipedia before the technical possibility of using AI. It was recently translated from German, but nothing was changed. The sources are verifiable. It is true that for my more recent articles, unintentional errors have unfortunately arisen due to inexperienced and too optimistic/credulous/naive/trusting use of AI and those errors need to be corrected. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of the old articles. Furthermore, the criterion of political bias cannot apply, as very harsh criticism from almost all reviews available online has also been incorporated with references.Gabel1960 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Unlike songs or movies, books are not notable because of how many are sold. Literature and popular culture are measured very differently. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jahaza linked two in-depth reviews in reliable sources (and a third in some kind of blog). That is enough to demonstrate notability. I am baffled by Oaktree and Bearian here, who claimed in turn that there are no reviews and that people are arguing for notability based on sales stats, neither of which seems to be true. And yeah, this should probably be moved to a better title. Toadspike [Talk] 16:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toadspike. 2 good reviews is enough for NBOOK. Should be moved though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 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. Star Mississippi 02:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election

[edit]
2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 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 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Delhi. Star Mississippi 02:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agra College

[edit]
Agra College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage of the subject exist. Most of it is derived from primary sources or sources that are definitely not reliable or for that matter independent from the subject Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ngouba Singh

[edit]
Ngouba Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ngouba Singh had a very brief career and I can't find any evidence of a WP:GNG or a WP:SPORTBASIC pass. He doesn't seem to have played since 2015 so not likely to have any notability in the future either so no point in sending to draft space. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 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 Draftify‎. as that's how I'm interpreting "delete as rescuable". Star Mississippi 02:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adsorption operations

[edit]
Adsorption operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD to enforce draftification or delete. The article quotes heavily a single source which combines a range of standard surface science topics under a neologism of "adsorption operations". I don't think the originator realized that their source did WP:SYNTH. (As a card-carrying surface scientist I also see some gaps in the science described here.) Since they have already once overridden a draftification it needs to go to AfD for at least draftification. I will leave to the debate whether a delete as not rescuable is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rescuable. We can definitely fix this article, I don't think it's quite article status, but definitely has the potential to be an article after improvement. Ev0308 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enforce draftification. If the draft expires it can be deleted at that time. Gjs238 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing much in the way of references for the "Adsorption operations" neologism. The article contradicts itself moving from ions/molecules on surfaces to dust and smoke in the applications section. Summary seems to focus only on (ion-exchange) resin based methods of separation. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:35, 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 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalrinchhana Tochhawng

[edit]
Lalrinchhana Tochhawng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP with no indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The closest thing to significant coverage in my searches was Inkhel, which is a brief transfer announcement. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 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 with June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran‎. While this AfD has been opened for only 3 days, it has generated sufficient discussion to arrive at that there is a consensus to keep the article with a merge with June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. A separate RM will be opened to determine the title. – robertsky (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–Israel War

[edit]
Iran–Israel War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a very neutral WP:POV, written by just one person and I haven't seen WP:RSs calling it the Israel-Iran war. Laura240406 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Both sides have called it a "war" a couple times, furthermore, if this isn't considered a war then what is? Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
It’s already a war. There’s direct attacks on Iranian and Israeli cities for days. It’s unlike the tit for tat attacks of last year. Also, it’s different from the 2024 conflict too. 2603:7001:7340:33:D79:3D76:4F83:5210 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose I'd definitely keep this article. The editor's right, this is most certainly a war. As they've pointed out above, there are enough reputable sources referring to it as such.
What's more, I don’t see any reason at all to delete the article, given that:
a) there’s clear community support for having it,
b) this article holds primacy, and
c) it meets the criteria required for a standalone topic.
From my understanding of WP rules, this article clearly ticks all the boxes.
As for the suggestion that it’s a POV fork of the June 2025 Israeli attack on Iran article. It’s only natural there’d be some overlap at this stage, considering the war’s just begun. That said, from what I’ve seen, this article does include distinct information and offers a broader overview, which is exactly what you’d expect from a general article on the war.
All in all, I believe we should keep this article. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If most people feel we should move this to draft and wait because its wp:toosoon then I won't mind. I worked a lot on this and I do think it would come of use. Denisaptr (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Denisaptr, there is clearly a WP:COMMONNAME justification for this. Two sovereign states are bombing each other's capitals. It's a war between them, and a good article to collect all information about these operations as before there were two separate articles for Israeli strikes on Iran and vice versa, not useful. Also makes a distinction between the earlier strikes this year which were much less severe than this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More a battle than a war. Do we call the longer period of Yemen and Israel firing missiles at each other, the Yemen-Israel war? Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Widely called a war per the sources listed by @Denisaptr and the article itself is very useful as a common place for information on the war. Genabab (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a war between Iran and Israel because they attack each other simultaneously. While Iran launched rockets at Israel, Israel did the same thing at Iran. Farcazo (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Strong Oppose’’’ It‘s war and more and more sources are referring to it as such. The articles on particular strikes should simply be merged into here. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Hasn't the Government of Iran call it a war? Crispybeatle (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's war

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/06/13/israel-iran-war-netanyahu-us-scenarios/

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/416833/israel-iran-war-missiles-tel-aviv-strike-nuclear

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-israel-latest-news-war-attacks-b2770021.html

https://time.com/7293976/israel-iran-attack-war-hezbollah/

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-special-edition-israeli-strikes-iran-june-13-2025-200-pm-et

https://www.economist.com/interactive/middle-east-and-africa/2025/06/13/tracking-the-israel-iran-war

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/dan-shapiro-israel-iran-attacks

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/06/13/what-an-israel-iran-war-means-for-oil-prices

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/12/middleeast/israel-iran-strikes-intl-hnk Denisaptr (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it’s best if you organise the multiple sources you’ve provided into a single list? KiltedKangaroo (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was no consensus to make this article. There's an ongoing discussion on the 2024 Iran-Israel conflict and the June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran so, until there is consensus to make this article then it should be deleted for now. PopularGames (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:POVFORK from 2024 Iran-Israel conflict and the two articles mentioned by Laura240406 with numerous NPOV problems. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per above arguments weak keep until the situation is clearer.--Ideophagous (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this article, then it is fine though I expect a later discussion down the road. I just don't see the need to delete when we have alternatives. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have four articles that all only partially cover this topic, and it's difficult for any reader which wants a general overview. How is that a reason for deletion? Reliable sources are not treating the events as if they are separate.
There is already an article on the Israel-Yemen conflict, Israeli attacks on Yemen (May 2025–present). The rationale you propose would have it deleted. Dege31 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an unusually large number of editors !voting using non-standard AfD terminology, which can create confusion. For clarity, please say you either want to Keep or Delete the article. When you write "Support" or "Oppose", it is unclear whether you are opposing/supporting the proposal to delete, or rather opposing/supporting the existence of the article itself. I have taken the liberty of standardizing the !votes to say "keep/delete" as opposed to "support/oppose". FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It is a war! I don't see why I should explain it to anyone sane! Mehdi Taba (Mehdi Taba) 08:12, 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 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ningthoujam Samananda

[edit]
Ningthoujam Samananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with a very short career and no sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find is Mumbai Mirror, which is standard match report coverage rather than anything that we can build a biography from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Light Air Services Beechcraft 1900 crash

[edit]
2025 Light Air Services Beechcraft 1900 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Confusion over Rubkona plane crash death toll explained". Sudans Post. Bentiu, South Sudan. 30 January 2025. Retrieved 14 June 2025.
  2. ^ Lasuba, Memoscar (22 May 2025). "Investigation into Unity plane crash still ongoing -Napoleon". Eye Radio. Retrieved 14 June 2025.
  3. ^ The committee of inquiry investigating circumstances surrounding the Unity State plane crash on 29th January 2025, stressed advancements in... South Sudan Broadcasting Corporation. 22 May 2025. Retrieved 14 June 2025 – via Facebook.
  • Keep : I believe it had one sole survivor as well as the fact there are enough sources in the article to show its notability. Also, it was the deadliest crash in 2025 for one day. Also, there is some sustain coverage. Zaptain United (talk) 19:47, 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 14:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triple J Hottest 100 of the Past 20 Years, 2013

[edit]
Triple J Hottest 100 of the Past 20 Years, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent RS on the page for many years. No reason to think that this is a notable subject or that reliable independent sources exist to show that the criteria for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 09:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Nilsson (wrestler)

[edit]
Gustaf Nilsson (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Sweden at the 1920 Summer Olympics, because I could not find any in-depth coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 08:53, 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 June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. For consistency's sake, speedily close this request as consensus to merge, in parallel with the keep/merge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. No need to keep this open further. Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel

[edit]
June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suggest deletion of this page and merging its content with June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran, with a title "2025 Iran-Israel conflict". Having two separate articles on who attacked where has to be the most inefficient way of passing information to readers. Ecrusized (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Techyman23 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what reputable sources say, and I don't see any calling it a war for the moment. Happy to be proven wrong though. JBchrch talk 13:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find from Google and picking sources that seem reliable to me.
1. Israeli envoy to US says country 'in war' with Iranian regime, as he confirms one killed in strikes
2. The Conversation: As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options
3. Vox: The Israel-Iran war hinges on three big things
4. How War Between Iran and Israel Could Escalate—and Drag In the United States
5. Israel Iran War News Live Updates: After Tehran's deadly retaliatory strikes, Israel threatens more attacks on Iran
6. CNBC: Israel Iran War Live Updates: US is shooting down weapons fired at Israel from land and sea, says report Collorizador (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have reassessed and changed my vote below. JBchrch talk 20:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the strikes are still ongoing and they might very well warrant a separate article. It's best to wait until the strikes end for a proper assessment to be made. RisingTzar (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In both April and October 2024, the attacks by each side were separated by several days and so were best treated as somewhat distinct events. This is clearly a more fluid, intensive and bilateral conflict that should be covered by a single article. PrimaPrime (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I still think we should wait before taking any actions, regardless of what my opinion or anyone else's is; since this is still a developing situation. Keivan.fTalk 17:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The way it is currently set up is pretty good and we don't need to be in a hurry to change it all of a sudden, but something like "June 2025 Israel-Iran Strikes/War" would likely be the best. Calling it a war seems dubious, since it is just back and forth strikes at this point and not actual ground combat, but "June 2025 Israeli Strikes on Iran and Iranian Strikes on Israel" would be way too much of a mouthful and wouldn't work either. So I am not sure about the specifics of how exactly we should name the merged article, but I think there is a very big benefit overall in having them both in the same article.
After all, all of the strikes that are currently taking place (whether it is Israeli strikes on Iran or Iranian strikes on Israel) are part of one larger event. From the perspective of the reader who wants to be more informed on the events taking place in June 2025 (whether that be right now or at some point in the future), it would be more convenient to have all the events in one article, that way they can easily read through the timeline and have a good idea of how the back and forth exchange went, instead of having to flip back and forth between two articles that separate out the actions of each side. It also reduces some of the redundancy since you wouldn't need to maintain two different sections dedicated to background information, one for the Israeli strikes on Iran and one for the Iranian strikes on Israel, that both just say basically the same information anyways.
We don't necessarily need to merge it immediately. After all, it would be a pretty complicated task to merge all the information, remove whatever is redundant, and also come up with a good title for the new merged article. Over all, the two articles would be better off merged rather than separate though. At least that is my opinion. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I don't see reputable sources describing it as a "conflict" yet, and I don't think that we should be calling this shot. Currently, the fighting is being described as a strike vs a retaliation. JBchrch talk 12:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Support merging the two articles. I have reassessed how the reputable sources have been treating the topic, and it now seems to me like they are treating this as an ongoing conflict rather as a strike + retaliation. For instance, NYT, TOI and Haaretz all have a single continuous thread of news updates. JBchrch talk 20:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Too soon. The fight hasn't been subsided yet. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Financial Times is calling it a 'Conflict between regional rivals', the New York Times has 'Israel-Iran Conflict' as the heading for its coverage, the Washington Post has 'new Israel-Iran conflict' in a front-page headline. Merging would be appropriate. Nmzzzd (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is clearly part of a single, escalating conflict involving consecutive and interrelated military actions by both Iran and Israel. Splitting the narrative into two separate articles, one for Iranian strikes and another for Israeli strikes fragments the context and misrepresents the nature of events unfolding as a bilateral conflict. These events are not isolated incidents but part of a sustained campaign that both sides acknowledge will continue for weeks. As such, they warrant a single unified article that treats the conflict holistically, rather than from two opposing angles. ElijahUHC (Talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch talk 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025 June 14#Israeli strikes on Iran. Ninixed (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge The rush by some to be the first to create the article is what led to this. What should have been proposed was moving the title of the article about the Israeli strikes, not nominating it for deletion. Hauskasic (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Instead, both June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran and June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel should be redirected and merged into a single article titled 2025 Israel–Iran strikes for unified coverage. I have change my mind from redirect to Speedy Keep as per ( Vanilla, Gwillhickers ). Behappyyar (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep / Speedily close this AfD for the same reasons why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran was speedily closed as keep. I would have !voted in that discussion, but in the time I spent writing my !vote, several other editors already !voted the same way and the discussion was closed. What I was going to say there was more or less that we really should not be using AfD for situations where deletion is a nonsensical outcome and no one, not even the nom, is advocating it. Yes, it is very common for AfDs to end in a consensus for an alternative to deletion, but that does not make AfD the place to propose those alternatives. The nom mentions deletion in their comments, but it really sounds like merging is all that's actually being proposed here. In this case, it seems like a good faith misunderstanding on the part of the nom of the differences between deleting and merging, and unfamiliarity with the list of valid reasons to delete a page, so I'm mostly just complaining about discussions I've seen in the past where AfD was used when deletion wasn't even on the table. This discussion should be speedily closed or withdrawn and the nom should start a regular merge discussion on the talk page by following the instructions that can be found at WP:MERGE.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Keep and Wait This article documents a rapidly evolving situation. In the next 2 weeks, Iranian strikes could be significant and receive separate, notable media coverage. I really think it's too early for a merge, and there doesn't seem to be any harm in waiting. I agree with User:Natg_19 that there is a precedent for these types of articles. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. — Agree with Vanilla Wizard, Among other concerns, the June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran article has 291 citations, and mixing them in with any other article would be a project, to say the least. Further, the incidents in question are their own unique events and deserve their own articles, with links to each other in See also, or perhaps at the top of their respective pages. Many wars, or if you prefer, 'conflicts', have separate articles for the major battles involved. Another consideration is -- what happens if there's another such incident a week or two from now? Do we pile that on top of the articles proposed for a merge? Hopefully a decision will be made not based on a marginal consensus, but common sense and practicality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that this article also overlaps heavily with Israel – Iran war, in my view Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose you should try Template:Merge and i would wait (see Talk:2024 Iran–Israel conflict#It’s Confirmed a War) Braganza (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest an on-page merge discussion with the separate articles. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran; deletion is not a valid outcome here Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable event deserving of its own article. I agree that an article titled 2025 Iran-Israel conflict should be created but I oppose the deletion of this article. For Example, we have an article on World War 2 and on the Battle of Stalingrad. It'd be ridiculous to delete the Battle of Stalingrad article because of the existence of a WW2 article. This article focuses on the Iranian attacks on Israel, and the 2025 Iran-Israel conflict article should focus on the wider conflict. IJA (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - On further reflection, I believe these articles should be merged as to not be a POV Fork. All the information should be included in one article. IJA (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Blatant and inconsistent. Everything else i'd say is pretty self-explanatory. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The rogue state of Israel is clearly the aggressor here and their actions are illegal under international law. So any merged article should be titled as ISRAEL'S 2025 AGGRESSION ON IRAN. Töhfələri (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that. Article titles should follow WP:NPOV Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you severely misunderstand what Wikipedia is.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s too early, I suggest we wait until either this escalates or dies down. If this escalates into a broader conflict, then I would support a merge The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge, the attacks are happening simultaneously, its a military engagement from both side. Thus merge into an article like 2025 Iran Israel conflict/strike exchange. I don't know if it developed into a war. If yes, then 2025 Iran Israel war is perfect but for that we have to wait more I guess. Ku423winz1 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the events are clearly interconnected and overlapping each other. They should be merged into one article. Mike Skalon (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Makes no sense to have two articles for the same thing. Merging seems the best User:DontWannaDoThis≠ 14:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think it is an event that is only related to the first strike thus should be merged and just be taken on a whole as a war/conflict. Sigmarecep31 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At this point I've seen several news agencies refer to what's happening as at least a conflict, and it would be much more simple they both be part of one article about the conflict. Qqars (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are two operations here, Operation Rising Lion and Operation True Promise III, each of which clearly meets notability requirements. There may be use for a third article, like "2025 Israel-Iran missile exchanges," but this should be in addition to the two articles, not in lieu of. Just like having an article WWII does not obviate the need for articles like Operation Overlord and Operation Barbarossa.
Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Should be merge into one article named 2025 Iran–Israel conflict. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Merge - Merged article should be named "2025 Iran-Israel conflict". Stormae1992 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derailing conversation (and some offensive comments), this isn't WP:RM. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:::What I see is a cabalah of Israel loving editors retaining the article of Israel's unprovoked and illegal 2025 attack on Iran while manouvering to delete one on Iran's justified retaliation. This is typical Western propaganda by a war mongering US MAGA anti-Muslim propaganda website like Wikipedia.Töhfələri (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an outrageous comment. I strongly suggest that you retract it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to offend editors based on descrimination is not looking good here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Töhfələri: the person you are replying to and calling "a war mongering US MAGA anti-Muslim" "manouvering [sic] to delete one on Iran's justified retaliation" !voted to keep this article. I strongly recommend you cool down the accusations of bad faith, familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, and avoid this editing area altogether before you speedrun getting yourself a WP:NOTHERE block.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Death to Israel? People preventing their death are not agressors. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not debate whether Israel's pre-emptive strike should be considered offensive or defensive on this AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Israel attacked Iran, but Wikipedia must remain neutral in comments on sensitive topics. Farcazo (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metallurgist (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In previous direct confrontations between Iran and Israel, each sides' strikes received their own articles. This standard should remain upheld.
NesserWiki (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has on several occasions vowed to 'wipe Israel off the map', and is earnestly trying to produce weapons grade plutonium. Should Israel have waited to see if they use such a weapon and then strike? Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's just a stage (an attempt to show a response) of an Israeli operation so can be merged to the original article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and change name of June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran or to "June 2025 Israeli-Iran missile exchange" or "2025 Iran-Israel conflict" like the OP suggests. Having two articles on the same topic but from different sides will make it more difficult to maintain timelines and NPOV on intertwined missile exchanges. The OP of this AFD writes that they request a merge, not a delete, in the subtext. AFD is misleading, the OP should use a merge template to achieve the goals of the subtext. Relspas (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree, a merge would be fairly inconsistent (OTP 1 and OTP 2 both have their own articles). Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page pairs: (April 2024, April 2024) and (October 2024, October 2024) should not be setting a precedent for the choice to split the 2025 exchange into two pages. The exchanges in 2024 should also have Iran and Israeli strikes merged together. Splitting makes NPOV difficult to maintain, causes timelines to be split, and encourages bifurcation of editors and coverage of these pages, further hurting NPOV/representation. Relspas (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's morally and objectively wrong to delete this article when an article for the Israeli attack attack exists. It's straight up narrative-building... I'm fine with merging and renaming to "2025 Israel-Iran War," but NOT deleting.
  • Oppose Both of those two strikes are independent military operations, with Israel naming its operation Rising Lion and Iran naming its operation True Promise 3. We can't just fold Iran's operation into the article for Israel's. There already exists articles for both Operations True Promise 1 and True Promise 2, and there exists a disambiguation page that outlines the three (See Operation True Promise). Seeing as precedent was already set by creating articles for 1 and 2, the one for 3 should absolutely NOT be deleted. Kabahaly (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I support combining these articles. It's easy to find the first strikes since that's what's being reported most, but everything else is being ignored, both from the main page and editing. I support merging all of the pages relating to the strikes into one main page, which would allow for a more thorough and straightforward reading setting, rather than having to flick backward and forward between webpages. Essexman03 (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I was honestly baffled to find two separate pages about the current missile exchange. Having two separate article doesn't make any sense, these are not two independent attacks, this is a single conflict with attacks, retaliations, counter-attacks and so on. --cyclopiaspeak! 12:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vanilla Wizard. Skitash (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I already voted, I'd like to request a speedy/snow close of this discussion because AfD is clearly the wrong forum for what the nominator actually wants and therefore the nomination quite confusing for readers to see when they open this article. I already see an unsigned comment above mine ("It's morally and objectively wrong to delete this article...") that seems to be from someone who (understandably) misinterpreted the point of this discussion. — Anonymous 16:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Should be merged with the main article instead. --cyrfaw (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people treating this discussion as an opportunity to share their personal opinions about this conflict? Please remain on topic. NesserWiki (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose deleting and merging with Israeli strikes on Iran, I think BOTH articles should be merged onto Israel – Iran war and have their own sections. Its so wrong to merge the iranian strike article onto the israeli side and seems biased to me. Gish1991 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- (I've already voted)  There is nothing to be lost for either article by keeping the two articles in question as separate articles. Some feel that a merge would compromise, or upstage, the Israeli account -- some feel it would do the same for the Iranian account. Others feel that the two incidents, though related, are subjects unto themselves and warrant their own articles. No one wants either account deleted. Therefore, keep 'em separate and provide links to each article in their respective 'See also' sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait since the situation is still ongoing and may be as/more notable than the Israeli strikes on Iran. Substantive evidence of impact for both military and civilians across multiple areas of Israel has been proven in this article. Vataxevader (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The Iranian response even if insignificant has enough context for its own article. If the situation worsens (and it looks like it will) it could be merged into the Israel-Iran War main article. Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024 Iran–Israel conflict article has summary sections for the various incidents involved -- most of which have 'Further Information' or 'Main Article' links to the respective main articles. i.e.We do not merge the entire ' Iranian strikes' article with the 'Iran-Israel conflict' article, but just include a summary paragraph with a link to the main article, par with the other paragraphs... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep for now. Honestly, I think we should leave the article the way it is for now. Firstly, this whole thing is still unfolding, and it's too early to determine whether this is a full-scale war or merely a limited exchange of strikes. Neither side has officially announced declaration of war, and it might all cool down in a few days or weeks. Merging the articles under a broad title like 2025 Iran–Israel conflict might end up confusing. Wikipedia's got a policy about recent events encourages caution in ongoing developments. Right now, the sources aren't really calling this one big war... It is more like two separate sets of strikes. Keeping the articles split (Iran hitting Israel vs. Israel hitting Iran) helps lay things out more clearly... What happened, when, and why. That just makes it easier for readers to follow. I am totally open to merging later on, if this really turns into one big conflict and reliable sources start treating it that way. But for now, merging or deleting it might be wrong. — Malkawi99 (talk) 16:24, 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 14:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Evan Longhurst

[edit]
Christopher Evan Longhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a single-purpose account, with a possible COI or even PE, and they haven't addressed any of these issues at their talk page. I have to admit, however, that the subject does seem to be somewhat notable and worthy of an article, but the COI issues are concerning (to say the least). Another version of this article exists in draftspace at: Draft:Christopher Longhurst, which was rejected twice due to an apparent lack of notability. CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Wilson

[edit]
Ant Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG Junbeesh (talk) 06:40, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Copplestone

[edit]
Paul Copplestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet notability. The subject is a software engineer and founder of what looks like a non-notable company. The only source cited is a basic funding announcement, which doesn't establish anything on its own. There is nothing out there that gives in-depth, independent coverage. No sources that meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supabase

[edit]
Supabase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BaaS platform doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. There's no real in-depth coverage in independent, reliable media. Most of what's cited are press releases or basic funding announcements. This one [7] just reads like a promotional piece and the publisher itself doesn't look particularly notable or editorially independent. A quick Google search mostly turns up more of the same (blog posts and funding news). Nothing that really shows the platform is notable in the way Wikipedia defines it. Junbeesh (talk) 06:33, 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 05:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Barlow

[edit]
Neil Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears the highest level the subject played for was the third tier of American soccer and he had a brief and non-notable career. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 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. ✗plicit 05:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Barlow

[edit]
Jeremy Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The highest level the subject played at was the third tier of American soccer, failing to make an appearance in MLS. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:23, 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 05:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Barea

[edit]
Stephan Barea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barea earned a single cap for Puerto Rico, but otherwise had an insignificant career, the highest level he played at was the fourth tier of the United States. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:20, 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 05:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Yang

[edit]
Jasmine Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. IMDB and Twitter are not reliable sources. I found a couple sources online, but none of them seem reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:51, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Rayhan ad-Din

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Syed Rayhan ad-Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This AFD could be procedurally closed as the same nominator brought the article back to AFD after less than a month after the first AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 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.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search