Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 15

< June 14 June 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Ther is consensus that, even after some expansion, there is no sigcov, as required by SPORTCRIT. (Meant to do this yesterday, but didn't get around to it. Sorry for the delay.) (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Orendi

[edit]
Irina Orendi (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)

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage. The only two references here are a namedrop and a database, neither of which provide the WP:SIGCOV needed. A possible redirect is Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting on account of significant edits to the article after most delete !votes were posted. Pings to come.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun@Svartner@JacobTheRox@Clariniie and to a lesser extent @Gjb0zWxOb: Could you please comment on the recent expansion of the article and the argument of the IP above? Toadspike [Talk] 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "meeting WP:NATH" without significant coverage. NATH only states that "Significant coverage is likely to exist ..." Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this. I don't see notability being established here. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Toadspike - I would have thought that as closer you might like to see whether there was any good reason to think that this "expansion" had any reasonable chance of success prior to extending the discussion and spending yet more editor time on this, particularly in view of the large volume of these stub articles that require processing. For example, had it been me, I might have looked to see whether anything had been added that even with the maximum amount of charity could be described as significant coverage in a reliable source.
OK, so you have left it to us to comment on whether anything material has been improved about this article. And put simply, nothing has. The only sources added are passing mentions (literal single-word mentions) and database sources. Redirect it is.
It would be good if, rather than trying to convert statistics in to prose, or hype passing-mentions into to something they are not, the people who wish to expand these mass-created articles focused on finding significant coverage first. This would result in much less time being wasted both on their part and on those of the people who analyse the articles at AFD. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FOARP. Thanks for re-affirming your opinion. Closers summarize consensus on sources. They cannot evaluate sources in detail themselves. Of the ten sources added, four aren't database entries; if just one of those sources has sigcov, it may shift consensus. The closer cannot go further and decide on their own that those sources don't contain sigcov. Hence the relist. Toadspike [Talk] 13:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you how you close, but with 5 redirect v 1 keep on the board already, the consensus was already clear. Stating that new sources require this to be revisited is questioning that consensus. This is the first time I've contributed in this discussion - I normally don't bother !voting if the consensus already looks clear, as it did in this case. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Chawla

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lakshya Chawla (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 photographer. Sources consist of passing mentions, spammy advertorials, or self-published material. Not a single reliable source provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Noteworthy that two different SPAs have removed the COI template on this article. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CresiaBilli: Can you fix your link by adding https:// before www.? Thanks Agletarang (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources over several years. A dedicated profile in the 2019 Bloomsbury book Young India: The Heroes of Today[1] provides in-depth coverage, while feature articles in The Asian Age (2019), Times Now Hindi (2024)[2], and DNA India (2025)[3] focus on his career. HuffPost (2015)[4], The Indian Express (2015, 2017)[5][6], Vogue India (2022)[7], and The Wire (2025)[8] cover his notable projects and industry impact. The 2017 WeddingSutra award nomination further supports recognition. While Times Now Hindi and DNA India may raise churnalism concerns, their focus on Chawla’s career, combined with Yuva Bharat, Vogue India, and others, shows sustained, independent interest. I agree weak sources (e.g., TOI Mediawire) should be removed and am revising the article to remove resume-like language (e.g., CAT score) for neutrality. Cleanup, not deletion, is warranted.KKM2025 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC) — KKM2025 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Just following up on my earlier !vote to keep — the article has come a long way since then. It's now backed by strong, reliable sources, including a full chapter in a Bloomsbury-published book (Yuva Bharat), multiple features in Vogue India, and mainstream coverage from The Indian Express, The Asian Age, HuffPost, and The Wire. These are independent, in-depth sources that clearly establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I think this directly addresses the concerns about limited coverage and promotional tone that were raised earlier. The subject has a solid career in a creative field, and now the article reflects that in a balanced, well-sourced way. Definitely a keep from me.KKM2025 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it hasn't. The Indian Express merely credits him for two photos sourced from his Facebook, with no coverage on him. The Asian Age piece lacks a byline and reads like a paid-for spam. HuffPost, in essence, interviews him about his wedding photography experience with a random Hong Kong-based couple. The Wire carries one quote from him. This Vogue India article is self-published by his company Shutter Down Photography, while the other is a listicle containing a passing mention. None of these sources qualify towards notability, and not much has changed since the previous AfD in 2019. Yuvaank (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. No sigcov in reliable sources has been presented after several weeks. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Your Too Late I Already Died

[edit]
Nope Your Too Late I Already Died (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)

Article fails general notability (WP:GNG) and WP:NMUSIC . The only citation that provides actual information is from KnowYourMeme. Sosumiw (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is a professional article for Wikipedia. Also it’s only one source cited in the article. 2600:1700:4B40:8100:B101:A0EB:170B:1661 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I know KnowYourMeme generally shouldn't be cited, I believe this is a special case as it's an editorial from the website, which means it was written by someone with the authority. Besides the fact that it's already a viral, well-known meme, the song has starting entering several charts as well, so there is potential. MC-123 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KnowYourMeme (WP:KNOWYOURMEME) is not a reliable source, even if it's an editorial and not user generated. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can of course be improved upon, and seen as there is no specific wifiskeleton article it would be nice to keep this article. It seems to be quite a large piece of his legacy and the meme surrounding it is, in my experience, quite widespread. Oscyk (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the song itself to be a meme. The cartoon remix could be but I wouldn't say it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Also popularity ≠ notability
There was also a Wifiskeleton article which existed previously, but this was deleted due to notability issues. I would still say he isn't notable considering the only articles online about him concern his death. There are almost no reputable sources about this song either apart from charts.
Maybe WP:TOOSOON per above, but I honestly don't see him or the song still remaining notable in time to come. Sosumiw (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). There are other sites to remember wifiskeleton. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote above. It's too soon to tell if the song is going to be notable enough. Since the nomination, it entered more charts. Maybe some RS will pick it up and there's enough SIGCOV. Draftify is a better solution than Delete. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per @Ollieisanerd's arguments. The go-to shouldn't be deletion, but updating and editing articles. Genabab (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m genuinely just curious why this page has been nominated for deletion. It seems to just be informing people about a song that has recently been in the public eye and gone viral. It seems deserving of its own page, correct me if I’m wrong. Cinnaman05 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues. The article doesn't really have enough notable references. It's definitely a popular song, but popularity does not mean notability on Wikipedia. For example, it may be popular now but it may not be popular in time to come. Sosumiw (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree there are some issues with coverage but the commercial performance is making me lean towards a keep here. Skyversay (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a popular song, but there really is practically no coverage of the song itself outside of charts. I couldn't find a single RS concerning the song itself, googling the songs name only returns tabloids about how its creator died. Sosumiw (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-Keep per @Ollieisanerd ForFawkesSake (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the consensus here is to Keep this article, there are questions about whether the article has sufficient reliable sources. A source review would be helpful here now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[1], [4], [5], [7], [8] (Charts)
 Yes Yes listed in WP:CHARTS No Per WP:NSONG, doesn't prove notability. Doesn't "addresses the topic directly and in detail" ✘ No
[2] Know your Meme
 No user-generated No WP:KNOWYOURMEME Yes About the subject ✘ No
[3] The Horizon Sun
 Yes No Secondary School newspaper No About the author, not the song ✘ No
[6] Lithuanian chart
 Yes Not listed in WP:CHARTS No Per WP:NSONG, doesn't prove notability. Doesn't "addresses the topic directly and in detail" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
— Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many votes for Keep, but not one good argument. There is no WP:SIGCOV on reliable sources. The sources on the article are: a school paper, Know your meme and charting sites. Charting sites are independent and reliable, but doesn't count toward significant coverage. WP:NSONG is clear: "charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." I don't think a Source assessment table is necessary, it's evident there are no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe I'm missing something, but I truly don't see what makes this song any less notable than any other TikTok song in the meme categories. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Song itself isn't really a meme. I'd consider the cartoon remix a meme but I wouldn't say it's notable, I'd say it was overshadowed by Wifiskeleton's death as the remix and his death occurred days from eachother Sosumiw (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF, "there are articles about other songs" doesn't prove notability. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for article creation. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As they do not cite sources and are not based on our notability guidelines, the keep arguments here are all very weak. I do not see consensus either way yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaros Efthymiou

[edit]
Lazaros Efthymiou (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)

I proposed before realizing it had been previously nominated - 1 professional appearance [6]. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:46, 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 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goji (app)

[edit]
Goji (app) (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 defunct software that doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage at the time of the app's launch (likely driven by press releases). ZimZalaBim talk 22:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Javad Mowla

[edit]
Seyed Javad Mowla (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)

Don't see any evidence this academic meets WP:NACADEMIC. Has found publication success, but that's not sufficient for notability. Orphaned article. ZimZalaBim talk 22:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter New

[edit]
Peter New (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)

I nominate this article for deletion because the subject is not notable and references do not show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR. as an IP I can not finish the nomination process. All of the references right now are unreliable or mentions with no sig cov 2600:1011:B03A:9C5:A43F:90D:A2C4:9E5C. (Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP) Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Two out of the three sources currently listed in the article are Youtube videos (unreliable) and the third is a passing mention from a source that does not appear to be independent from the subject. The subject inexplicably also has 37(!) translations on other language Wikipedias, which leads me to believe that there may be some WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY at play. Madeleine (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary: As indicated in the edit summary at Special:Permalink/1297170759, the keep will also result in a histmerge to Flower (Bambi). – robertsky (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (skunk from Bambi)

[edit]
Flower (skunk from Bambi) (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 as a standalone character - the sources are either simple routine listings or not about the character at all - the only source that appears to be is really just an interview with the voice actor. Unable to find anything significant on a BEFORE. Flower (Bambi) is already a redirect, and this article title is not viable as one. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Flower (Bambi) is effectively salted. If this afd results in a keep, I suggest histmerge into the redirect and unlock the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept as a redirect, I suggest histmerge as well but maintain the salt. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added copy regarding the subject's evolving character and maturation, which leverages the newly discovered sources. I also support the move that's suggested above. Sven's carrots (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, hoping my copy addition inspires even better writing on the subject's character. Sven's carrots (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bambi page or delete as trivia. Example of said trivia:
Yes you can find N or more sources for such trivia, but WP:NOT tells us to not create article or even a subsection out of it. Historyexpert2 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyexpert2: Your critique seems to be aimed at the current state of the article. In your !vote, did you also consider the secondary sources listed above, which contain different forms of commentary? Daranios (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 17:17, 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 List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders. I see a rough consensus that the mostly self-published sources are insufficient to establish independent notability. A better place to discuss this may be in a spinout proposal on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutie Mark Crusaders

[edit]
Cutie Mark Crusaders (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)

Recently created from redirect. Which is where, imo, it belongs; not sufficiently notable for standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leslie Salas, Lorin Shahinian, ed. (2024-01-11). The Animated Dad: Essays on Father Figures in Cartoon Television. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-5162-0.

    "The Cutie Mark Crusaders work as deuteragonists in comparison to Twilight Sparkle and her friends. They are a trio of fillies trying to get their cutie marks, the symbols located on an Equestrian's flank that dictates what their special talent is and which appears in adolescence. The group consists of Applejack's little sister Applebloom, Rarity's little sister Sweetie Belle, and Rainbow Dash's foster sister Scootaloo. Due to their shared parental connections to the main cast, there was little examination of them (save Scootaloo in note 5). While this comment mainly refers to the intended audience of young children, it is also geared toward a signifcant portion of the Brony audience that include individuals on the autism spectrum. [...] Scootaloo herself has symbiotic parents, as shown in the episode "The Last Crusade." Both work as "creature catchers", the Equestrian version of zoologists, and, while very different in looks, largely coalesce in their rought-and-tumble personalities."

  • Snider, Brandon T. (2017). My Little Pony. Volume II: Friendship Is Magic: The Elements of Harmony: The Official Guidebook. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0-316-43197-2.

    "Everypony is on a journey, but it's difficult for young ponies to be patient. All Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle wanted to do was figure out who they were and what they were destined to do. They were desperate to discover their hidden talent, hoping a cutie mark would reveal itself and change their lives forever. Instead of worrying about it alone, they came together to form the ultimate support team: THE CUTIE MARK CRUSADERS. After a series of trials, the Crusaders successfully acquired their cutie marks and set out to prove their worth. Receiving a cutie mark doesn't mean they're done figuring everything out, of course. It simply means they're energized and on the right path. These feisty fillies are passionate about helping other young foals figure out their paths."

    "Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle hoped that by trying a bunch of different things together, they'd get their cutie marks lickety-split! So the three friends formed a secret club called the Cutie Mark Crusaders, whose members were dedicated to trying as many things as possible. Although the fillies have tried many diverse activities, like baking and magic, their cutie marks have yet to reveal themselves. Unfortunately, some intolerant ponies have mocked the young trio for not being able to find their proper vocations yet. Thankfully, wise ponies such as Princess Celestia have encouraged the girls to not lose hope and to keep experiencing as many things as possible."

  • Blue, Jen A. (2013-08-31). My Little Po-Mo: Unauthorized Critical Essays on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic Season One. pp. 134–139.

    "This is true on a trivial level; unlike the main characters, who are young adults with jobs, the Cutie Mark Crusaders are little girls of roughly the same age as the target audience of the show (perhaps slightly older, given the pubescent overtones surrounding getting one's cutie mark). Adult fans, on the other hand, frequently express difficulty identifying with the CMC. I can understand that difficulty, to an extent. The Cutie Mark Crusaders take screen time away from the Mane Six. Their stories frequently require the Mane Six to be “useless,” so that the CMC can retain the focus, which makes sense as adults frequently are useless within a child’s frame of reference, but nonetheless can feel like the series “disrespecting” its main characters in order to focus on one-off background characters. However, I think the anti-CMC portion of the fandom misses an essential feature of the CMC. The CMC, you see, are picked on and disliked by their peers. Later episodes show that they are easily swept up by their enthusiasms, and gifted with mechanical and technical tasks. And most of all, they are seeking to establish their identity by enthusiastically exploring their interests. To put it bluntly, they’re geeks. I argued back in Chapter 7 that Equestria is a nation of geeks, but the CMC are the stereotypical “geeks among geeks.”

    • GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. @TheLongTone: I noticed that you put the AfD notice on the wrong person's talk page; I was the person who created the article, not the person who created the redirect. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination process is automatedTheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregariousMadness The second source, being an official guidebook that says it is licensed by Hasbro on the back, is not INDEPENDENT. The third source was published by CreateSpace, which means it is self-published; I see no indication that Jen A. Blue is a subject-matter expert here. Do you have any better sources to supplement these in your WP:THREE? Toadspike [Talk] 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here's another source. TulsaKids is a monthly magazine with an editorial board, see [7].
  • Rittler, Tara (2017-12-19). "Cupcakes for Pinkie Pie: Lessons learned from Season One of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". TulsaKids. Retrieved 2025-06-01.

    "“Call of the Cutie” marks the genesis of “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” three young ponies who don’t yet have their cutie marks. [...] Apple Bloom and the other two ponies become instant friends and form a secret club, “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” vowing to help one another on the quest to discover their passions and earn their cutie marks. While “Call of the Cutie” offers a nice lesson in being patient and not stressing out when you don’t know what you’re supposed to do with your life (a feeling I am all too familiar with!), “The Show Stoppers” has a moral that is even more compelling, I think. In this one, the Cutie Mark Crusaders further their quest by enrolling in a talent show, deciding to put on an amazing play. While it is obvious to everyone else which production role each of the Crusaders should assume, the young ponies can’t seem to realize that, if they just slow down and think about it, their special talents are already manifesting themselves. Scootaloo rides a scooter like no one else; Sweetie Belle can compose music and has a beautiful voice; Apple Bloom is a genius at construction. But when dividing up the tasks of singer, set/costume designer and choreographer, Sweetie Belle announces that she wants to do costumes because that’s what her older sister is good at. Scootaloo wants to do lead vocals because they’re performing a rock ballad, and presumably, that’s where the glory lies. Apple Bloom knows she’s not much of a dancer but does like karate, so her dance moves are all kicks and punches. The show is a disaster, predictably, but they end up getting the award for “Best Comedy Act.” Sadly, the Cutie Mark Crusaders decide that their true talent must be comedy, meaning that they will have to keep waiting for their cutie marks a while longer.

    • And another one, from SF Weekly (and also the author of Ponyville Confidential)
  • Connelly, Sherilyn (2012-04-25). "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, Season 1, Episode 23". SF Weekly. Retrieved 2025-06-05.

    "In their latest attempt to earn their cutie marks, Apple Bloom, Sweetie Belle, and Scootaloo learn something that Stan, Kyle, Eric, and Kenny would later discover: They should never have gone ziplining. Spike had told them it was awesome, which just figures. No worse for the wear (and covered in tree sap for neither the first nor last time), they decide to ask to older ponies how they got their cutie marks. Scootaloo insists they should start with Rainbow Dash, her clearly being the coolest pony ever. On their way to find Rainbow Dash they collide with Apple Bloom's older sister Applejack, who's happy to tell her own origin story, much to Scootaloo's annoyance. [...] Sweetie Belle and Apple Bloom find the story to be touching, but Scootaloo doesn't care for it. I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode. In my experience, two out of three new viewers of MLP:FIM will accept the show's tone and world view, while the third will find it too earnest and unironic. And that's fine. To each their own, and no show is for everybody. (I also adore Mad Men -- I thought last Sunday's episode was just astonishing -- but to some people who are much smarter than me, it's unpalatable.) The Crusaders' next unintended stop is Fluttershy."

    • In addition, Jen A. Blue (formerly Jed A. Blue) and her book have been cited in multiple reliable publications in journals (see [8]), for example, in:
    • Crome, A. (2014). Reconsidering religion and fandom: Christian fan works in My Little Pony fandom. Culture and Religion, 15(4), 399–418. doi:10.1080/14755610.2014.98423
    • Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica (2011) (Catherine Butler)
    • My Little Pony: A transcultural phenomenon. (Ewan Kirkland)
    so I believe she can be used as WP:EXPERTSPS. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really disagree that three citations is sufficient evidence of wide citation to meet the high bar of EXPERTSPS. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikipedians generally use 3 or more citations to determine notability, so how is it any different to determine whether the book is reliable if it has been cited in multiple peer-reviewed journals and publications? And the book has been cited in 4 peer-reviewed publications, not 3, per this link [9], including The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Television, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. The author herself has been cited more times than that. For example, Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica cites Blue, and the paper is from the peer-reviewed journal Children's Literature in Education. It makes no sense to dismiss this source when multiple highly reputable peer-reviewed journals agree that the source is usable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. A couple more sources:
  • Alvarez, Daniel. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 'One Bad Apple' Review". Unleash The Fanboy. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.
  • Sims, Chris (2013-08-19). "The Cutie Mark Crusaders meddle with forces they do not understand (again) in 'My Little Pony Micro-series' #7". Comics Alliance.
    • GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891: Would these sources be enough to re-consider a keep? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think that a stand-alone article is merited here, honestly. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep GregariousMadness has provided examples of secondary source coverage, and there is currently a full article which is more substantive than 90% of other articles on Wikipedia. Because the subject matter is notable and the alternatives are either keep or merge, the question therefore becomes, would this subject be better served by a standalone article? Reading through the list article and the Cutie Mark article, I think that a merge would result in WP:UNDUE concerns and a redirect would result in quality portions of an article rooted in substantive coverage, being lost. Keep. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As it stands, virtually all of the content in this article is sourced to unreliable FANCRUFT sources (Equestria Daily, Blue 2014, Unleash the Fanbo), that I don't think there's actually too much to merge here. The other RS's don't have significant coverage of the 'Cutie Mark Crusaders' as a group- SF weekly has one sentence of coverage ("I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode."), and only really discuss the topic in the context of a couple episodes. I'm not seeing significant analysis of the group as a group to suggest that a stand alone article is merited here. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - GregariousMadness' sources show that the subject is clearly notable and has GNG and I agree with the above that a merge would be problematic. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect. The sources are generally insufficiently reliable and/or independent, being mostly associated with the series' creators or fandom. Sandstein 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders - Many of the sources cited are not reliable, and those that are, are not really in-depth analysis or reception of the characters. They are simply plot summaries or reviews of specific episodes or comics the character appeared in, with very little actual information outside of plot info. There quite simply is not enough significant coverage of the actual group of characters in reliable sources where a stand alone article would be justified. Rorshacma (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect per Rorshacma. No local consensus to re-create this article. And more importantly, there is the global consensus that articles need reliable independent sources, let alone sources that give us more than plot summary. Otherwise there is very little sourced information that can't be covered at the original redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    restore redirect the source analysis is compelling and the throwaway keep votes haven't refuted it or shown how the sources meet gng. Spartaz Humbug! 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At the risk of sounding like I am WP:BLUDGEONING, I believe I gave sufficient reasoning for why the sources are reliable. No one so far has refuted why Jen A. Blue's book is reliable given that it has been referenced in multiple reputable and reliable peer-reviewed journals. It is a common step to verify whether a source of questionable reliability is used in verifiably reputable sources, and I have shown this to be true, but none of the redirect !votes have shown why my argument fails. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's rather late for me to comment on the specific case as I hadn't looked at this until recently, but in general, as a matter of policy, EXPERTSPS require prior publication in the field (so that reliability can be inferred from just the author rather than jointly through the author and publication process) rather than citation. "Usage by other sources" without explicit positive comment is typically considered for traditionally published sources, though is rather weak evidence even then. It would be very unusual for mere citation to overcome the presumption of weaker fact checking and accuracy when something is known to be self-published and there is no independent editorial review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Nomination has been withdrawn. The blog has coverage in reliable sources such as the BBC, Wired, and TIME.--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks (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 subject. Most sources here are primary and not independent. Only reliable source about the subject is from The Washington Post, and nothing else Thegoofhere (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The Washington Post website says the article is from the The Associated Press? Appears to be a run-of-the-mill blog, probably at least good enough for a list of blogs? IgelRM (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SoulStice

    [edit]
    SoulStice (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 actually no, i've found sources. please close -- FMSky (talk) 19:36, 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 no consensus‎. While there is a general agreement that specific notability guidelines, particularly WP:PROF have not been met, there doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether the general guidelines at WP:GNG have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    James Woodward (physicist)

    [edit]
    James Woodward (physicist) (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 WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:NFRINGE considerations of this page makes me think that James Woodward is just likely not notable. None of the sources listed mention him seriously as a person and I question whether his fringe theory really is all that notable. Certainly his idea is not published reliably, but instead are in fringe journals, and there does not seem to be WP:FRIND sources available to the degree we would normally wish. When academics are supposed to be "notable" for the claims outside their field of expertise, it is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. I think this is not deserving of an article. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Spaceflight. jps (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to failure to meet WP:NPROF. Only two of the seven sources cited are independent of him, and those two don't provide significant coverage of Woodward, but rather more about the flaws in weird propulsion science. More telling, we can compare Woodward's h-index of 58[13] with what's typical for a full professor in the sciences [14], suggesting that he isn't notable, but rather average in terms of scholarly impact. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that Google Scholar profile page is for a different James Woodward, a philosopher of science who worked at the University of Pittsburgh. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think [this is the correct page for the current subject at CSU. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That one shows an h-index of 10, which definitely suggests non-notable, particularly for someone as advanced in his career as the subject of this article. In spite of my error identifying the wrong James Woodward above (I thought it was the same guy because at the time, that page listed an article about propulsion, which no longer appears), I stand by my "delete" comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is irrelevant for what is being discussed or why you were asked back here. Per even WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Therefore, h-index has nothing to do with what is being discussed. SilverserenC 20:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't find evidence that Woodward is notable (in either the colloquial or the Wikipedian sense of the word) as a person. The general topic of esoteric space drives that would require violations of known physics is encyclopedia-worthy, like perpetual motion machines and squaring the circle. But the "Mach effect" is just one proposal in a long line of them. I doubt there's enough in reliable sources about it to justify giving it an article, and there's certainly much less justification for having an article about Woodward as a person. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above, if suitable WP:RS exists the theories can be assigned to some relevant article, but they seem minor even in that odd line of concepts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Despite the similarity of name and topic I am convinced that all the publications that might contribute to WP:PROF#C1 are by the other James F. Woodward (who is definitely notable despite our problems with his article) and that all publications that might contribute to notability for this James F. Woodward are fringe physics. They don't have enough citations for #C1, and I was unable to find reviews that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR for his book Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes, let alone the mainstream reviews needed for WP:NPOV-compliant coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: per above Halley luv Filipino ❤ (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I taught physics twice and had my articles rejected after peer review by Ralph Alpher. That doesn't make me notable, and neither does it make this guy, who fails PROF badly. We are not the place to post original content and we never have. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: While the current state of the article is not good, WP:PROF is not the only metric for notability. WP:GNG may be satisfied. Woodward's career, and the fringe nature of his research, has been covered in depth by the likes of Scientific American[9] Wired magazine,[10] Big Think,[11] as well as a shorter article in the Orange County Register.[12] His research is summarized and built upon briefly in a paper by Martin Tajmar.[13] I'm not well-versed in physics, theoretical, or otherwise, but if someone did a deep literature dive it's plausible even more reliable secondary coverage could be found. If people and/or their ideas have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, then they are notable. Simply summarizing Woodward's controversial research, as Wired and Scientific American have, should not be considered promotion of it. The third-party sources I've found in a few minutes of googling can largely replace the existing primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for pointing out Martin Tajmar article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination). N.b. Wired and Scientific American did not do their due diligence in seeing how out-on-a-limb this guy (and others in those articles) really is. See WP:SENSATION -- which is, sadly, what both of these otherwise upstanding source fell into. As for OCR and Big Think, those two sources are much more commonly recognized for credulity pushing. jps (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pop-science magazines and websites are generally unsuitable for writing about fringe topics. They nearly inevitably skew to the sensationalist; they've been known to grant unearned credibility to total nonsense. (The industry has a history of getting suckered by space drive stories in particular.) Credulously "summarizing" claims that violate basic principles of physics is promoting them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Note that there are at least two people with the same name, one which is the current subject with an h index of 10 and a second (history) professor at Pittsburgh with an h-index of 29. Therefore he doesnt pass NPROF#1 and given how little reception he gets inside academia I think it is hard to argue that he passes any of the points in NPROF. --hroest 13:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well, I'm not going to be nice here. Sorry for being so confrontational, y'all, but it really feels like none of you even bothered to look up sources properly (other than the only other person who clearly did and then decided to vote Keep because they actually took the time to look). The guy's fringe, 100%. He's also definitely not a WP:PROF pass, 100%. However, the WP:GNG seems very clearly satisfied by multiple years of news coverage of his fringe-y work, not to mention scientific papers discussing his ideas or debunking them (even if some are written by other fringe-y credulists, they're still in proper journals) that addresses his claims as the main subject of the papers and not just as an aside.
    This seems like an attempt to delete subjects entirely because they're fringe, without any regard for actual GNG notability standards. Which is, sadly, fairly standard for Fringe topic noticeboard regulars and there's been multiple cases where I had to come in and actually argue for our notability policies previously.
    So, if we want to have a discussion about the sources that actually exist, most of which were easily findable from a Google search, then let's please do that. Rather than claiming there aren't any sources, which is easily debunkable. Being fringe pseudoscience doesn't mean non-notable. SilverserenC 02:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You think these sources pass WP:FRIND? I don't think so. jps (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are literally mainstream secondary sources, the kind that FRIND specifically talks about as what should be preferred. They aren't fringe specific media or sources. SilverserenC 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't look mainstream to me. The ones by journalists look like they are falling afoul of WP:SENSATION. The ones by ostensible scientists look like they are fellow WP:PROFRINGE personalities. jps (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Local newspapers and a science-fiction magazine are not going to be good sources for an article that's supposed to be about science. (Even the Guardian and the BBC have bungled it sometimes, running silly season stories about "local man says he can divide by zero" and such. One example is documented in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks.) Moreover, we're not debating whether to mention "Mach effects" in an article about the general topic of way-out-there spacedrive proposals. The question is whether a biography page for James F. Woodward needs to exist. There's potentially enough for the former, but after subtracting out the noise, there isn't for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and the Choice Reviews item is a brief (248 words) paragraph saying that libraries shouldn't feel obligated to buy Woodward's book. The gist: "Historian/physicist Woodward (California State Univ., Fullerton) proposes a propulsion method that seems to contradict basic physics principles." And, other research "explains the errors of his experiments and points to results that show no extra field effects." A cursory dismissal of Woodward's publication is not evidence in favor of having an article about Woodward. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of what you said has anything to do with notability or WP:GNG. He is a fringe crank, yes. Sources covering him as a crank is a good thing in that regard. In fact, sources dismissing him and his ideas are exactly what we want for notability for a fringe topic, since that allows us to not only have coverage, but can also explicitly put that his views are nonsense. SilverserenC 22:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local newspapers and science-fiction magazines aren't reliable for this purpose. A trade journal for libraries is probably not the best bet, either, and one paragraph is not what I'd call "significant". Overall, Woodward falls into the case described at the end of that guideline. He doesn't "meet these criteria" as a person, but there are still "some verifiable facts" about his claims, which are best discussed "within another article". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple pieces of significant coverage about him and his claims. Local newspapers only applies if they are all in the same local area (and generally if its actually an area local to the subject), so you don't have say someone in a single Kentucky county who keep getting coverage from county newspapers. That's not at all the case here, these newspapers have no connection with each other and are temporally disparate to boot, so it's not a single event burst of coverage either. Also, I have no idea what your addition of science fiction magazines has to do with that. Science fiction magazine are perfectly reliable and contribute just fine to notability as with any other magazine. Coverage of someone's statements and ideas is also coverage of them, so long as it isn't solely question and response interview coverage. SilverserenC 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fluff pieces aren't any better than "question and response interview coverage". Those news stories are fluff pieces. (The Kimberley Bulletin: "It's starting to look like interstellar travel may be possible in a time frame that may be manageable for human beings. [...] I'd explain the Mach effect in greater detail, but I barely understand it myself.") Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you selectively picked that one, the weakest of the news pieces, while ignoring coverage like this that is a full page article that has much more detail. Specifically what the claimed theory is, what the machinery is he built and how it's supposed to work and, happily for me, criticism of his claims by other scientists and pointing out how his ideas are doubtful in their efficacy. It's good we have multiple sources, including Rodal's rebuttal academic piece up there, so we can clearly and directly state the fringiness. SilverserenC 22:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I picked the quote that made the fluff-piece nature obvious, in my view. The Edmonton Journal story is longer, but not better. In some ways, it's worse, because it plays up the false balance. It's yet another example of a genre with which all scientists grow familiar: "This maverick has an extraordinary claim! The so-called 'experts' think there's nothing to it... but who knows?!" It uncritically accepts Woodward's own framing that he had "good theory and good experimental data" and gives short shrift to the one independent critic (Don Page). The extra "detail" just drowns out the basic lack of substance.
    The Orange County Register story is quintessential silly season. It quotes no critical voices at all. It flunks high-school physics by confusing Newton's first and third laws of motion.
    Even the most generous reading of the available documentation only shows that this far-out fringe idea is not the most obscure of the far-out fringe ideas. I don't see the need to wrap the one-paragraph explanation of why it's a far-out fringe idea with another few sentences about where its originator was born and went to school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire argument here seems to be classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT in regards to the fringiness. Yes, he's fringe, I've already repeatedly stated I agree on that. But that has nothing to do with notability. Him being a pseudoscience nonsense pusher is completely irrelevant to a discussion of notability. Your criticism of the sources seems to boil down to them not covering the subject in the way you'd prefer. It is not an argument that actually refutes the coverage meeting WP:GNG requirements. SilverserenC 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics. Newton's first law is not the same as Newton's third law! They're not reliable, and so they don't qualify towards any guideline that depends upon the existence of reliable sources. You can't make an encyclopedia article out of news clippings that are scientifically illiterate.
    I'm not saying that articles about people known only for fringey things are bad. I'm not saying that an article about Woodward's fringey work would be bad. I don't think there's enough to write about it that an entire article would be warranted, and I don't see how the paltry amount that could be written is enough to hang a whole biography on. Under different circumstances, if different source material were available, I'd be defending the existence of the biography page, but as matters stand I just can't make the case for it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My criticism of the sources boils down to them being evidently unqualified to discuss physics.
    Is that an allowed factor enumerated on WP:GNG? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that guideline requires that the sources be "reliable", and news stories that do the physics equivalent of declaring the Earth to be flat, or setting up a false balance between antivaxxers and actual medicine... There's no way in good conscience to call them reliable, so how can they count towards the guideline? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note my !vote above.
    I'm just saying, or asking, as that sounds like a much stricter definition than I've seen argued yet. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even the venerable Acta Astronautica? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evaluating Woodward by the academic notability standard, one paper commenting on a person's work isn't enough to make that person notable (not by a long shot). It could contribute to the work being notable, or worth mentioning in an article on a broader topic. Since the author of the Acta Astronautica paper later co-authored a follow-up saying whoops, no "Mach effect" after all, relying on the 2017 paper would give a pretty skewed impression... On the whole, I think we can justify writing a little about the idea, but packaging that into a biography of the person just doesn't make sense to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply asking if there was any possible dispute that Acta Astronautica is not a reliable source. I can't see how but in bonkers once-a-century edge cases anyone would argue it's not WP:RS for anything aerospace related. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any reason not to suppose that Acta Astronautica is generally fine. (Of course, claims about spacedrives that rely upon fringe physics are just where one would expect those bonkers edge cases to arise. Engineers have been known to give a pass to wacky ideas from outside their specialty now and then. They might endorse creationism, dabble in crank math, etc. It happens. And all it takes is a couple referees willing to go "yeah, looks fine" to claims from outside their field for a paper to slip through the review process.) My only concern with relying on the Acta Astronautica item is that it's utterly commonplace for A to write a paper that cites B; one instance of that happening is insufficient justification to have an article about B. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was actually a ton of papers in Acta Astronautica about Woodward and his claims, I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal. And the existence of that later paper increases his notability and makes it that much easier to point out that his claims are bunk. And it makes more sense to have an article on the person and not the effect, since the effect is bunk and should be kept as just a thing this one guy claims. Having a separate article on the effect would actually be giving it more perceived legitimacy. SilverserenC 23:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate that point of view. But wouldn't it make more sense to have a separate article on neither? Shouldn't we just have one moderately-sized page for all the related kinds of bunk? (Particularly since those papers do discuss the "Mach effect" and the EmDrive together [15], for example.) We have the page reactionless drive that could host a section about Woodward's "Mach effect". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I'm being/coming across as more confrontational than a matter of article organization really warrants, so I'll wander off now and trust that the excessive number of words I've spilled already can convey my point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just didn't feel the need to include more than one example for the same journal
    As far as I'm aware, even if literally nothing but the New York Times covers you--and everyone else in media implausibly ignores you--a WP:SIGCOV in the times once a week for a month makes any of us article worthy, most likely.
    If like ten authors wrote about this guy to SIGCOV in that journal, top 20% or so (IIRC) for aerospace, then this is super notable. Is that what you are saying? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I would agree. But there's some people that argue that sources from the same publication don't count separately toward notability, no matter the disparity in time or authorship. So that's why I usually focus on presenting a breadth of different sources, to better convince those with that opinion. SilverserenC 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bhandari, Devir Singh (26 January 2021). Yuva Bharat: The Heroes of Today. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-93-88414-07-4. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    2. ^ raghav, kuldeep (26 March 2025). "Success Story: MBA डिग्री छोड़, कैमरा थामा, 95% CAT स्कोर के बावजूद लक्ष्य चावला ने फोटोग्राफी में पाया मुकाम". Times Now Navbharat (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    3. ^ पंवार, कुलदीप. "'3 इडियट्स' जैसी है इस युवा की कहानी, 95% CAT स्कोर और टॉप B-स्कूल में एडमिशन, फिर भी बन गया फोटोग्राफर". DNA Hindi (in Hindi). Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    4. ^ Nayar, Aashmita (7 December 2015). "PHOTOS: This Bollywood-Style, Taj Mahal Photoshoot Of Couple From Hong Kong Is Everyone's Dream". HuffPost. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    5. ^ "WATCH: Wow! This Hindu-Muslim couple missed their pheras and nikah to dance the night away". The Indian Express. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    6. ^ "Hong Kong couple flies to India for Taj wedding shoot". The Indian Express. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    7. ^ jain, vanshika (19 July 2022). "Meet some of India's best photographers and filmmakers behind celebrity and A-lister weddings". Vogue India. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    8. ^ bhasin, tanushree (2 Feb 2025). "Love in the Time of Likes: The Evolution of Celebrity Weddings". thewire.in. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
    9. ^ Scoles, Sarah (August 2019). "The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion". Scientific American: 58–65. JSTOR 27265292.
    10. ^ Oberhaus, Daniel (September 3, 2020). "Gravity, Gizmos, and a Grand Theory of Interstellar Travel". Wired.
    11. ^ Johnson, Stephan (September 7, 2020). "NASA-funded scientist says 'MEGA drive' could enable interstellar travel". Big Think.
    12. ^ Cruz, Sherri (May 21, 2013). "Woodward's Wormholes". Orange County Register.
    13. ^ Tajmar, Martin (2017). "Mach-Effect thruster model". Acta Astronautica. 141: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.021.
    • Keep Per the first page of WP:NPROF, It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. With respect, all of the !votes that only cite to WP:NPROF without doing sufficient WP:BEFORE searches to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG strike me as quite deficient. Newspapers and magazines absolutely pass WP:SIGCOV, including the ones provided by Silver Seren. Show me where within WP:GNG newspaper or magazine coverage is precluded from grounding the notability of a person who has conspiratorial views and I will change my vote. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRIND and WP:SENSATION asks us to consider whether the newspapers and magazines are reliable enough to properly provide the context for fringe claims. In this case, these newspaper and magazine articles are breathlessly concluding that this "maverick scientist" is going to revolutionize the spaceflight industry. They apparently did not do their due diligence in finding independent experts who would at a moment's glance have informed them of the implausibility of it all. If we rely on those sources to write our article, Wikipedia would necessarily adopt a WP:PROFRINGE approach. In short, if there are no sources that look with a critical lens at a WP:FRINGE idea, we generally argue that an idea is not notable even if there are dozens of credulous sources to be found (fringe theories by their very nature tend to skew the sourcing standards). This applies equally to WP:FRINGEBLP, which is what this article absolutely must be. WP:GNG should only take over if, for example, there is serious coverage that goes beyond the fringe framing and the sourcing thus would not prevent a neutral article from being written. I don't see that here. jps (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this entire split guidance / standards expectations could do with some real-world examples somewhere that can be linked under some WP:PAGE link as an easy example for this on fringe.
    Weirdly, I think the Christopher Mellon article we're both familiar with could a be prime baseline example. Like, go edit the full page--this link. Highlight everything from the entire UFO section--don't touch the sourcing/references section. Just in your draft delete the entire UFO section and preview it. Ignore any reference errors--you are not saving! It would be 1/3 shorter as an article, but he'd still sail past WP:GNG anyway. Examples like that--show the person is notable outside X angle. Having actual examples may be a lot easier to explain this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: As a significant number of new sources have been introduced since most of the delete !votes, I'm relisting and will hand out a round of pings.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist@Hannes Röst@Bearian@Như Gây Mê@David Eppstein, please take a look at the sources posted here since your !vote. Your updated opinions, whether a reaffirmation or an alteration of your original !vote, would be very helpful towards reaching a consensus on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 19:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still a delete, but thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't address GNG or any sources whatsoever in your original vote above, does that imply that your delete vote should be generally ignored as irrelevant for the closer? SilverserenC 21:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a delete. If the strongest thing we can say about this fringe theory is "The effect is controversial", then we are still failing WP:FRINGE in giving WP:UNDUE weight to fringe theories and falling into both-sidesism instead of providing properly neutral coverage of the mainstream pov. Also, I tend to agree with the opinions above that local-newspaper coverage is often not reliable for fringe physics, and is not reliable in this case. (Reliability is always a function of both the source and the content; these newspapers may well be reliable for other topics but that does not make them reliable for everything.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't about the fringe theory, it is about the person who made it up. Who is the one receiving the coverage. Multiple pieces of coverage, mind you, that are about debunking his claims or showcasing his fringe claims don't hold up to scrutiny. Notable coverage refuting a fringe person is still notable coverage regardless. You don't seem to attempt to actually address how WP:GNG is applied to articles at all. SilverserenC 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If what he is notable for is significant coverage of his fringe theories then we need to apply our standards for what constitutes significant coverage of fringe theories: sources that are reliably published and that cover this work of the subject with both depth and a point of view that sticks to the consensus of current scholarship. The newspaper stories that cover his work credulously are reliably published by our standards but are not scholarly and do not stick to the mainstream scholarly point of view, so they fail this test. If he were notable for something else like WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR then we could use our notability standard for that and then treat the fringe theories as a sideline (example: A. K. Dewdney), but we don't have the notability evidence that would allow us to handle it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete (!voting because of the call for uninvolved editors to help form a concensus). Definitely not by WP:PROF standards, but does the total coverage of the theories, the theory's creator, weighed by the reliability/independence of the external sources add up to a GNG pass? It's not easy to say, but it looks like the answer is No even without taking into account any "extraordinary claims require..." rules. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The Scientific American, Wired, and Acta Astronautica are WP:THREE clearly mainstream reliable sources that cover Woodward/his work in depth, and establish WP:GNG. I am sympathetic to arguments that local papers aren't the best coverage for something like this. WP:FRINGE's guidelines on sourcing want sources that are are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, which clearly exist here. It's original research to do much more picking and choosing of what reporting/journalism is "good enough". Eddie891 Talk Work 07:59, 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 merge‎ to Land of Oz#Winkie Country. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Winkie Country

    [edit]
    Winkie Country (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)

    There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage of this fictional country to pass WP:GNG. The 2nd source in the article is The Maps of Oz. I have doubts that a fictional map contains enough critical analysis to be considered significant coverage. The 5th source is The Dictionary of Imaginary Places which I have also doubts since during the AfD for Quadling Country it was said to be "just an overview of Oz history with no critical insight into any of it."

    Then there is the book Oz and Beyond which discusses the location of Winkie Country on the map of Oz, not significant coverage IMO: [16]

    The best source seems to be the book Monsters and the Monstrous: [17]. It contains this passage:

    "The revision of the name of Winkie Country by Maguire to The Vinkus is an example of how small changes take on much greater significance in Maguire’s alternative, and much more adult, depiction of Oz. Winkie, the reader learns, is a slang term for the people from The Vinkus and reflects Oz’s colonial history and the prevailing attitudes of the elite and ruling class to the indigenous populations to the West and South of the Emerald City."

    Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Winkie Country, unless additional sourcing is found. Mika1h (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Leland Wright

    [edit]
    Leland Wright (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)

    Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only sources currently in the article are either blogs or are primary to the teams the subject played for, and I can't find anything better to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 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 Stewart Raffill#Filmography. (non-admin closure) Destinyokhiria 💬 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirens of the Caribbean

    [edit]
    Sirens of the Caribbean (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)

    Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of notability supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage -- but this just states that the film exists, and cites only directory entries in IMDB and AllMovie for sourcing, with no evidence shown of any coverage in GNG-worthy publications. And even on a Google search I'm not finding any significant coverage that's been missed, with the best thing I've found being a single very short blurb in Dread Central -- but that's not enough all by itself, I haven't found anything better under either of the titles stated in the article, and just because you've heard of some of the people in its cast isn't a "get out of GNG free" card in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Uttarakhand Helicopter Crash

    [edit]
    Uttarakhand Helicopter 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) 17:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Allblessed (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Samira Awad

    [edit]
    Samira Awad (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)

    Clear fail of GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 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. There is a consensus in favour of deletion and not on redirection, but if someone does wish to recreate as a redirect that would appear to be a sensible exercise of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gofer

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Gofer (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 would be a PROD if it were not for the previous AfD. This article contains only unsourced trivia, an unsourced etymology, and a definition. Stubifying would violate WP:NOTDICT. I would gladly redirect if I knew a suitable target. Janhrach (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect to courier. Why wasn't it deleted a decade ago Easternsahara (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Like WeirdNAnnoyed said, just a dictionary def. Here is a possible source but it doesn't really provide anything other than a dict def. I would want something like the Lackey (manservant) article. I don't think it or any of the other terms discussed in the first AfD are good redirect targets either.
    • Gopher: sometimes spelled like this so it is the best possible option but rather different topics shouldn't be carelessly combined.
    • Errand boy: needlessly gendered and redirects to courier now anyways.
    • Courier: takes things from point A to B while gopher brings things back to their local station
    • Aide de camp / Personal assistant: while their may be overlap in these 3 roles I don't think they have the same meaning.
    Does someone want to make the wikitionary entry? Moritoriko (talk) 06:50, 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 merge‎ to Hercule Poirot#Recurring characters. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Recurring characters in the Hercule Poirot stories

    [edit]
    Recurring characters in the Hercule Poirot stories (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)

    De facto a a list of minor fictional characters, but just a plot summary and comments on who played them in some movies and such. Mostly unreferenced. Not seeing how this meets WP:NLIST and such. Possible WP:ATD-R is Hercule Poirot, I assume at least one of these characters is mentioned there, and there are likely redirects to this list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 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 delete‎. Stifle (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Superintendent Battle

    [edit]
    Superintendent Battle (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)

    Minor character from Christie's novels. The article is just a plot summary and a list of appearances; my BEFORE shows mentions in passing, but no WP:SIGCOV. I am not sure what the best WP:ATD-R is here (Agatha_Christie's_fictional_universe#Superintendent_Battle?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 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 no consensus‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Captain Mayuran (Saba)

    [edit]
    Captain Mayuran (Saba) (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)

    A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 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! 05:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the suggestion to move this to the Tamil Wikipedia, but I believe this topic has relevance for an English-speaking audience as well — especially in the context of the Sri Lankan civil war and the Tamil diaspora. Many members of the younger diaspora today can no longer read Tamil fluently, or at all. Having this article in English supports broader educational access, cross-cultural understanding, and historical documentation. I hope the article can be retained and improved here rather than removed or relocated. Thili1977 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    KFC Snacker

    [edit]
    KFC Snacker (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 food item. Contains obvious SYNTH/OR (one person in the talk suggests it's written by AI) and reads more like advertising than an encyclopedia article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. Hoffman, Ken (2006-10-06). "KFC adds another Snacker to roster". The Birmingham News. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "KFC Snackers are a big hit because they're small and inexpensive, and you can order exactly how many it'll take to fill you. It's the ultimate portion control. Me, I need three of them. Suddenly, it's not so cheap, but it's still a good deal because three small Snackers are more bang (and food) for your buck than one big chicken sandwich. A Snacker is about five bites. Or three, if you're eating alone and nobody's watch-ing. Or one, if you're in a competitive-eating contest on ESPN. The chicken strips are double-breaded in the Colonel's "extra crispy" breading. They're double-breaded because once is not enough... carbs. The strips are fried superfast, so the breading is crispy and the chicken is still moist and tender in-side."

      2. Hoffman, Ken (2005-03-03). "KFC's tiny Snacker is big on taste". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

        The article notes: "There is also a Honey BBQ Snacker with extra gooey stuff but less fat and fewer calories. With two Snackers, and more in research and development, this is KFC's biggest sandwich rollout since 1999 when the world's biggest chicken chain introduced five upscale, two-fisted sandwiches with fanciful names like Triple Crunch Zinger and Honey BBQ Melt. They also had a two-fisted price, $2.99. ... Snackers are fine — they hit the bull's-eye for taste. KFC's extra-crispy strips are crunchy, loud and glistening straight from the fryer. They're all white meat and high-end stuff."

      3. MacArthur, Kate (2005-11-07). "KFC Snacker". Advertising Age. Vol. 76, no. 45. p. S-14. EBSCOhost 18839801. ProQuest 208376576.

        The article notes: "Scott Bergren HAS been exec VP-marketing for KFC since mid-2003, but after selling more than 100 million KFC Snacker sandwiches in six months, he has a new name: Mr. Snacker., Starting with a 10% same-store sales boost in its first month, the Snacker has helped rocket sales out of a nearly two-year abyss and reacquaint customers with the finger-lickin' brand as it gears up a reprisal of its original Kentucky Fried heritage. Since March, sales' gains have remained in the mid- to high-single digits, drawing women and lunch customers."

      4. Glazer, Fern (2007-02-12). "Diners may diet less, but operators still push healthful options". Nation's Restaurant News. Vol. 41, no. 7. p. 18. ProQuest 229367443.

        The article notes: "In February 2005, Louisville, Ky.-based KFC introduced a pared-down chicken sandwich called the KFC Snacker, which features a breaded chicken strip topped with lettuce and pepper mayonnaise and served on a warm sesame seed bun. The Snacker, which is a smaller version of the chain's Double Crunch sandwich, is about half the size of that item and has 200 fewer calories. Despite its name, the Snacker, which comes in varieties such as Crispy Snacker, Honey BBQ Snacker, Buffalo Snacker and Ultimate Cheese Snacker, is most popular during the lunch daypart. According to the chain, 56 percent of Snackers are sold during lunch."

      5. Schreiner, Bruce (2005-05-20). "KFC Snacker, New Bucket Get Sales Sizzlin'". The Ledger. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

        The article notes: "The Louisville-based chicken chain credits its triple-divided variety bucket and the 99-cent Snacker sandwich for helping spark its most sustained sales growth in three years. ... Bear Stearns & Co. restaurant industry analyst Joe Buckley said the sandwich gave KFC a belated share of the fast-food industry's value-priced market. "Prior to this, they've really struggled to get to that price point," he said, adding, "It was always easier for the hamburger operators to do something on 99 cents than KFC.""

      6. Tauber, Chris; James, Tom (2005-03-26). "The Lunch Guys: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get a $1 Checkers spicy sandwich". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "The KFC and McD's counterparts were weak in comparison. When I pulled out my KFC Snacker, thought either I had grown to giant size or someone had pointed a shrinking ray at this sandwich. The bun is more like a dinner roll, with one (albeit superb) chicken strip laid on it like Manute Bol on a twin bed. The much-hyped KFC Snacke is a superior solid strip of breast meat (unlike the chopped and formed competitors) coated in that great KFC batter. It goes down easy like a Chicken White Castle and is a great snack. You'd need at least two for a real lunch."

      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow KFC Snacker to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all routine coverage of a food item (or literal advertising), not significant coverage that provides notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per @Cunard. Madeleine (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuko.co.ke

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Tuko.co.ke (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)

    Procedural nomination: First nomination was significantly distorted by a group of socks, and also got non-admin closed by a now blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete There's nothing in the article that really explains its notability. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    Tiana Ringer

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Tiana Ringer (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 notable, independent wrestler. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results, lack of in-deep third party sources about her. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sivad Heshimu Johnson

    [edit]
    Sivad Heshimu Johnson (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:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep‎. Perhaps a merge or move could occur, but there is not consensus for deletion/removal. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Lakes megalopolis

    [edit]
    Great Lakes megalopolis (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 requires a lot of explanation, but quite simply, there is no such thing as a Great Lakes Megalopolis. The article is based on overinterpretation of a half-century-old prediction of the future that never came to pass, with heaps of WP:SYNTH and some nice glossy photos on top.

    Let's look at the references: Refs. 1 and 2 are to population statistics. Ref. 3 is to a 2005 report by the Regional Plan Association, which talks about a "Great Lakes Megaregion" (not the same thing, never uses the word "megalopolis", is narrowly focused on transportation, and seems to have had no influence); Ref. 4 is a reprint of a 1967 book of speculation by futurists that again never uses the term "Great Lakes Megalopolis"; Refs. 5 and 6 are to Constantinos Doxiadis (more on him in a moment), and Ref. 7 is on a different (but superficially similar) topic. The remaining references are just to economic and population statistics.

    Doxiadis seems to have coined the term Great Lakes Megalopolis and wrote about it a lot in the late 60's-mid 70's, including a dedicated 1968 scholarly paper [24], and several reports to the US and Canadian governments (e.g. [25]. However, the reports are primary sources, and the paper (as of last October) had been cited all of 9 times in 56 years (Web of Science), mostly by urban planning studies from China that used the term only in passing. The only non-Doxiadis-linked source I can find discussing the supposed megalopolis is this report to the Canadian Ministry of State: [26], which again is primary, and from 1976. Nothing specifically about this concept has been published since as far as I can see.

    TL;DR: The Great Lakes Megalopolis was an obsession of one single futurist, Constantinos Doxiadis, and the concept seems to have died with him in 1975, having little to no influence or acceptance today. And besides, WP:SKYISBLUE: You have to drive across open farmland for hours to get from Chicago to Detroit, and again from Detroit to Toronto; on what planet is that a megalopolis?

    On top of that, practically everything in this article can be found in Great Lakes region. I would not oppose a selective merge to that article, or to the article on Doxiadis (since this is clearly his baby). As it exists, this is an article on a nonexistent subject. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and United States of America. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect/merge to Great Lakes region per nom. This is all just fluff listing what exists in the region, duplicating the main article and presenting basically nothing unique. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think this article needs some cleanup (why, oh why are some "sources" Wikipedia?), but the subject itself is notable: I see 275 Google Scholar articles and hundreds of Google Books noting the subject, including many present-day books. We are not concerned about whether the original paper is heavily cited (because the paper is not the subject of the article) but rather whether the Great Lakes Megalopolis is noted, which it clearly is. Additionally, the idea that a megalopolis cannot have any farmland in it ("You have to drive across open farmland for hours to get from Chicago to Detroit, and again from Detroit to Toronto; on what planet is that a megalopolis?") misses the point that fertile farmland must exist for any large megalopolis to prosper (Why else is New Jersey, in the Northeast megalopolis, called the Garden State?) The idea that this mega-corridor "didn't come to pass" also seems a bit silly, looking at population density maps from Toronto to Detroit and from NW Indiana to Milwaukee. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Practically all of those 275 Scholar articles are trivial passing mentions, except for the first few, which are all by Doxiadis or his associates in his vanity journal Ekistics. The Google Books results are little better; of the ones I reviewed, the only one approaching significant secondary coverage is this one: [27], which I don't have access to but which appears to be discussing the idea as a historical concept (p. 70-71) rather than an extant entity. But even if we accept this book, we have this one and the original paper...not enough for an article this elaborate and detailed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a little concerned that you have referred to Ekistics as a "vanity journal". Vanity journals, as a rule, do not have a peer-review process. Ekistics as a peer-reviewed journal started in 1956, and is still operating today, with editorial board members from around the world. In truth, Ekistics has been evaluated by the independent ERIH Plus organization as peer-reviewed and with a verified scientific board. JSTOR holds its papers. But the paper also appeared in Proceedings of the IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, vol. 56, number 4, dated April 1968, and that is clearly also not a vanity journal. And discussion of the Great Lakes Megalopolis also appeared in Time Magazine, with the article's author writing, "Another area is growing even faster, and will ultimately pose bigger problems. This is the potential "Great Lakes Megalopolis," which will soon stretch without interruption from Pittsburgh to Chicago, by the year 2000 will contain a population of 45 million. Fortunately, in the opinion of City Planner Constantinos Doxiadis, the great heartland megalopolis has a natural focus and headquarters in Detroit — if the city will only rise to the challenge." As the area had more than 45 million residents by 2000, it seems as though Doxiadis was right. I'd add the Time magazine article as a source, but it's already present. America 2050, an international coalition of governmental agencies, discusses the Great Lakes Megalopolis extensively. I'd also add this source to the article, but it, too, is already present. NASA took the Great Lakes Megalopolis seriously when they wrote: "In the emerging Great Lakes megalopolis, which shows signs of extending from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Buffalo, New York, in the not-too-distant future, the peculiar meteorological effects of the Great Lakes often exacerbate this interregional transport. When continental air masses advert across the relatively warm lakes in winter, any plume moving over a Great Lake will be rapidly dispersed. Turbulence generated by the convection rising from the surface can be extreme, sometimes to the point of generating a myriad of miniature waterspouts or "steam devils."" Any deletion would be moot anyway: dozens of US governmental agencies use the Great Lakes Megalopolis in current literature: National Parks Service (2013), US Forest Service (2023), Office of General Services (2019), National Institute of Health (2022), etc. Why on earth would we delete an article about a subject noted by NASA, NIH, USFS, NPS, USDA, OGS, and other government agencies? Because you think a 69-year-old journal is a "vanity journal" and "the concept died with" the author, even though he died in the 1970s, and the term is in use right now by multiple US government agencies? There's the slightly better argument to merge this article into Great Lakes region, but that, too, is problematic: the maps in the infoboxes of both articles reveal the problem with such a merger: the Great Lakes Megalopolis extends to Davenport, Iowa; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Quebec City, Quebec; Kansas City, Kansas; Dayton, Ohio; and the Great Lakes region article doesn't extend anywhere near those areas, leading to WP:SYNTH issues. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      All of of these government links are just passing mentions, by no means enough to justify a separate article from Great Lakes region. Just because the America2050 concept includes some futher-out cities doesn't mean this needs its own page. This is just a concept and there's not really discussion specifically about Davenport or Quebec City, and these all being part of a continuous urban area is just hypothetical. The Time article is pretty laughable today: "By that time, both Chicago and Pittsburgh will have expanded until the edges of the three cities touch." But by merging the sources and content in Great Lakes megalopolis#History of the concept, there's no synth concerns. It's not that complicated to say that certain cities lie along the lakes themselves while others are considered economically connected to the same region. — Reywas92Talk 15:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you identify specific sources that should be used rather than generic search results for the term? Still, I fail to see why this article should exist when there's already an article on the region. Even if that includes whole states and not just urban areas, it's highly duplicative to have this page and relevant discussion about the megalopolis concept can be covered in the region article. — Reywas92Talk 03:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Megalopolitan studies have been a minor academic research subject for awhile now. SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Contrary to the nom's assertion, the megalopolis article defines megaregions as a synonym in its lead. Searches for Great Lakes megaregion on Google Books and Google Scholar reveal even more sources than those already identified.
    Merging to the Great Lakes region article wouldn't be appropriate, because the two articles have different geographic scopes. The nominated article covers the urban agglomeration, while the article about the region covers a larger area with diverse land uses. - Eureka Lott 02:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There appear to be a lot of scholarly geographic articles on the subject not written by Doxiadis, and it doesn't always neatly fit the term either - at least one more recent article has used the term "Great Lakes Megaregion." SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 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.
    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. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    R. S. Nandakumar

    [edit]
    R. S. Nandakumar (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)

    Promotional piece by coi/upe editor. He gets a few mentions, but not the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they meet WP:GNG. And they do not meet any of the criteria to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    the previous page (r s nandakumar) was blanked and then deleted by me, sorry, what? It was deleted by Seraphimblade, an administrator, as being unambiguously promotional. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, i meant to say i deleted the information in the page. I apologize, i am new to Wikipedia. I have tried to improve the page with reliable sources and links. Supersumu (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)— Supersumu (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    Update is withstanding WP:GNG. Do not deleteInnathatha (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)— Innathatha (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Supersumu (talk · contribs). [reply]
    I apologize. Hadnt noticed the broken 404s. I have updated the article with reliable sources and links to articles, news publications and journals. Supersumu (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)— Supersumu (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [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 14:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Organization for Respect and Care for Animals

    [edit]
    Organization for Respect and Care for Animals (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)

    Highly promotional, with refs failing WP:SIRS. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 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 Has already been speedy deleted per criterion G4‎. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Trollface Edits

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Trollface Edits (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 was deleted at AfD a few hours ago so I requested a WP:G4 but this has been contested by an IP. I'm not absolutely certain if this article absolutely matches the one that User:Polygnotus sent to AfD last week but, in any case, the new content and the new sources do nothing to address the concerns from the old discussion. Fails WP:GNG with no WP:RS coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is the same as the deleted one with no improvement. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 11:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    External link: Archived version of the previous article

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

    The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Backyard History

    [edit]
    Backyard History (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:ORG. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources; mostly self-sourced sources or trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, none of the media references are "trivial", they are all stories ABOUT Backyard History - which is itself published in 12-20 papers across Atlantic Canada (and has spawned 3 books, a television show, podcast, etc) - and functionally none of the sources are "self-references', they are the NB Authors government site, the province's largest media Telegraph-Journal, CTV, Yahoo News and CBC - those would be among the largest regional news outlets that exist nationwide - in addition to being referenced on the SJ tourism site, his alumni newspaper and other small outlets. (I'm not him, I've never met him, I noticed they are also used as a source on 9 different Wikipedia articles about Atlantic Canadian history). Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I did an analysis of the sources originally present on this article, after it was tagged for notability and that tag was subsequently removed. My analysis is available on the talk page for the article, and determined that significant coverage specifically about Backyard History is lacking. I did some major Googling, and turned up some additional sources which were then added, but the bar for web content is decidedly higher and I'm unsure if this has met it. I do however believe that with the references on this article, along with others that discuss Andrew MacLean, an article about him could be created which this could then be redirected to. I would prefer to abstain from voting on this one, and this comment should not be interpreted as support for keeping or deleting this... Just wanted to provide some context. MediaKyle (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

        The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."

        From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."

      2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

        The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."

      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source--six sentences long--could be described as "trivial mention". The second source is a bio for Andrew MacLean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An article about the subject, with the subject referenced in the headline, exclusively about the subject and its creator, is not a "trivial mention". "Trivial mention" is when there's an article about a car accident and it says "a nearby bystander, author Andrew Maclean, whose program hits Bell TV this summer, says the green pick-up truck swerved just before the incident". Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a couple important things to note here. First of all, Backyard History is described in the article as a "history project" - it is a newspaper column, podcast, and 5-episode docuseries at this time. The Telegraph-Journal is not an independent source, as they are one of the main publishers of the Backyard History column, it's still a good source but may not contribute to GNG for this reason. The CBC Radio-Canada article I think would contribute to GNG, but that's really about it - there's much more coverage about Andrew MacLean than there is about Backyard History specifically. MediaKyle (talk) 15:12, 31 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 06:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Magnolia and MediaKyle. The Telegraph-Journal is not independent (and the Yahoo! source is a reprint of the Telegraph-Journal) and the CBC isn't enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: An argument against making it a merge to the Telegraph Journal is that it's not their own, they just syndicate it the same as the New York Times syndicates Garfield comics basically - so have upwards of thirty different media outlets syndicating Backyard History, and they're doing that AFTER it's printed three books, a podcast and a television show...so it's not really an issue for listing under a newspaper that happens to have signed onto the growing mini-empire. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also against redirect, the column Backyard History "appears once a week in more than a dozen newspapers" according to the book description. It is not clear if one of those newspapers is more significant than the others. IgelRM (talk) 21:29, 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. 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 no consensus‎. The Keep arguments carry more weight, but have not attained a consensus here. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaurav Yadav (police officer)

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Gaurav Yadav (police officer) (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)

    Was deleted back in 2023, and despite the non-notable award they received in 2025, still does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – ips.gov.in Only posting information[28]India TV Hindi article mentioning Gaurav Yadav’s appointment as Punjab’s new DGP and his origin from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh[29]. The Times Of India mentions Punjab government appointing Gaurav Yadav as acting DGP. The Hindu mentions Punjab Police foiling a terrorist plot with reference to his DGP role[30]. The Hindu mentions Gaurav Yadav meeting a person at Khanauri[31]. Indian Express mentions Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann selecting Gaurav Yadav as acting DGP[32]. Asian News International (X Tweet) has a press byte[33]. The Times of India calls for avoiding "military vs. police" controversy[34]. ips.gov.in mentions educational qualifications (B.E., M.E., M.A. (Police Administration), PhD)[35].svpnpa.gov.in mentions Gaurav Yadav as the best probationer cadet of the 1992 45 RR batch[36]. svpnpa.gov.in mentions only Gaurav Yadav’s name[37]. Mentions Gaurav Yadav’s appointment as acting DGP and him being the son-in-law of former DGP P.C. Dogra. The Tribune (India) mentions Gaurav Yadav’s appointment as acting DGP and him being P.C. Dogra’s son-in-law.[38] Jagaran mentions Gaurav Yadav’s appointment as Punjab’s acting DGP, his role as head of Punjab Police’s intelligence wing in 2016-17, and as Special Principal Secretary to CM Bhagwant Mann[39]. The Tribune (India) mentions Gaurav Yadav being included in a panel by the appointment committee for the Director General (DG) post of a central police organization or agency in February 2025[40]. Amar Ujala mentions Gaurav Yadav being included in a panel for the Director General post of a central security force/agency[41]. All these sources are limited to government or routine news (e.g., appointments, transfers, or reports of specific events). Since these are typically routine or administrative news, in the case of police officers, merely holding a high post (e.g., DGP) is not sufficient. There is no mention in any source of national or international impact, a decisive role in a major criminal case, significant awards (e.g., President’s Police Medal), exceptional achievements, or long-term societal impact. Hence, this does not pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG.-SachinSwami (talk) 1:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment – One source mentioning the receipt of the President's Medal award, but it is not sufficient. [42] -SachinSwami (talk) 2:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. The 'keep' arguments have been statements that the individual meets GNG. We have a detailed comment suggesting it doesn't. It would be best if the matter of passing or failing GNG can be explored in more depth, especially by those !voting keep.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Friendly fire during the Gaza war

    [edit]
    Friendly fire during the Gaza 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)

    More Gaza war cruft. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Any shred of encyclopedic value, perhaps one or two lines on the total number of friendly fired incidents, can be included in Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Military_casualties, where the topic is already covered. Longhornsg (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retain (for now). The article is a good summary of information which is not found elsewhere on Wikipedia. A discussion should be held on the article's talk page to discuss whether the article should be renamed, merged, re-written or otherwise. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    [edit]
    Navadurga (regional goddess) (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)

    Article about a non-notable local goddess tagged for years. I cannot see any coverage that meets WP:N. Wareon (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was ‎Keep. There is a consensus in the below discussion that the subject is notable per the WP:NPROF guideline. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

    Paul Chambers (academic)

    [edit]
    Paul Chambers (academic) (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 was deleted by CSD G7 in April, after an AFD discussion for which there was consensus to delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosecution of Paul Chambers. The article was again deleted as a recreation at the beginning of May. I don't see that anything has changed since then, other than the subject having charges dropped by Thai authorities. This is still pretty much a WP:BLP1E. Pinging @Fram, @The Anome, @Ritchie333, @JMWt, @Shellwood and JBW as previously involved editors. TarnishedPathtalk 09:13, 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 redirect‎ to Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiberiu Rusu

    [edit]
    Tiberiu Rusu (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)

    Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. One possible redirect is Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 09:11, 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. No independent sources have been presented at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MAD Foundation

    [edit]
    MAD Foundation (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)

    Blatant primary sourced promotion of a non notable organisation Theroadislong (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Theroadislong, hope you're doing well. Just trying to figure out what is in question here - I've offered a discussion on the talkspace in the article and on your profile! I see you've written this as "blatant" and "non notable" - I have been one of the editors who has done some drafting and researching, so grateful for some further detail here. Cheers and happy to chat any time :) CommandAShepard (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are zero independent sources, (which is what we base articles on). You removed my maintenance tags so I bought it here for the community to discuss. Theroadislong (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Theroadislong! In the first instance, created a section on the article's talkspace for wider discussion of the maintenance tags, which I expected would be the place to discuss this? I am still an early Wikipedian! Happy to also have a discussion on the sources, which were a mix of primary (for official statements/figures) and secondary sources. Thanks :) CommandAShepard (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending review by another editor (DoubleGrazing) in this discussion, draftspace may be appropriate and submission through AFC process. CommandAShepard (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie McDonald (media personality)

    [edit]
    Jamie McDonald (media personality) (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)

    Most links or references about him are dead. Hardly a notable wifigure as per WP:NOTE. Only recurred a few times in a TV series back in 2005 as a minor character. Last time he did media work was in 2015 (and that was all local work). This clearly is not a notable person, at least not by national or international standards. He wasn't even known by Big Brother standards as well. An IP editor recently added links to his two books from Amazon and his podcast page. I don't see how they are adequate enough to warrant this person a Wikipedia page. Yucalyptus (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - the two books are self-published and I can't find reviews or any coverage of them from reliable, independent sources, so he doesn't qualify for Wikipedia:AUTHOR. Other material doesn't seem enough. Lijil (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect‎ to Chattha (clan) without prejudice against a selective merge of any properly sourced content. The main concern here is the use of the term "dynasty", and possible reliance on OR, both of which can be addressed editorially now at the target article, if applicable. Owen× ☎ 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chattha Dynasty

    [edit]
    Chattha Dynasty (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)

    Most of the sources give information about a clan by the name of the Chatthas but nothing about any sort of dynasty. There's already a separate article for the clan any under Chattha (clan) anyway.

    Given that it is hard to find any substantive information from a reliable source about a "Chattha dynasty", I feel the article should be deleted and any relevant sources or info can be moved to the article relating to the clan. Ixudi (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    There are Multiple sources of a Chattha principality/state.
    E.g 1. http://archive.org/details/TheEncyclopediaOfSikhism-VolumeIA-d
    2.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=rKkPEAAAQBAJ&dq=Chattha+rule&pg=PA83
    3.
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=lD9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Pir
    As I explained while removing the deletion template. The name of this page is chosen as "Chattha Dynasty" because all of the ruling chieftains were from the same family.
    The order being Nur Muhammad and his son Pir and Ahmad Chathha then Pir's son Ghualm Chattha and then Ghulams son Jan Chattha. So that is why "Dynasty" is an appropriate term.
    If the name is the issue that can be discussed separately.
    The article should stay on wikipedia space because it highlights a significant regional power in 18th-century Punjab and a less known prospect of punjabi history. Jatwadia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources all refer to a Chhatha clan. Not a dynasty. Ixudi (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 1 clearly mentions a Chattha state on page 449 if you read carefully.
    Source 2 "Occupants of areas such as Rasulnagar on the border between the Punjab and afghan lands" this source proves they were independent rulers and not tributary to Afghans and had thier own teritories such as Rasulnagar.
    Source 3 clearly mentions Pir Muhammad Chattha succeding a "principality" from his father.
    Again the "dynasty" bit is not the issue the point being is that an independant Chattha state/principality existed which was ruled over by the same family that is why it is called a dynasty. Jatwadia (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2 more sources
    https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206739/page/n220/mode/1up
    Page 202 : "Ghulam Mahomed, who succeeded to the estate, succeeded also to the hatred of the Sukarchakias"
    https://archive.org/details/resistance-themes-in-punjabi-literature/page/52/mode/1up?q=Chattha
    Page 52 : "Of the Mohammadan tribes who Struggicd with most success to maintain their indépendence the most prominent were the Bhattis and Tarars in Hafizabad and the Chatthas in the Western half of the Wazirabad tehsil." Jatwadia (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Logs: 2025-05 ✍️ create
    --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 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 06:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. This appears to be original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind pointing which source is Original research?? Jatwadia (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. The concerns of the editor who nominated the article for deletion as well as any other editor have been answered. Discussion should be closed. Jatwadia (talk) 23:44, 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 redirect‎ to Arabization#Malaysia. Consensus is that perhaps an article could be built from this, but that the current article should not be in mainspace. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arabization in Malaysia

    [edit]
    Arabization in Malaysia (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)

    While this is probably a topic that could use an article, this appears to be an llm-generated text (the original author and only significant contributor is blocked for sockpuppetry). While the sources where included do seem to exist, they have little to no relationship with the text they are citing. Some are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 05:29, 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 Wisconsin State Patrol#Fallen officers. I do see a rough consensus to redirect, though participants other than Nathannah didn't exactly elaborate on the specific basis of their opinions, which I would encourage in the future. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Trevor Casper

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Trevor Casper (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)

    Tragic but WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. Sadly law enforcement die while doing their jobs too often. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 05:26, 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 no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Omneky

    [edit]
    Omneky (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:ORG and WP:GNG. All citations are press releases, media wires, or otherwise non-independent. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Blackpot-kettle (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Per nominator, References #1, 7-14, 16, 18, 20-23, 26-32 are some form of wire release; References #2, 4, 24 are brief mentions, Reference #25 is similar to the aforementioned TechCrunch and Adweek blip; Reference #6 is a contributor article; Reference #5 is an interview. I will refrain from commenting on the merits of References #3 and 17 not knowing the verifiability of Japanese but the former does say "PR Times" in the markup. Astapor12 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep while most of the references are similar to press-releases, the TechCrunch, non-contributor Forbes (video on best AI startups), google books (search via books shows significant coverage) and other media provide some good reliable media coverage (not SPIP or paid). Norlk (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment please provide the non-contributor Forbes video, Google Books and non-SPIP reliable media coverage than WP:SOURCESEXIST. For example, this book uses PR Newswire as the footnote for a promotional mention of Omneky. This is further evidence of WP:NIS, wire releases dominating this company's coverage. Astapor12 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:RSP does not consider TechCrunch to be generally reliable nor considerable in determining notability. Adweek and Business Insider are not remotely deep coverage, the latter labels the article as advertising before the headline and the former is about digital copyright with some passing mentions of Omneky as well as other AI companies. Astapor12 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:26, 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 merge‎ to 2025 Pahalgam attack. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah

    [edit]
    Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah (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:BLP1E. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:22, 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. While I don't see a clear consensus that the term itself is non-notable, I do see a rough consensus that the article as written is largely OR/SYNTH. Ping me if you need the deleted sources to rewrite this in draftspace. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Geocivilization

    [edit]
    Geocivilization (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 is essentially WP:OR based on an obscure research article with lots of WP:COI added in. It is tied to the article Ahmed Sarirete that was created by the same user presumably as WP:PROMO and which is also currently under consideration for deletion. Essentially the concept seems to be introduced in this obscure academic article https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol66/iss66/9/ which has been cited a total of 7 times in the last 13 years and does not have seemed to have gained any traction. While not totally made up, most of it is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE with some references to existing topics but the term does not seem to be widely accepted in academia as a search in JSTOR and Google Scholar shows. --hroest 17:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep In marking this article as patrolled, I left a talk page message noting that "geocivilization is frequently used in political science research to discuss how geography shapes politics and vice versa, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for retention." Here are some examples of its use:
    While the term is definitely niche, I think it is sufficiently notable given its use across this many contexts and regions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:14, 24 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 06:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • leaning delete I don't have the time or the background to sort through all this but I note that (a) the jargon level is extremely high in this to the point of tempting a diagnosis of deliberate obfuscation, (b) few of the works noted above appear to use it as a term, and (c) it really ought to be possible to say "no, environmental factors aren't entirely determining" without having to make a school of it or for that matter to run on so. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: One final attempt to reach quorum.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on sources found above, but for all that is holy, would an expert please clean the article up. Nom is correct that much of the article appears to be OR and/or SYNTH, such as the closing "future directions" section (which is just three examples of topics loosely connected to geographic politics, not at all to "geocivilization" as a specific field), and the highly academic jargon doesn't help. There does seem to be a kernel of a real subject underneath all the frills, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The sources presented barely describe the concept, so it would be entirely erroneous to consider them significant coverage. They are also primary, and not secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. Reliability is also questionable, of the first two, one is a conference proceedings in a preprint repository, that has no indication of being reputable, and the second, ESJ, is a known predatory journal. The latter three appear to be on different concepts entirely, though whether they are or not might be more obvious if the sources, you know, actually describe the concept directly and in-detail. I really can't see which part of GNG the concept allegedly meets. The "presumed" part? Or "multiple"? Given the sources are not secondary, nor addressing the topic directly and in-detail, all an expert would be able to do is produce more original research, which is the problem with the article in the first place. Please blow this up and do not start over. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Alpha3031, largely. Far too much OR/SYNTH to even see what's going on, but it doesn't seem like there is very much. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Alpha3031 and Eddie891. 🟥⭐ talk to me! 04:45, 24 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Samuel Biek

    [edit]
    Samuel Biek (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)

    Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was a few sentences at [[43]] and an interview at [[44]], but without better sourcing this subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Skirmish on Saint Ilija Mountain

    [edit]
    Skirmish on Saint Ilija Mountain (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)

    Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a random skirmish as you may think, its very imporant to not have its page, it was a big strategical operation which affected result of the Insurgency by a lot. 79.140.150.3 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
    Logs: 2024-06 ✍️ create
    --Cewbot (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Non-notable skirmish. --Griboski (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect‎ to Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Dobrosin

    [edit]
    Battle of Dobrosin (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)

    Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Again, just like in the case of the Battle of Đocaj and Jasić, this battle holds significance. It was the very battle that marked the outbreak of the Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. This was the first major engagement between the LAPMB and Yugoslav forces. I see no reason why it should be deleted. Furthermore, it was widely reported on in Western media, as shown by the sources mentioned in the article. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline for a lack of notability is deletion not merging, especially since there is also Attacks near Dobrosin (WP:ATD-M). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To the closing editor: I have merged the relevant content. The cited sources however don't state that this was the beginning of the insurgency (in fact it says there were clashes for two months prior). Therefore, all that is needed now is to redirect the page to Insurgency in the Preševo Valley to support the merge. --Griboski (talk) 01:30, 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 redirect‎ to Rugby Alberta. Stifle (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edmonton Rugby Union

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Edmonton Rugby Union (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 is an amateur sporting organization which fails to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable, and no source has ever been added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Đocaj and Jasić

    [edit]
    Battle of Đocaj and Jasić (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:CFORK of Battle of Junik. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, There is no reason why this battle shouldn't stay as an article. The battle should stay as its own article because it was the very battle in which Goran Ostojic, a major commander of the Yugoslav Army and the chief of staff of the 63rd Parachute Brigade, was killed in action along with two other VJ commanders. For this reason alone, the battle deserves to remain its own article. However, I also noticed some people trying to add Goran Ostojic to the Battle of Junik as the battle in which he died, but the battle in question was not actually part of the Battle of Junik. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Policy-based input please.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, There is no reason why this battle shouldn't stay as an article. The battle should stay as its own article because it was the very battle in which Goran Ostojic, a major commander of the Yugoslav Army and the chief of staff of the 63rd Parachute Brigade, was killed in action along with two other VJ commanders. For this reason alone, the battle deserves to remain its own article. However, I also noticed some people trying to add Goran Ostojic to the Battle of Junik as the battle in which he died, but the battle in question was not actually part of the Battle of Junik. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the article is tagged for notability and for unreliable sources. --24.114.49.187 (talk) 23:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn upon expansion; thanks for the new info. (non-admin closure)‎ Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New Elliott, Indiana

    [edit]
    New Elliott, 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)

    This looks entirely like a neighborhood of Schererville which somehow managed to escape being incorporated in the town. The Town limits are wildly irregular, and I have to suspect it was added to in several steps, but for whatever reason this section, which is surrounded everywhere except to the north by the town, is unincorporated. What I can't find, though, is any evidence that it ever had a town-ish existence of its own; indeed, other that real estate clickbait, I'm having a hard time finding evidence of it at all. It only shows up on the topos as a label in the 1950s, and then presumably got back-added from GNIS; but I can't find anything that says anything about it. I get a lot of false hits from chance juxtapositions but really the clickbait has it right: it's a neighborhood of the town which happens not to lie within its borders. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - not a town or neighborhood officially in the US Census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep‎. Stifle (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revue des questions historiques

    [edit]
    Revue des questions historiques (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)

    Unsourced translation of the unsourced French article. What at first glance appears to be dozens of sources, turns out to be dozens of articles in the Revue about other things. A few passing mentions here and there, but no significant secondary coverage that I can find. Other than Google, I recommend searching Qwant and Persee; see those links among the set of find-source links on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep
    • Serious claim to be first modern scholarly journal in both France and the French language
    • Publication that went for 80 years
    • Important in France as an intellectual cornerstone of the Nineteenth Century Catholic revival
    • Important outside (and in) France as an early stage in exporting German "scientific history" methods
    • A linked internet archive and 4 (post AfD) references undermine the "unreferenced" claim
    JASpencer (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only ref #1 is promising; the rest are passing mentions:
    • Ref 1: One solid paragraph about the journal; borderline WP:SIGCOV. Replicate this several times in secondary sources, with sources that have deeper treatment, and you probably have it.
    • Ref 2: mentioned in passing (2x) on page 158; e.g., In sum, the Revue historique served ideological purposes no less than the legitimist and conservative Revue des questions historiques, an historical journal which began to be published ten years earlier, in 1886, and which, as Carbonell writes, has been just about totally ignored by the few French historians who have written on the history of history in France..
    • Ref 3: One passing mention:
    One passing mention

    Like the discipline of history, which was divided between the conservative and Catholic Revue des questions historiques (1866) and the republican Revue historique (1876), the major textbooks on the history of law distinguish between, on the one hand, the work of liberals such as Adhémar Esmein and Jean-Baptiste Brissaud and, on the other, those carried out by Catholic jurists (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet, and Émile Chénon).

    Original: À l'instar de la discipline historique, clivée entre la conservatrice et catholique Revue des questions historiques (1866) et la républicaine Revue historique (1876), les grands manuels d'histoire du droit laissent distinguer, d'un côté, les entreprises menées par des libéraux comme Adhémar Esmein et Jean-Baptiste Brissaud et, de l'autre, ceux réalisés par des juristes catholiques (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet et Émile Chénon).

    See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you are continuing to add citations; that's great. Checking 5 and 6:
    • Ref 5: Ten passing mentions, with one on p. 111, as you noted. I don't see anything involving a significant treatment of the topic here, but if you can show that there is continual treatment on the three pages from 108 to 111 and not just passing mentions, that might help.
    • Ref 6: This is a 20-page article by esteemed French historian Charles-Olivier Carbonell about the birth of the similarly named journal, Revue historique, which to a large extent, was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques and mimicked its format but not its content. I would say that this certainly counts as a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic (the first one that does, by my reckoning).
    Is he the only French historian who ever wrote about it, or are there other serious treatments of it? Find two more like #6, and you're good. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Responses to the source analysis from keep !voters would be helpful.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The "source analysis" misses the point to a large extent. It's applying a test for when notability is not asserted.
    There are multiple claims of notability within the article, all of them sourced. The "source analysis" misses this out and applies a beauty contest metric, which is only intended when there are no clear claims of notability.
    To take one claim, which on its own would justify the article, this is the first scholarly history journal in France. There's no attempt to say this isn't asserted in the article, or that the claim is not notable, or that it's not sourced, or that the source is unreliable. In fact the source is from its only possible rival for the crown of first French scholarly history journal, the Revue historique, a journal with a high incentive to claim otherwise. Although not currently linked if you follow the assertion in the RH's article it quotes the RH's co-founder, Gabriel Monod, who states that RQH is the only French history journal using the new methods up until this point.
    But none of that's directly addressed. Instead there's something nice said about the author of the later RH article, nothing about the fact it was in RH, nothing about the claim, nothing about Monod's original acknowledgement - just a secondary discussion about whether this was a major or minor citation!
    And there are other claims to notability in the article that are made, such as the prominent role it played - for much of its 80 years - in the late nineteenth century attempted "Catholic reconquista" of French culture. Again not addressed.
    Notability isn't primarily a Pokémon hunt for references. That may be needed in a borderline case, and borderline cases naturally cluster in AfDs. But notability is about whether a notability claim is made in the article and it is backed by one or more credible sources.
    And on this the article succeeds. Multiple times.
    JASpencer (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Encyclopedic topic, encyclopedic article. It would be a pity if editors were deterred from translating articles from other Wikipedias by this kind of nomination. It sometimes takes a while to get a translated article into shape, because the emphasis here on inline referencing (undoubtedly a good thing in the medium term) is not the way other major Wikipedias see things. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that there's a different view of what makes Wikipedia. @Mathglot despite being almost as seasoned as us (vintage 2006) seems to have fallen into this German style view that Wikipedia entries need to be vetted first in draft form and that a partial article is worse than no article. Obviously this wouldn't apply to the present article which even on the idea of chasing references[1] rather than looking at the substance of the claims for notability, it now meets the criteria. Still besides the point, but it clearly meets it.
    I happen to think that draftspace is a fine discipline to editors who want to submit themselves to it, or troublesome editors who may be valuable but need to be monitored, but for the majority of well established editors this would be a massive change that would hinder the usefulness of Wikipedia particularly in areas that Wikipedia is already biased against - such as pioneering historiographical journals of not just nineteenth century French speakers but much worse backwards looking Catholics who so, so easily - even if unconsciously - meet the WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria in the English speaking twenty first century online space (as Carbonell eerily pointed out).
    If this were an nineteenth century English speaking moderately liberal freethinking journal with a tenth of the longevity (or a tenth of the Wikipedia references) it wouldn't attract a notability tag let alone a relisted AfD nomination.
    1. ^ An article in a French academic journal, an article in a German one and not one but two chapters in substantial academic books. That's before we talk about Monod's mention which is substantial ("this is why we started our journal") and not only independent but antagonistic.
    JASpencer (talk) 16:48, 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.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Sedrenik '94

    [edit]
    Operation Sedrenik '94 (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)

    Other than a passing mention by the CIA and at an ICTY trial, this operation isn't explored in any great depth in reliable sources. The article itself makes no mention of casualties, nor is the significance of this offensive readily apparent. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reference for this is Balkan Battlegrounds (I'm unaware of the primary sources you refer to). It is mentioned in both volumes, Vol 1. p. 237 and Vol 2. p. 456, which are almost identical in wording, and are cited to essentially the same sources. The current Incident section is basically a direct cut and paste of the relevant paras, which in both volumes are headed "September: The ARBiH at Sarajevo/Sedrenik". At no point in the main text of the refs or the relevant footnotes is this "very small attack" referred to as an "operation", let alone "Operation Sedrenik '94". So it isn't a plausible search term, because no such named "operation" exists in the refs. This is a name for an isolated and inconclusive piece of fighting over two days that has been editor-generated. Let's not perpetuate it, even if in a redirect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 Nanjing building fire

    [edit]
    2024 Nanjing building fire (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)

    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) 17:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. Zhou, Jie 周洁; Wu, Xue 吴雪 (2024-04-01). "无处安放的电动自行车 一场大火牵出的治理难题" [Electric Bikes With Nowhere to Park: A Fire That Exposed a Governance Dilemma]. Xinmin Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

        The article notes: "元宵节前夜，2024年2月23日4点39分，一场电动自行车引发的大火，让南京市雨花台区明尚西苑小区居民，经历了一场噩梦。起火楼栋位于6栋2单元，由于该小区的垂直天井连通各楼层与1楼架空层，大火通过天井一路往上蹿至二十多层高。接到报警后，20多台消防车赶赴现场救火，直到约清晨6时，明火被扑灭。官方数据显示，这场事故共造成15人遇难，44人受伤。"

        From Google Translate: "On the eve of the Lantern Festival, at 4:39 on 23 February 2024, a fire caused by an electric bicycle made the residents of Mingshang Xiyuan Community in Yuhuatai District, Nanjing City experience a nightmare. The fire building is located in Unit 2, Building 6. Since the vertical patio of the community connects each floor with the overhead floor on the first floor, the fire jumped all the way up through the patio to more than 20 floors. After receiving the alarm, more than 20 fire trucks rushed to the scene to put out the fire until about 6 o'clock in the morning, when the open fire was extinguished. Official data shows that the accident caused a total of 15 deaths and 44 injuries."

        The article notes: " 在收治受伤人员的一家医院中，记者见到了此次火灾的伤者之一张小姐。她告诉《新民周刊》，自己在南京工作，去年下半年刚刚拿到明尚西苑的房本，原本以为是美好生活的开始，没想到，一切就像做了一场梦。在明尚西苑小区，记者看到包括发生火灾的6栋在内，小区内的住宅均设置了多个天井，在一楼与架空层相邻。部分住户为自家窗户安装了防盗窗、搭建了顶棚，也有人在上面放置了一些杂物。"

        From Google Translate: "In a hospital that admitted the injured, the reporter met one of the injured in the fire, Ms. Zhang. She told Xinmin Weekly that she worked in Nanjing and had just received the property title of Mingshang Xiyuan in the second half of last year. She originally thought it was the beginning of a good life, but unexpectedly, everything was like a dream. In Mingshang Xiyuan community, the reporter saw that including the six buildings where the fire broke out, all the houses in the community were equipped with multiple patios, adjacent to the overhead floor on the first floor. Some residents installed anti-theft windows and built ceilings for their windows, and some people placed some sundries on them."

        The article notes: " 南京火灾发生后，上海多个街道都开展了电动自行车安全宣传，市公安部门、消防部门、物业管理部门等都在开展专项检查，相关违规现象、消防隐患正被整改。"

        From Google Translate: "After the Nanjing fire, many streets in Shanghai have carried out electric bicycle safety publicity. The municipal public security department, fire department, property management department, etc. are carrying out special inspections, and related violations and fire hazards are being rectified."

      2. Jing, Ming 景明; Mao, Jun 毛俊 (2014-11-27). Wu, Zhichao 伍智超 (ed.). "南京"2·23"15死44伤火灾事故调查报告公布，10人被处罚" [Investigation Report Released on Nanjing "2·23" Fire That Killed 15 and Injured 44; 10 People Penalized]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

        The article notes: "涉事电动自行车车主、非法生产销售锂离子电池个体经营者、南京某物业管理公司项目部负责人等10人因涉嫌犯罪，被公安机关依法采取刑事强制措施。涉事电动自行车生产销售、物业服务等7家企业，由政府相关部门依法依规进行处理。对事故中存在失职失责问题的地方党委政府及有关部门的公职人员进行严肃问责。"

        From Google Translate: "The owner of the electric bicycle involved, the individual operator who illegally produces and sells lithium-ion batteries, the project manager of a property management company in Nanjing, and 10 other people were taken criminal compulsory measures by the public security organs in accordance with the law for suspected crimes. The seven companies involved in the production and sales of electric bicycles, property services, etc., were dealt with by the relevant government departments in accordance with the law. Serious accountability will be held for the local party committees, governments and public officials of relevant departments who have failed to perform their duties in the accident."

      3. Shen, Rufa 沈汝发 (2024-11-27). Jiao, Peng 焦鹏 (ed.). "南京"2·23"重大火灾事故调查情况发布 10人被采取刑事强制措施" [Investigation Results Released for Major "2·23" Fire in Nanjing: 10 People Face Criminal Charges] (in Chinese). [[[Xinhua News Agency]]. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

        The article notes: "事故发生后，江苏省成立“2·23”重大火灾事故调查组，省纪委监委成立事故追责问责审查调查组。调查组查明，火灾原因为小区某住户停放在6号楼2单元东侧架空层的电动自行车锂离子电池热失控起火，引燃周边电动自行车和住户天井内违章搭建并堆放的可燃物，在烟囱效应作用下，燃烧产生的火焰和高温有毒有害烟气快速突破天井内部分住户外窗至室内，多种因素叠加导致火势扩大蔓延，造成人员伤亡。"

        From Google Translate: "After the accident, Jiangsu Province established a "2.23" major fire accident investigation team, and the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection and Supervision established an accident accountability review and investigation team. The investigation team found out that the cause of the fire was that the lithium-ion battery of an electric bicycle parked on the east side of Unit 2 of Building 6 of a resident in the community ran away from control and caught fire, igniting the surrounding electric bicycles and the combustibles illegally built and stacked in the patio of the residents. Under the chimney effect, the flames and high-temperature toxic and harmful smoke generated by the combustion quickly broke through the outdoor windows of some residents in the patio to the indoors. The superposition of multiple factors caused the fire to expand and spread, causing casualties."

      4. Bo, Xiaozhou 薄晓舟, ed. (2024-02-25). "15死44伤，南京居民楼火灾为何伤亡严重？" [15 Dead, 44 Injured: Why Was the Nanjing Apartment Fire So Deadly?]. China Newsweek (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09 – via Sina Corporation.

        The article notes: "明尚西苑小区是于2010年建成的安置房，位于南京市南部地区，共有6栋。据官方通报，此次发生火灾的是第6栋第2单元，有256户，居住人口762人。起火点是2单元一楼的架空层。架空层，多出现在南方城市的建筑中，一楼潮湿，往往不住人，而是被设计为没有外围墙的开敞空间层，便于通风，隔潮。一些开发商会将此处开发为公共活动空间，比如游泳池、会客厅。但不少小区的架空层，最终是用于停放住户的电动车、自行车等。事故所在明尚西苑小区，便是后者。"

        From Google Translate: "Mingshang Xiyuan Community is a resettlement housing complex built in 2010. It is located in the southern part of Nanjing and has a total of 6 buildings. According to official reports, the fire broke out in Unit 2 of Building 6, which has 256 households and a population of 762. The fire started in the overhead floor on the first floor of Unit 2. The overhead floor is mostly found in buildings in southern cities. The first floor is damp and often uninhabited. Instead, it is designed as an open space without outer walls to facilitate ventilation and moisture isolation. Some developers will develop this place into a public activity space, such as a swimming pool or a reception room. However, the overhead floors of many communities are ultimately used to park residents' electric vehicles, bicycles, etc. The Mingshang Xiyuan Community where the accident occurred is the latter."

      5. Less significant coverage:
        1. Chen, Rongmei 陈荣梅 (2024-08-07). ""电鸡"停满人行道 行人"蛇形走位"穿行 有企业推出电单车立体停车库尝试解决占道问题" [E-Bikes Crowd Sidewalks, Forcing Pedestrians to Weave Through Some Companies. Try Multi-Level Parking Solutions to Tackle Obstruction Problem]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

          The article notes: "南京雨花台区“2·23”火灾事故后，为防止电单车停放小区内引发火灾，全国各地的小区陆续禁止电单车进入小区停放，深圳也不例外。"

          From Google Translate: "After the "2.23" fire accident in Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, in order to prevent fires caused by motorcycles parked in residential areas, communities across the country have successively banned motorcycles from being parked in the communities, and Shenzhen is no exception."

      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 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 Darshana–Jessore–Khulna line. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jashore Cantonment railway station

    [edit]
    Jashore Cantonment railway station (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)

    Another contested redirect without improvement. Contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. My search of English Language sources did not turn up any evidence of notablility. I may have missed good sources in other languages. Please ping me if sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This railway station located in Bangladesh so it is difficult to find out any notable evidence in English. If you search the same evidence in Bengali. There will be a lot of evidence which prove it notable railway station. Stud.asif (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: If there are good sources in Bengali, please provide them here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some of source link.
    Stud.asif (talk) 00:55, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To Listen Is to Understand

    [edit]
    To Listen Is to Understand (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:NALBUM. Author might just be (or clearly be) related to this SPI history. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The "TurnTable" chart has some legitimacy in Nigeria but I also can find no verification that this album placed there. The album has no reliable media coverage either and is only visible in the musician's social media and promo statements. Since the musician does not have his own article (see WP:A9) that leads me to a delete vote. The person behind this article could put some effort into developing an article for the musician if there is evidence of his own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Per Nomination, Fails WP:NALBUM Destinyokhiria 💬 19:00, 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.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    James Benjamin Stewart

    [edit]
    James Benjamin Stewart (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 kickboxer. This article initially appears notable but when you look deeper it doesn't meet WP:NKICKRed XN, WP:SPORTBASICRed XN, WP:GNGRed XN. It also has a lot of promotional aspects such as: the name of his private non-notable company, the name of his children: "They have three children together: Sidney, Saryna, and Sterling", the entire sections "Early life", "Corporate career", "Personal life", passage like "conditioned and rehabilitated himself through hot yoga"??? and majority of the "championships" entries are completely unsourced. The article screams vanity page to promote the subject's business interests and self-published non-notable books, as promotional as it gets.

    The subject's wins in WKA, WKU or WAKO are in amateur kickboxing (Point Fighting or light contact Kick Boxing) which doesn't pass WP:NKICK. The subject hasn't fought outside of these amateur competitions, and hasn't fought professional kickboxing (unlike Dragan Jovanović for example who went on to fight Pro kick). According to WP:NKICK: Kickboxers who have an amateur background exclusively are not notable under this guideline unless they have been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications. The subject has only been covered in some local publications. Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment NKICK seems a tad strict. It wants "at least four" pieces of SIGCOV, excluding local? That's a higher bar than GNG.
    ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an issue with NKICK you are welcome to start a conversion about it, but in the meantime we have to base our decision to the agreed current guidelines. The subject is an amateur kickboxer and the guidelines for amateur kickboxing athletes are extremely appropriate, because it should require a lot in order to be notable as an amateur. There are so many non-notable martial arts competitions out there where you can become a "world champion" with only a few participants per category, that's why quality SIGCOV has been requested. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:50, 1 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! 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:38, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocking the Boat (documentary)

    [edit]
    Rocking the Boat (documentary) (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:NFILM. Also, independent, third-party reliable sources weak in nature. The creator moved from draftspace to mainspace to avoid WP:SCRUTINY per [53] Agent 007 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Return to Draftspace Allegations about removal from draftspace are serious. I would lean toward Keeping this page, but there seems to be no harm in making it a draft again. That will allow for better sourcing. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Does it pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM or not? There's no reason to redraftify if we can keep/delete outright.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sinai 48

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Sinai 48 (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)

    Fifteen years after being tagged for possible COI, this article still has not a single proper reference showing notability independent of the notability of certain members, and there does not appear to be one to be found. BD2412 T 16:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:36, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Mandali (1822)

    [edit]
    Battle of Mandali (1822) (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 fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) And the article uses primary sources even the creator of this article has also requested its deletion Special:PermanentLink/1284210773#Hello Iranian112 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Support per nom DataNomad (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting since this AfD was not properly filed and delsorted until now.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Radheshyam Bishnoi

    [edit]
    Radheshyam Bishnoi (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)

    I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Also found these sources on Google, [54], [55]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [58], [59], [60].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there coverage in reliable sources of the awards? Please provide links to the coverage in new sites and add to the article if you can. Dualpendel (talk) 20:01, 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 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link timed out. Can you ensure you supplied the correct URL? Also, is this the only source? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you can google Jodhpuri (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaisalmer/news/jaisalmer-wildlife-savior-radheshyam-bishnoi-inspiring-story-134644803.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/barmer/jaisalmer/news/radheshyam-vishnoi-was-rewarded-with-young-naturalist-award-2021-129184236.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jodhpuri, the photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) mentions "Own work." Did you take this photo yourself, or was it sourced from another website? SachinSwami (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jodhpuri:, not my job to present your contention. I conducted a WP:BEFORE and the sources you provided do not change what I found. These are quite good churnalism but nothing reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @CNMall41,
    I’m asking just to improve my understanding, could you please clarify why these sources are considered churnalism? As someone from India, I can confirm that Dainik Bhaskar is one of the top Hindi-language publications in the country and has a strong reputation. News18 is also a well-known media outlet.
    Tagging @SachinSwami for his insights as well, as he is familiar with Indian news publications. Afstromen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, it sounds like you are asking on behalf of Jodhpuri since this is their thread. Did you mean to reply on a different thread? I am a little confused. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you view everything with suspicion? I asked only to improve my understanding, as I clearly mentioned. It's possible I asked in the wrong place. should I have brought this up on your talk page instead?Afstromen (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Afstromen:, I asked for clarification so as not to make an unwarranted accusation. Which thread was this intended for so I can address your question?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Hi @Afstromen, I'm a bit confused about the AFD process. I have some questions. If the page was accepted from AFC, why didn't you wait for experienced reviewers to review it before nominating it for AFD? Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? Also, the page creator Jodhpuri uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) with the mention "Own work." I asked them about it here, but they haven't responded yet.- SachinSwami (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding sources, Bhaskar News has written against the wrongdoings of the Indian government, and even during IT raids on their office by the central government, they continued to raise their voice against such issues. We have seen this kind of journalism, but if a news article mentions the journalist's name, that source holds more weight; otherwise, the news lacks significant value. This is because promotional or social media information, or news created based on someone submitting a story to the office, often does not include the journalist's name. Hence, such sources are not reliable. Additionally, the Young Naturalist Award by Century Asia Group is a private award, not given by the Rajasthan government. SachinSwami (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean? Could you please be more specific?
      Well I accepted this draft because I believed it contained significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. However, user CNMAll14 added a notability tag and raised a concern regarding the nature of the sources, noting that most reliable sources were published only around the time of the subject’s death. Due to this, I nominated the article for deletion so that more experienced editors could provide their opinion. I agree that while the sources are reliable, and have significant coverage but sources were published around the death time, which raises questions about whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.
      Before nominating for deletion, I confirmed that the article had previously been moved from mainspace to draft space. I accepted the draft based on multiple reliable sources but acknowledge my responsibility to address any oversights in evaluating the nature of the coverage.
      Additionally, I did not review the image when accepting the draft, which was an oversight on my part.
      If you review my AfC history, you will see that I take conflict of interest issues seriously and do not accept drafts when COI concerns are present. I also request COI disclosures as needed. Afstromen (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jodhpuri, Please answer here about your uploaded photo on Wikimedia commons. read Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) guideline, and disclose whether you have any COI.Afstromen (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      CNMall41 had also tagged the second page. Did you check the page you accepted? And did you bring it to AFD? The answer to that is "no."
      So, I have doubts about your review of the AfC history for that page. I created the page Nagamani Srinath, which was declined by Greenman and Gheus, with significant comments from them. Those comments were helpful for me to understand how to create pages properly in the future. I wanted to see what other important comments would come on that page. But suddenly, you accepted it, which was surprising to me. Later, when CNMall41 tagged the page for notability and unreliable sources, I checked some of the AfC pages you accepted and realized that, like me, you are also new to Wikipedia, so I ignored it. SachinSwami (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I still believe Nagamani Srinath is notable per WP:ANYBIO as she is a recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award. While I may not be a highly experienced editor, I am doing my best. Instead of making allegations, we should communicate with each other constructively and respectfully. But again Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean?Afstromen (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also please See this. Afstromen (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I completely agree with the tags placed by CNMall41 on the page. I also know that this page is notable, but receiving the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and having sources for it is not sufficient under WP:ANYBIO. The person must have made significant contributions to their field, earning widespread recognition (e.g., in arts, science, literature, sports, politics, etc.). This requires confirmation of their contributions through reliable and independent secondary sources. Additionally, if a person is famous only for a single event (e.g., a viral video or a single news story), they do not qualify as notable under WP:ANYBIO unless their long-term contributions or impact are proven through sources (see WP:BLP1E).
      Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No need to apologise, but please take care of this. If you are unsure or confused about any of my actions, feel free to ask me anytime. However, I kindly request that no direct or indirect allegations should be made without reason.Afstromen (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      yes. this picture was captured by me. Jodhpuri (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is distracting from the notability discussion. As far as Nagamani Srinath, I went ahead and sent that to AfD here as I still have concerns and notability is not inherent simply for winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -The sources in it are not reliable, and the award is also not credible. Importantly, according to the comment above, the person who created the page has admitted to taking the photo themselves. There may also be a possibility of a conflict of interest (COI).- SachinSwami (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The person who created the page may have a conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore to draft as a WP:ATD. It is possible that sources before death exist and have just not been found. I would not rule out the opportunity to do so. BD2412 T 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Is there consensus for an ATD?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I am extremely confused by the attitudes in this discussion towards obituaries. I think some participants may be confused about the distinction between death notices, which are typically short announcements or paid advertisements submitted by family members, and staff-written obituaries. A proper staff-written obituary in a reliable source is absolutely a GNG-qualifying source, and there is no requirement that we find coverage from prior to his death. See WP:Obituaries as sources. The obituaries in the Hindustan Times, ThePrint and The Indian Express are all bylined articles in reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, and I do not see any reason why they would not count towards GNG. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try not to throw slight at voters in AfDs. Also, you are citing an essay, not a guideline or policy. Even if it were a guideline or policy, it still says "usually notable," not is notable. Fact of the matter is that someone worthy of notice (which is part of a guideline, not an essay) would be covered outside of the obituary. Sorry, but having press write about you around the same time to honor your life is not the same as the press writing about you for what you are accomplishing in life. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if you interpreted that as a slight, that was not my intention. You are correct that WP:Obituaries as sources is an essay, but what guideline or policy are you relying on for saying that obituaries are not GNG-qualifying sources? Obituaries are very frequently used as evidence of notability. In fact I would regard them as quite high-quality sources for biographies, since they provide a general overview of what someone has accomplished during their life rather than forcing us to piece things together from bits and pieces of coverage. I'm not seeing any policy basis for discounting obituaries as sources. MCE89 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N, the main notability guideline, and the discussions associated with that guideline. The fact there is nothing saying the "don't" establish notability does not mean they do. I don't need to prove a negative.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N says that someone is notable if they have been the subject of multiple pieces of significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. These obituaries appear to meet all of those criteria. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, I’m asking you why obituaries should be held to a different and higher standard. And the discussion you are citing is an informal talk page discussion from 16 years ago where several participants made exactly the same distinction I’m making here - a paid death notice in the classifieds section is not useful for establishing notability, but a staff-written obituary is. MCE89 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were notable before their death, it would have been documented in significant coverage. It would be the same as if someone received a lot of press around a single event (see WP:ONEEVENT). An obituary is an indicator that the person is notable, but having several obituaries in reliable sources which are pretty much churnalism would not be considered significant coverage.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it there. I agree that obituary coverage can fall into WP:ONEEVENT territory when it’s focused on the manner or circumstances of death (which is why we have guidelines like WP:VICTIM), but retrospective coverage on someone’s life and accomplishments that happens to be published upon their death is in my view a perfectly good GNG-qualifying source as long as it otherwise meets the WP:SIRS criteria. We’d have a lot of historical biographies that would need to be deleted if there was actually a requirement to find SIGCOV from during the subject’s life. And I don’t really see why we would disqualify these articles as churnalism given that they are bylined articles in reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I would disagree. There seems to be discussions with this disagreement as well but nothing showing consensus that they do. Sorry, but having sources published about your life at the time of your death may indicate notability, but if you were notable when you were alive there would already be coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please point to any guideline or policy that explicitly states that independently written obituaries cannot count towards GNG like any other piece of independent SIGCOV? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed to discussions on people disagreeing about it, just like we are here. I think a RSN discussion would be warranted and will open one in the next day. Would be good to get something for this and future AfDs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if RSN is the right noticeboard for this? RSN is for reliability, not notablity. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. Sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own when my brain is in a fog (as it was earlier). Thanks for pointing it out. --CNMall41 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyesore

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Eyesore (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:DICTDEF, no evidence this is an actual concept beyond a word people commonly use Psychastes (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Yes, just "Words, mere words," said Jose Chung. I just used this word in another discussion. Eyesores lead to urban renewal and the displacement of thousands of people. San Juan Hill was an "eyesore" so Robert Moses evicted my paternal grandparents from the only home they ever knew in the United States, along with 17,000 of their hard-working neighbors of all races, including 3,000 Japanese Americans recently imprisoned to America's shame, to build Lincoln Center. New London was an "eyesore", so Susette Kelo lost a lifetime's work in her dream house. Downtown Albany, New York, was an "eyesore" known as "the Gut", so Billionaire Nelson Rockefeller displaced 7,000 people and Albany is still recovering 50 years later. But you be you, and Bless your heart. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have a number of objections,the first of which is that this is WP:OR. I feel like someone did a Google search on "eyesore" and accepted the results as a factual set. Obviously, "eyesore" is not a precise category, and it truly is "in the eye of the beholder." Brutalist architecture, Louis IV, Gaudí, - there are no accepted criteria that would define anything as an eyesore. Next, the article is really just a round-up of architectural controversies, with a few other bits thrown in. For example, The Hole In The Road, which does not use the term "eyesore" and indeed does not indicate that people felt it was particularly negative. Some of the sources refer to "ugly buildings" and never use the term eyesore. In response to User:Bearian, your examples are all ones of Urban renewal, and you say "Eyesores lead to urban renewal..." but that is not the use of eyesore in this article; it does not address "renewal", and includes modern buildings that are not candidates for replacement. I think the emphasis of this article and your statements are quite different. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There is a lot wrong with the article but there is a subject here, we just need to be clear about what it is and avoid arbitrary and indiscriminate list content. We need to cover the ways that certain buildings and styles of buildings can be deemed eyesores and can be redeemed from that status. The fact that this is so subjective is a major part of the subject and we need to cover that. There is stuff in the Google Books and Scholar searches that might help. There is at least one scholarly book specifically on the subject: Indispensable Eyesores: An Anthropology of Undesired Buildings by Mélanie van der Hoorn. I'm sure there's more to be found. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the article was about the "concept" rather than being what looks like an arbitrary list, then it might be notable. It could talk about how "eyesore" can be used to remove people and neighborhoods that are deemed undesirable (as in User:Bearian's comments). It could talk about reactions to new architectural styles. But I do think that's a different article to the one we are discussing here. I just don't know if this article can become that because that would require a complete TNT (and hopefully someone willing to put a lot of work into it). Lamona (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TNT is definitely an option. I'd like to see this improved but, so long as we leave the option for somebody to come along and write a better article about this subject later, I'm not going to cry if this gets deleted. DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Darshana Junction railway station

    [edit]
    Darshana Junction railway station (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)

    Contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about a Junction railway station. This station is used by many people for their needs as it is a junction station so many consider it as a transit point and use it. While creating this article I read the article guidelines carefully and then created it. So I don't think there is a need to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stud.asif (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
    Logs: 2025-03 ✍️ create
    --Cewbot (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some source link
    Stud.asif (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jugantor is an editorial, which is not a reliable source for facts, per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Bangla Tribune and Dhaka Post are sources about double tracking the Darshana–Jessore–Khulna line line. There is aggregate information about how many stations will need work (platforms, platform sheds, CBI signaling system, and overbridges) and how much it will cost, but they don't break it down to say what work, if any, Darshana Junction railway station will need. All that the Somoy News (June 2023) article says about the station is that it's operational, but no trains stop there, making the station useless. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Google Maps says that "Bangladesh's First Railway Bridge" is nearby. Perhaps references about the bridge will provide some context about the station as well.

    " Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Guillermo Bárcena

    [edit]
    Guillermo Bárcena (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 in WP:GNG, only 4 professional matches for clubs of third level in Spain and Greece. Svartner (talk) 00:49, 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.

    Rich TVX News Network Site

    Rich TVX News Network Info

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