Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 17

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural close, nominator is a sock and no editor arguing for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe) (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 don’t think this needs its own article yet. Pathaan as a character has appeared only in one full film (Pathaan) and a small cameo in Tiger 3. There are no detailed, reliable sources covering the character alone. Suggest merge to film or YRF Spy Universe page. ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to YRF_Spy_Universe#Pathaan. I was looking to see what could be merged and offhand, I don't really see much that needs to be merged. Someone could add some comments about the character's development if there is sourcing for that, but it wasn't in the article so that's not really a merge as much as it's an improvement. Otherwise the fictional biography is more or less already covered in the main article - it's not as in-depth, but with sections like that it would run the risk of putting undue weight on the characters section.

As far as independent notability goes, I couldn't find anything that focused on the character in specific. There's mention in relation to the film's development and reviews, but not really anything like "best character ever" or "themes of character", which is what would be needed for establishing character notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to just procedural close this and leave this article live until a non-sock brings this up, I'm fine with that. I'm not so set on my opinion that I'd argue for this to remain open and receive consensus. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Explicit: If you want to do this, I'm fine with that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:49, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Road 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)

WP: ROUTINE wildfire event with very little lasting impact. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United States of America, and New Jersey. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imo worth noting due to the amount of evacuations and proximity to urban areas. California has had countless articles for wildfires with little to no impact, this one has more impact than most of those do. WatchOutBroo (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the fire was one of the largest in the state's history. [1], [2],[3], [4], [5]. The claim that it was just a routine, insignificant event is a gross falsification of reality. Crwd-ppu (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:News article, not a notable event analyzed in secondary sources. Not concerned about its size. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Seems like a noteworthy fire for New Jersey per WatchOutBroo. There seems to be a little more than just routine coverage, but not a significant amount. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to List of wildfires. This part of New Jersey is sparsely inhabitated with a flammable ecosystem, and fires of this size are more common than one might think. This fire did not make the Twentieth Century's top ten, and there were undoubtedly many larger and poorly-documented wildfires before that. From eyeballing the list linked, this was probably about a 20–30 year fire. Given the minimal human impact (1 structure destroyed), I think this topic is best treated as a list entry or deleted altogether. (Spinning off a List of New Jersey wildfires would also be a reasonable place to stash this, but much of the content is unnecessary detail even in that context.) Choess (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to delete per above. Also, most of progression is just tweets from forest service. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major fire, not "common, everyday, ordinary" or routine.--User:Namiba 17:42, 16 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!} 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "where there's smoke, there's fire," and this generated smoke all the way to Manhattan. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems noteworthy enough to me, but is definitely too detailed. Needs some CE CVDX (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep I know I'm swinging in and out, but there are more points against deletion. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be very informative. More improvements can make it more better!--FreaksIn 13:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - small compared to California wildfires but a big deal for New Jersey. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:52, 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 redirect‎ to Pakistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Muhammad Khan Malik (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. All I could find in a WP:BEFORE is a couple of sentences at [[6]] but it is not significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Pakistan. Let'srun (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pakistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pakistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics per Svartner. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:46, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google.es news search for "Festival Internacional de Cine de Marbella" found multiple hits but they are of the press release type from individual actors/films saying look what I won or look our film is playing instead of being coverage of the festival itself. (Note, my Spanish is lacking so there was a large reliance on machine translation.) That or straight press release, eg the 20minutos source added by A .B. [7]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Events, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 May 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 12:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've found some sources covering this festival that aren't press releases or about specific movies/actors. Sources: [8] [9][10][11] Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 10:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not impressed with these links. The two from EuroWeekly are just PR. Two from Sur in English aren't much better, clearly based on pr, lacking independence, WP:ORGIND. Identical wordings from both, "During the five-day film-frenzy ..." duffbeerforme (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I now see Euro Weekly News is a sponsor. [12]. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable festival. Ample substantial coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's GNG requirements. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of many throw away boilerplate !votes from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References which may provide a boost to keep this article. These areferences are significant and provide indepth coverage: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and many more you can find in Google search. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are either unreliable or trivial mentions, and don't pass WP:GNG: [7] Not independent: EuroWeekly News sponsors the festival, and allows for covert paid articles (see this under SEO Services) [8] Blog on real estate site [9] User-generated [10] Real estate site [11] Passing mention in a list of festivals [12] Not about the festival, but about a film at the festival [13] Only one sentence about the festival [14] Only 2 sentences, and is an unreliable site (Look at all the spam links here, and it lists itself as incorporated under a different company on the About Us page vs the Advertising page). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:31, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malevolent Creation members (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's debatable whether a list dedicated to all former/current members significantly sourced to WP:QS bloggy sources of marginally notable band is encyclopedic. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Music, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: From looking at the sources, they all seem to be from interviews with members, not random blog posts. Pretty reliable in my opinion. Mewhen123 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears that when this band's lineup changes for the 956th time, only Blabbermouth and sometimes Decibel seem to notice, but those and the occasional others used in the article are reliable and they report on the impact for the band with useful detail. That is enough for a WP article, at least on such a specialized topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:02, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ithamar Romanos (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources (such as [22]) are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Just one is too little for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I suppose the one source in the comment above is fine, but that's all we have .I can't find any about this individual, so this fails notability requirements by not having enough coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers as WP:ATD. C679 07:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out, that list's scope is 10+ international matches, so is not a suitable target. So Delete. C679 09:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more sourcing required. Redirect is not even warranted. Delete makes sense here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently shouldn't be redirected as she's not mentioned in the list. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasih Ur Rehman (entrepreneur) (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:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Part of the StayCalmOnTress SOCK farm created to circumvent the deletions of Green Entertainment and the name variations they have attempted to create. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourcing - I did a thorough WP:BEFORE, but pointing out just the first three sources on the page, they are all bylined as "web desk" so no editorial oversight, likely paid-for press, and under same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has all the hallmarks of paid editing. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines based on multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his career and impact in the media and business sectors. Reputable Pakistani media outlets such as Daily Pakistan, Dawn Images, Samaa TV, and Startup Pakistan offer editorial content discussing his professional background, leadership, and contributions which I believe that it satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG. Ayudessie (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Article is about a notable Person in Pakistan. He is the CEO of a major television network Green Entertainment and a notable Businessman. He is also a recipient of Notable Government Awards. I have found a better coverage from Independent and Reliable Sources across the web. Sxohi (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 22:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE - For closers, Green Entertainment has been deleted and the StayCalmOnTress sock farm is notarious for working on those pages. Not going to be surprised at !keep votes in this discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The claim to notability vanished threre. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of words with the suffix -ology (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already a suitable page for redirect. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to -logy. There is no great and compelling reason why this content could not be maintained as a section of the existing article with that header. BD2412 T 21:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The compelling reason is WP:NOTDICT, which I elaborate on below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge: WP:NOTDICT allows for articles such as this. I think the confusion here is that this is a list article that happens to include definitions as secondary information. That is easy to solve as WP:NOTDICT says: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions." Quoting from WP:WORDISSUBJECT: "In some cases, a word or phrase may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.)". This "article on words" includes an introduction with secondary sources, many of which cover the general topic of ology words. This meets the threshold for notability and WP:STANDALONE. This could be even better met by merging as suggested above. Furthermore, the majority of the terms in this list are already in Wikipedia, indicating notability above that of typical Wiktionary entries. Finally, there is a long precedent for lists relating to words in Wikipedia. Lists of English words provides some examples, as will a search for the various categories for lists of words. Rublamb (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is a misreading of NOTDICT. Please see my explanation below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I requested this at WT:AFD, but apparently someone else nominated it without my nom statement, which I'm copying below:

  Contested WP:BLAR. This list is a clear violation of WP:NOTDICT. There is no underlying concept for the list here, merely words that share a particular suffix. We shouldn't have this list more than we should have lists for every possible suffix (or prefix) in English (not to mention German, Swahili, etc etc). There's nothing special about this particular suffix that warrants a list like this. The little bit of possibly encyclopedic content in the intro is already covered at the article on -logy (which I'm still a little skeptical about, but it's at least near the border, not 20 miles past it).

  To elaborate on the NOTDICT failure a little, note that this is akin to the example there which indicates that "rocket" has a single entry at Wiktionary, while it has multiple pages at Wikipedia (salad rocket, rocket engine, rocket vehicle, etc). Here we have words like both "biology" and "technology", which have the same suffix, but that suffix has a different meaning in each -- indeed, the lead of the list even points out this fact.

  Likewise, there are words which share the same underlying suffix of -logy (which -ology is merely a form of), like wikt:archelogy (not archaeology!), which is still a field of study, but has the alternate form of the suffix. This is akin to another red flag indicated at NOTDICT (words with different spellings but the same meaning should be at the same article). Ditto for words like "trilogy".

  And to add a bit based on the above merge proposal, I would specifically oppose that, since there's nothing to merge here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thems the breaks. If you want to nominate things without another editor exercising discretion in the process you can register an account. Jahaza (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As described in the article's lede, the connection between the components of this list is that words ending in "ology" or "logy" are about a field of study or discipline. There might be a few exceptions that are included for completionism and educational purposes, but these do not diminish the overall concept behind this list. The differing meanings come from the front half of the word, not the suffix. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that's not the connection, as I mentioned above, as there are words with this suffix that are not a field of study or discipline, such as "technology" (there are others, too). And there are plenty of fields of study that don't use either suffix, such as physics, economics, etc etc. The only actual link here is a suffix, which violates NOTDICT, both in letter and spirit, for the reasons I explained above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The common thread is defined in the cited secondary sources and in the topic's main article. Oxford Languages dictionary defines technology as "the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences". Thus, it is a field of study. We could essentially rename this article "List of fields of study" which is actually an interesting approach. Then, this would be a glossary that has a more obvious reason for being complied. The definitions, which are secondary content in this article, could also be removed, which is something I considered doing a while back. I believe that would also solve your dictionary-ish concerns. Rublamb (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article in question was nominated for deletion previously. This AfD should likely be updated to mention that more prominently. DonIago (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, but you could have just done so yourself. Note that it was speedily kept more on procedural grounds than anything else, running only about 90 minutes, so is more than ripe for a new discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I could have, if I'd known how to. DonIago (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge, based upon the above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not merge. Merging this indiscriminate list would damage the proposed target, and it is a clear case of WP:NOTDICT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this is best thought of as a set index WP:SETINDEX and is useful for navigation. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIA pretty clearly explains why this isn't one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid pointing to an entire article doesn't really explain what your objection is. Jahaza (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Redlinks that don't go to an article about a respective study should probably be removed, but this is an appropriate navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not valid as a navigational list any more than "Articles that end in -ism" is valid for the reasons I described above...or articles that start with "metro-" ...or pick any old random prefix or suffix. Are you saying "technology" should be removed? What about "archelogy" (the example I gave above, which doesn't end in -ology, but is a field of study). What about "physics"? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not even a dictionary would touch this. -logy only lists relatively frequently used examples like trilogy, tetralogy, etc. It doesn't branch out further afield, nor should it begin now (or ever). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. Where does it stop? Why just this suffix? How about "-ness", "-tion", "-ism", etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Wikipedia is not limited by space, any topic is possible provided it can meet notability. However, on a practical level, some of the concerns expressed above would apply to ness, tion, etc. when trying to create a list article. That is, having a source that talks about the data set as a group and also including information that is beyond what is found in a typical dictionary entry. Granted, this is thin line, but lists, glossaries, and indexes have a place in Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would posit that "-ology" is uniquely used to make something that is not a serious field of study sound like a field of study, e.g., candyology, dogology, funology, and arguable Scientology. BD2412 T 21:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cardiology, Herpetology, Osteology, Oncology... DonIago (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is the existence of these legitimate fields of study incorporating the suffix that make it attractive to people to use for faux fields of study. It is also linguistically curious that words like "trilogy" and "tetralogy" have the same ending. BD2412 T 03:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But they don't. "-logy" verus "-ology". DonIago (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a valuable WP:SETINDEX: all of the items on the index have, at least to some degree, similar names (ending in -ology) and similar subjects (the study of something, for the most part). That is a more distinct commonality than a suffix like "ness" or "ing", where that would clearly be more of a stretch. The opening to the article also demonstrates that the study of the suffix and the commonalities/relationships between the words which use it, has sufficient SIGCOV to make the index useful. To the "so what's next, lists about other suffixes?", my answer would be, if they pass WP:SETINDEX, have WP:SIGCOV, and are useful, then yes - why not? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the same as a list of "-ing" or other grammatical suffix. Ology denotes a specific set of fields of studies, as well as other words which are included as explained in the lede. A significant article which gathers attention on Wikipedia - though in itself not a reason for a vote to keep, reinforces my belief in its importance. Much of the discussion in this RfD about -logy vs -ology and non study -ology words is clearly explained in the lede.Nikolaih^☎️📖 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8D81:29B0:710E:5A64:EDF5:C52A (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 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. No prejudice against recreation if sources are located. asilvering (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oumar Samba Sy (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. PROD was declined so taking this to AFD. Let'srun (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We need to use common sense. Sy was the first Olympian in the history of Mauritania. He was the first flagbearer, the second flagbearer, and a medalist at major international competitions such as the African Championships. That's actually surprising for his country, which has historically been very poor in international sports. Being the first and second flagbearer as well as the first Mauritanian Olympian, and a continental medalist, is a historic accomplishment that is virtually certain to have been covered significantly. If there was any sportsperson covered at all in the 1980s in the nation, it would be him. We have not checked even a single newspaper in the history of the country; in fact, much of their media today remains offline. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its common sense that he would have been covered for his historic achievements in his country's sporting history. I'll see if I can contact any Mauritanian newspapers to get further information on him. But either way, I'd like to note that notability is a guideline: Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Does deleting one of the greatest sportspeople in the history of a nation really improve Wikipedia? I don't think so. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also note that WP:BLP is important to note here as well. We have zero secondary sources for this subject, and the burden of evidence that this subject received coverage is on the editors advocating to keep the article. So far, zero IRS have been supplemented, but I am open to reconsidering should it be provided. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As has been discussed many times now, there is no evidence that Mauritanians actually care that much about their country's performance at the Olympic games. Indeed, there are a number of indicators that they don't, not least of which was the lack of any coverage of the 2016, 2020, and 2024 Olympics by the state news agency.

We have also now discussed multiple times the media environment in Mauritania in the 1980s: it was a dictatorship where the only national press was a couple of heavily censored state-controlled newspapers serving an audience of fewer than ~700k literate Mauritanians. The widespread sports coverage that US-based commentators who have never lived in a dictatorship seem to imagine as being universal did not exist in the Mauritania of the 1980's.

We have also discussed the ways in which the "common sense" analysis that some want to apply is just the "every Olympian is notable" standard that was rejected in WP:NSPORTS2022 restated in different words. That applies here also - being the first participant is also a participation-based standard, being a standard bearer of a small team is also a participation-based standard.

Beannie repeatedly attacks the lack of searching of offline databases: the answer is for him to go and do it. I have gone far beyond the requirements of WP:BEFORE by searching Eastmain's MENA database in both Roman characters and Arabic. I also searched The Historical Dictionary of Mauritania - a book of several hundred pages which, if the subject of this article were even nearly as notable as made out above would almost certainly mention him, but doesn't.

The subject of this article simply isn't notable based on the evidence we have to hand. We should not have an article about them until we can show (not just assert: show) that they are notable by finding the missing SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea is a dictatorship, yet they still cover their athletes significantly. Iran's media is state-controlled, yet they still cover their athletes significantly. Niger is controlled by a military dictatorship, yet I still found coverage of their top athletes from recently. I have never seen a country that didn't cover sports. Never. Whether Mauritania's news agency has covered the Olympics is not what matters: what matters is whether there is coverage of sports at all in Mauritania, which there is. If there was any sportsperson at all covered in Mauritania in the 1980s, it would be Sy. The Olympics specifically may not very well-followed, but apparently wrestling is popular there, and he has the greatest African Games finish for his country ever (they've never medaled, he came fourth). Being chosen for the honor of flagbearer is not "participation-based" nor an "every Olympian is notable argument", nor is being a medalist at major international tournaments either of those arguments. The "MENA database" contains no papers even close to where Sy is from. Nor does that dictionary mention sports at all. I do not have the ability to travel to Mauritania to search archives. We don't need to be ridiculous and require that for him to have an article. Notability is a guideline best treated with common sense (per notability); it is very obvious he is notable. In what way does deleting this – the greatest African Games finisher for Mauritania ever in any sport – improve the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If there was any sportsperson at all covered in Mauritania in the 1980s, it would be Sy" - I'm going to say it definitely wouldn't be, because the national sport of Mauritania is not wrestling, it's football. But this requires not just blindly insisting that everywhere is like Delaware. FOARP (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per BeanieFan11, the greatest African Games finisher for Mauritania ever in any sport - there will be coverage. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the coverage? Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Newspapers.com, there are 52 hits for Oumar Samba Sy, however I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com and can't check :) RossEvans19 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have one and looked before nominating. All of the hits are merely results listings. Let'srun (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is that the total number of African papers on Newspapers.com is zero. Coverage would be in Mauritanian newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean the two government-owned, heavily-censored national newspapers that operated at the time? The ones the modern versions of which don’t cover the Olympics?

  And let’s not forget that WP:PAGEDECIDE is clear that we shouldn’t have a page without the coverage to write one. FOARP (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of flag bearers for Mauritania at the Olympics as Wikipedia:ATD. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That list itself has a major WP:LISTN problem. Just as there’s no evidence that having been a standard-bearer for Mauritania indicates notability, there’s also no evidence that Mauritanian standard-bearers as a group are notable. EDIT: Boldly merged to Mauritania at the Olympics per WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:LISTN. Please feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments being presented, this article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that IRS SIGCOV exists, per global consensus that the particular achievements of this athlete do not presume notability or coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Is more than likely notable, but no sources... I tried limiting it to Mauritanian sources "Oumar Samba Sy" site:.mr, but nothing comes up. The lack of sources is the issue, not the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful at this relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, the only sources are SportsReference, which is a database, and Olympedia, which is owned by the IOC and as such isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what the closer is expecting us to say here. We've analysed the sources already above, they're the same ones that we've analysed in a large number of discussions many times and which were the primary subject of WP:NSPORTS2022. Nobody is claiming that they have even identified anything specific other than this, only vague hand-waves at WP:MUSTBESOURCES, the likelihood of this being true is what we've discussed in detail because that was the only argument being made for keeping this article.

I'm sorry if we're boring closers and not making things easy for them. I sorry if the same people keep showing up again and again. If these discussions keep falling in to the same holes and being essentially the same, it's because the articles are essentially the same because of how they were created: what more is it that is there to say than this? FOARP (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, it's not a matter of "boring closers", I don't find AFDs boring, it's about being able to see a consensus among discussion participants. Often when source assessment tables are presented, it can sway some participants to change their preferred outcome to "Keep" or "Delete". The problem that all closers are trying to avoid is seeing a divided discussion and adding their own opinion in order to find a consensus. Then, you often get dragged to DRV and get accused of being a voter instead of a closer. That can get personal and be painful. And it seems like more and more AFD discussions these days have inconclusive outcomes and no clear consensus and "No consensus" closures make all sides unhappy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Tye McKenzie (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)

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of themselves -- but the strongest notability claim attempted here is that she was exhibited at the local art gallery in her own hometown, which is not an instant notability pass in and of itself if there's no evidence of any wider more-than-local attention, and the article is referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and the exhibition catalogues self-published by the directly affiliated gallery.
The only third-party source shown here at all is a single article in the local media about the local art supply store she owned, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she's got. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references from an article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, as well as more information about permanent collections and an award. I hope that helps to support notability in this case. Diving into newspapers will need to wait for a couple of weeks.

I'm curious about your references to more-than-local attention: this may make the case for notability more difficult for people working in more rural & remote areas, as references to success in bigger cities are less likely to be seen as local only. Maybe this is an issue that's been discussed before, but I feel like it's worth thinking about. Skjanes tbay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article relies on the catalog from the posthumous retrospective exhibition at local Thunder Bay Art Gallery. Other sources are local to Thunder Bay. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep The discussion of her work in a peer reviewed historical journal (which I unfortunately cannot access) together with the award and some coverage in local newspapers is enough to keep this per GNG and WP:HEY - there is no requirement to be well known on a national or global level as long as there is independent coverage. --hroest 18:57, 11 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!} 23:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY based upon the work by Skjanes tbay. She has works in at least two colleges' art collections. This is obviously not the most notable person, but just manages to get over the line. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hearst Media Production Group#Programming blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go Time (programming block) (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, PROD was removed with "incoming links" notice, which never materialized. I found nothing in BEFORE that would establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hearst Media Production Group#Programming blocks Best-of block of all the network blocks they have which is just otherwise a regular show to the average viewer, and added links are just expirable NOTTVGUIDE listings (I am so tired of this, can you tell?). Nathannah • 📮 00:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator, I support a redirect as shown above. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hearst Media Production Group#Programming blocks: Subject lacks the needed standalone coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Heskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft Not a bad start, somewhat tabloid in sources, a little short for general GNG for me. But when he has a proper debut and a little more talked about him I am sure it will be fine. Govvy (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Emile Heskey per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article can be restored if his son, Jaden, receives more public attention as mentioned by Govvy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Emile Heskey, as we have done for other children of notable sportspeople when they are not yet notable themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't drafting better? That allows people to still edit and improve the article rather than hiding it behind a redirect. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot vote twice. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if we draftify the article, creating a redirect is sensible as an additional step. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - Per Govvy. RossEvans19 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify given the good faith effort in creation, but not quite ready yet. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singkham Phongpratith (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 stub created by Lugnuts. No WP:SIGCOV found. Svartner (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing, Olympics, Sportspeople, and Laos. Svartner (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Laos at the 1980 Summer Olympics Clearly not individually notable (didn't last the first round of his only Olympic fight). However, he is already mentioned at the redirect target I mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. per keep arguments and WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glean Technologies (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)

Per WP:SERIESA, promotional article about a company that has little to no coverage in WP:RS outside trade press profiles and financial announcements. FalconK (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. FalconK (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It definitely has a notable in-depth coverage in reliable independent and multiple sources. Forbes Staff from 2021 [23] provides a comprehensive, in-depth story written by the journalist himself. Another Forbes USA Staff piece from 2023 [24] gives more details on what happened and the startup is evolving. This Business Insider deep coverage by the Senior Correspondent Melia Russell, who has been covering tech since 2013, has an analysis of the previous statement of the company and sheds journalist analytics on the company's future, market position and user demand. [25] While this Business Insider by the same correspondent talks about AI agents and technology behind the company [26].

I also added this significant coverage from CNBC (June 10 this year) [27], which has a market analysis, new market valuation, and comparison with OpenAI, and so on. PodoSodo (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree this demonstrates reliable, independent, significant coverage, for these reasons:

1. The article relies entirely on the company for sourcing and is merely a profile; see WP:SIRS
2. Another profile, this time about the founder and not the company; does not make either notable for the same reason as above
3. WP:ORGTRIV describing the company numerically and apparently sourced only from the company itself, making it dependent for the same reasons
4. Dependent; entirely based on an interview with the company's head of product
5. WP:ORGTRIV and also mostly based on interviews with the company's founders.

FalconK (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

partly agree, but not all sources I provide are dependent or based on the interviews or are event based. But it was a good comment for me to gather some new sources I did not see before. I applied SIRS which strictly sees one sentence coverage not notable (as in the NYTIMES example), but let's say 3-5 or more is kind of not a brief mention and may count towards SIRS reliable sources. below is my additional comment PodoSodo (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here I gathered some new and old sources which meet WP:SIRS and copypasted the coverage sufficient per the reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Applying WP:SIRS:

1. Wheatley, Mike (2025-02-12). "Glean Technologies jumps into no-code agentic AI development with Glean Agents". SiliconANGLE. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
2. Cai, Kenrick (2024-12-18). "Glean Emerges From Stealth With $55 Million To Bring Search To The Enterprise". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
3. Metz, Rachel (2024-02-27). "Glean is worth $2.2 billion as Citigroup, Databricks, Workday invest". CNBC. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
4. Zeff, Maxwell (2024-12-18). "Perplexity acquires Carbon to connect AI search to your work files". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.

   The article notes an interesting thing, how Glean pushed the AI race and inspires OpeanAI and other competitors: "Glean... has reportedly inspired OpenAI, Google, and several other AI giants to develop their own enterprise search products — and perhaps they’ve inspired Perplexity as well."

5. Wiggers, Kyle (written in a narrative and analytical style by a local journalist who has been covering AI for years) (2024-02-27). "Glean wants to beat ChatGPT at its own game — in the enterprise". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
6. Russell, Melia (2025-02-12). "Glean's latest AI release lets customers build digital agents that work while they sleep". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-06-24.

• Keep. Most of the new sources added and compressed-quoted here are Sigcov references, not trivial or occasional coverage. I found also much more but not sure it’s worth adding it here. WSJ has a good coverage on Glean and overall AI madness among big companies, surpassing the usual fundraising-type reporting. Fortune has also listed it as the top AI firm for two years in a raw. Seems it easily passes GNG.Uni44hossiq (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is a mistake in the last source. It should be Business Insider link https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-search-company-glean-launches-digital-agents-for-businesses-2025-2 - everything else is correct. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 4-5 of the sources provided here have a broad topic overview independent of press-kits, blogs, interviews or just copying info from the website or other interviews. Business Insider in particular starts with overviewing the company with a focus more on its product - chatbots and agents. TechCrunch is mentioning a fundraising but it's in the end of the story, while 50+% is devoted to the analysis of the startup by the editor. Forbes article is not so long, but it gives the desired independent and focused attention to the topic, aside from some CEO comments. SiliconANGLE is pretty okay in terms of WP:CORPTRIV too, and while it's not a CNBC level, but I did find it widely used in many company pages for sourcing basic facts. My modest WP before showed the company is among the top 10 ai companies in the world by revenue per Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [28], it was named number 6 global startup by Fast Company https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/list and it was overviewed here by The Information (website) [29]. And here is a big 2023 overview by Computerworld magazine [30] - it has a general description, analysis, 'how it works' section, a 'who are the competitors' section, and more. For instance, here is a quote where third party experts are commenting and analyzing: When asked whether enterprise users could trust results from Glean Chat, IDC research manager Hayley Sutherland said that companies should provide methods for understanding and explaining the results or recommendations generated by assistants like Glean Chat. Glean, according to Amalgam Insights’ principal analyst Hyoun Park, competes with the likes of Neeva, which was acquired by Snowflake. Therefore, there are sufficient reliable and non-routine sources in general and, in particular, in the time span of 2020-2025. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of populist political parties (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 is no clear criteria to define what constitutes a "populist party". As indicated in the Wikipedia article Populism, it is a "contested concept", "used to describe a broad and often contradictory array of movements and beliefs". Also, the term is usually derogatory. JohnMizuki (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the wide and unclear definition of populism. These parties are not necessarily similar Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added a Pew Center article that has an appendix that outlines a criterion used for identifying populist political parties. Thus, the concept behind this list meets notability for a list article. The article could use some expansion and more sources, but it appears that ample sources exist for its improvement. In addition, it is also possible to expand the lede to better explain the topic. Since Wikipedia's guidelines are to retain articles that have the potential to be improved, this article should be kept. Rublamb (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list can be only used for POV pushing as it seems. Segaton (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:LISTCRIT says, Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Even Rublamb's Pew source says:

  Although experts generally agree that populist political leaders or parties display high levels of anti-elitism, definitions of populism vary. We use three measures to classify populist parties: anti-elite ratings from the 2017 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES), Inglehart and Norris’s populism party scale and The PopuList. We define a party as populist when at least two of these three measures classify it as such.

  There's an acknowledgement here that definitions vary. While they come up with a rubric for classification for research purposes, this is still somewhat arbitrary and can't really serve as the basis of a list article here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'populist' is nowadays used so widely that it is impossible to have as criteria for listing. --Soman (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mëstiza (DJs) (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)

Although the article includes some secondary sources, the content does not demonstrate sufficient encyclopedic notability, as it merely confirms the existence of the DJ duo without providing substantial information. Therefore, I am initiating this deletion discussion. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos, you added a not to the article to delete it, but it has been published for months and approved on the english side when it says you are an editor mainly for the Spanish wiki. The sources are from big newspapers and the artists are in line to others that have articles on the site. The writing and info is also relevant and they are on wikidata. San.alonso.r (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @San.alonso.r, how are you? First of all, thank you for notifying me on eswiki and for letting me know about your response here. I initiated this AfD for the reasons outlined in my initial message: from my perspective, the article in its current state does not clearly demonstrate encyclopedic notability, as it mainly points out the existence of the DJ duo. While it does include valid bibliographic references —as I mentioned in my first comment— I believe the writing does not effectively convey the level of notability being claimed. Of course, this is just my opinion, and that’s precisely why we open discussions like this —to hear the community’s views. In any case, I encourage you to continue improving and expanding the article so that its content more clearly reflects the notability you’re referring to. In fact, that was also the reason I added the 30-day template on eswiki. All the best. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made it short on purpose, but I'll add more info to it in the next 30 days San.alonso.r (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it following your notes. Discography added and milestones San.alonso.r (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The deletion rationale appears to indicate that there are secondary sources referenced, but implies the article needs work. That is not a justifiable reason for deletion, and with a quick check identifying the article subject has coverage in secondary sources such as [31], [32], [33], and [34], I propose a keep per WP:MUSICBIO#1. ResonantDis_tortion 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added milestones, discography and more information to support notability San.alonso.r (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above sources that show notability. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as newspapers El Pais and Elmundo and other reliable sources such as Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair all already referenced in the article. AfD s are about deciding whether the subject is notable as per WP:GNG which I believe this passes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and the context there provided by San.alonso.r. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:50, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre County Christian Academy (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)

Currently unsourced. Found one source in a book (Route 26 Transportation Improvements, Centre County; page 143), but its a passing mention. Otherwise cannot find sources. Roast (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. Roast (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - tiny, private school; article essentially has been unsourced for 18 years. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Big City Greens season 1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rises (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 seems to almost entirely be a plot summary. It only has one source, which is the episode itself. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Disney. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Big City Greens season 1#ep18 Couldn't find any sources, and the page started off as a redirect anyway. JustChinii (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Big City Greens season 1 Fully unsourced recap, long depreciated style, only IMDb as a source. Nathannah • 📮 22:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to redirect to Big City Greens season 1#ep18: this title did start as a redirect before being converted to a (substandard IMDB-sourced) article by a user that has since been blocked as a sock. There is no apparent reason why a separate article is warranted here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the image of the title card has a copyrighted image even though it was listed as Creative Commons license 2600:1003:B1B1:1960:BDDD:63DA:6256:410A (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big City Greens season 1 not notable enough for standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Zongshen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zongshen 200 GS (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. I could not find sufficient sources to establish notability. Golem08 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Motorsport, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could only find forums or parts listings. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Zongshen, some of the content could be salvageable. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zongshen if independent notability cannot be established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 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 Swindon Borough Council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Swindon (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 organization without any WP:SIGCOV or lasting impact. Could simply be mentioned in a sentence in Swindon Borough Council. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did a quick search for additional sources and only found this one here.

Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Swindon Borough Council. It's a defunct foundation that helped the Borough. It's run of the mill like the thousands of "friends of Swindon library" and "Swindon development Corp" types of foundations and corporations. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wire723 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Swindon Borough Council and mention in a sentence there. Any impact made by this organisation can easily be dealt with in that article. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: also per nom. MaggieT19 (talk) 09:12, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark law (disambiguation) (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 not a proper use of a disambiguation title, as this is just a list of instances of one thing. BD2412 T 17:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Disambiguations. BD2412 T 17:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm usually a fan of dabs, but this one is beyond unnecessary. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(My native language is Japanese, so My English is not very good. If I said something offensive, that was not my intention and I am truly sorry.)

I apologize for creating an article that does not comply with the policy. My intention was to disambiguate the "Trademark Act" of various countries, e.g. Australia, Japan, and the UK. Since both "Act" and "Law" are wrote "法" (hō) in Japanese, I didn't know what the difference between them was. --Yukkuri Shambis (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yukkuri Shambis: You have not said something offensive. This is just not what disambiguation pages are used for in Wikipedia. "Trademark law" is the name of the field of law, so instances of the practice of this field in different countries are just instances of the field. If there are different pieces of legislation named "Trademark Act", that would be a different matter, and something to run by User:Edcolins, who created the current redirect, Trademark Act. BD2412 T 16:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Trademark somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This disambiguation page is solely WP:PTMs. I've added the entries to Trademark#See also. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 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 redirect‎ to Rama II Road#Ongoing construction projects and accidents. Choosing Redirection but the content is there if any editor wants to work on a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Rama II Road bridge collapse (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) 17:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I previously noted on the article talk page, I'm not sure there's much notability for this incident individually, but there certainly is for all the collapses that have collectively happened on Rama II, with its never-ending construction and atrocious safety record. This could be merged into a combined list article. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to suggest to redirect to Rama II Road#Ongoing construction projects and accidents for now, with the possibility of eventually selectively merging some of the content once that section is expanded into a more substantial list. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rama II Road. No reason for it to have a child article when there's plenty of room in the main article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:37, 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 redirect‎ to 2024 United Kingdom riots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Connolly (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 think WP:BLP1E applies. Suggest this page returns to being a redirect to 2024 United Kingdom riots. Paul W (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, target article already has small section that mostly duplicates this article. This is not a notable person, this is a single minor incident that cannot be separated from the greater context resulting from the stabbings. WP:BLP1E definitely applies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Connolly's case is a huge story in the UK. The page as it currently is does indeed duplicate much of what's already on the page about the riots, however it can certainly be expanded upon - there's also the crowdfunder set up to supposedly get her life back on track once she's released, the numerous attempts to get her released early (including a Parlimentary Early Day Motion signed by several notable MPs), the frequent accusations of her jailing being evidence of "two-tier policing", etc. Just Google Connolly and you'll see how much coverage she and her prison sentence have received from a wide range of news outlets, from BBC News to The Guardian to an opinion piece in the New Statesman and more. I truly believe she and her case warrant an article on here, at least while socially relevant. After she's released and fades into obscurity, sure, delete it. But for now I think it absolutely should be kept. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ninehundreddollarydoos, you might be more persuasive if you read WP:BLP1E and then explain how Connolly doesn't meet those criteria. Her case is already covered at 2024 United Kingdom riots. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree that she's only notable for one thing, but so were Haliey Welch and Ally Louks when their pages were created (and allowed to stay up). Louks is/was known solely for going viral on Twitter because of the unusual focus of her PhD - how is that more relevant than one of the UK's biggest news stories of the year? Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't really a compelling argument; WP:Other stuff exists goes into more detail as to why that isn't a useful argument to make in an AfD discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect, I read about this. I had previously read about her writing to Trump, who has absolutely no power over any British legal issue. He might be "'monitoring" as he claims, but he has no power. And quite frankly, given that there are approximately 7,500,000 American Jews, it is not likely Trump would excuse this woman's actions. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, clearcut WP:BLP1E case. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

&Retain – Strongly This is a highly significant, well-documented case that is likely to have lasting legal, social & political relevance. Whether one agrees with her actions or not is immaterial; the punishment handed down, the circumstances surrounding it, & the potential for future appeals or reinterpretation make this case one worth preserving in the encyclopaedic record. A balanced, neutrally written Wikipedia article offers a public reference point that is less susceptible to distortion by partisan interests. Without this page, discussion of the case risks being dominated by politicised narratives from both the left & right, with little accessible context for the general public. I seriously cannot belive why this is even up for discussion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiscuitsBeforeBias (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain – Strongly I agree that this is case has far-reaching implications (both legal and political) regarding the conceptof "free speech" and related matters. Whether or not people support or oppose the decision to jail this woman, I predict that the "Connolly affair" will be more than merely a foot-note in British history. I suspect that she will be referred to in future criminal cases, because what happened to her has definitely set a legal precedent in terms of sentencing and also parole eligibility. Frankly, there has been enormous public interest in the issues which the Connolly affair has raised. I therefore believe that it would be a big mistake to either redirect or delete this particular Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:3AD:1101:6A23:B8CB:7BFD:EA14 (talk) 15:14, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabrowski-Stefani tennis partnership (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 think this is a particularly notable doubles pairing. Way below the bar that this wikiproject uses to start creating such articles. They only played together for not even four full seasons and didn’t even reach one grand slam final together. There are plenty of teams who won one WTA 1000 title together, that’s not something extraordinary. Tvx1 16:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Tvx1 16:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this article started as a draft, it was reviewed by an editor and approved to be published as an article, then other editors from the tennis wiki saw it, helped to improve it and did not find anything wrong with it Haddad Maia fan (talk) Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft reviewers only tend to check whether it technically complies with the site’s requirements (prose quality and style, sourcing,…). They don’t judge whether the subject merits an article. Tvx1 17:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Canada, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Svartner What's the point in draftifying this when the team no longer exists? Dabrowski is one half of a far more successful team with Erin Routliffe which has won Grand Slam titles and would be worthy of an article, while Stefani has had several different partners since this team ceased in 2023. They are very unlikely to get back together so nothing new will happen to add. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dabrowski and Routliffe won one grand slam title, not plural. Even that pairing is questionable of meeting the bar. Dabrowski just doesn’t appear to be the sort of player who forms longterm double partnerships, but rather changes frequently. She won WTA 1000 or grand slam titles with five different players. Grand slam wise she has even been more succesful in mixed doubles. There are way more notable doubles partnerships than hers, like for instance the Macs (Paul McNamee & Peter McNamara), Bhupathi-Paes and Knowles-Nestor on the mens’ side or Hradecká & Hlaváčková, Errani & Vinci and Fernandéz & Zvereva on the women’s side or even Hingis & Paes and Court & Fletcher on the mixed teams’ side, none of which we actually have a dedicated article for. Tvx1 13:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tvx1 I wasn't proposing an article on Dabrowski and Routliffe, I was merely pointing out they are more worthy of an article than the partnership being discussed in this AFD. As you will see below I have voted delete ie supporting your view. I really don't get why so many people on here are so aggressive. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No agression intended whatsoever. Tvx1 16:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anxioustoavoid If there is any user interested in improving the article properly, I think it is the best option. Svartner (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quality is no the issue. The merit of the subject being worthy of an article is. They’re just not a special pairing. Tvx1 00:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For all the reasons stated by the nominator. All the information in this article is already in, or could be added to, each of the two individual players articles. We are not talking about a team like the Bryan brothers or Krejčíková/Siniaková here. This pairing had moderate success and then split up like hundreds of other partnerships have and will in the future. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a short-lived partnership that doesn't seem to have had a significant impact on tennis as a whole and doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic. Winning a WTA 1000 is a great achievement but we don't need an article on every single doubles pair that wins one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find the necessary independent WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG, with only match results and primary sources referenced. Considering this team no longer exists, I don't see any reason to draftify this. Let'srun (talk) 19:25, 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Kašová (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 athlete who competed in a single Olympic games as part of a larger team (1988 Women's Basketball). The Czech team finished 8th. WP:BEFORE search yields no WP:SIGCOV, and the only source in the article is a Sports Reference entry - considered trivial per WP:SPORTCRIT. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1988 Summer Olympics as WP:ATD, due to the absence of SIGCOV. C679 16:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Basketball is an extensively-covered sport and as such, nearly every basketball Olympian meets GNG. A search of Hungarian newspaper Arcanum brings up SIGCOV such as this 400-word story on her. There's also this, regarding her being named the number one basketball player in Slovakia, and other coverage is available, both under her married name Kašová and her prior name Bardoňová. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently,

  - WP:NBASKETBALL presumes SIGCOV likely exists only if the athlete was selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft or has won an award or led the league in a major statistical category of the CBA or NBA G League.

  - WP:NOLYMPICS only presumes notability if if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games.

  Anyways, I am unable to access either of those articles: database access requires a subscription. Arcanum is also not a newspaper; it is a "database of digitized content". Arcanum itself is not a valid secondary source, but the original publisher of this article might be. Can you provide more information? Who wrote this, what newspaper or organization is it, are the articles about her specifically or is it only a passing mention, etc? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NSPORT is utterly useless and broken, so NBASKETBALL/NOLYMPICS should not be used as a reason to delete (Wayne Gretzky, the greatest hockey player ever, is a failure of WP:NHOCKEY). I meant to say "Hungarian newspaper archive Arcanum". The main article I mentioned is a half-page story on her and Eva Berková in Nedeľná Pravda; specifically, and excluding quotes, there's around 400 words on her about her selection to the national team and her prior career. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. I agree that is WP:SIGCOV, and I will take your word for it and withdraw the nomination. It would be great if you'd be willing to add it to the article, but of course, no obligation to do so. Cheers, Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to China at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Basketball. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Wei (basketball) (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 athlete was a member of the Chinese Olympic Basketball team in 1988. Her team placed 6th. She did not compete again, and quite logically has no WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a Sports Reference entry, which is trivial coverage per WP:SPORTCRIT. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Olympics, and China. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to China at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Basketball – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to China at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Basketball (with the history preserved under the redirect per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject in my searches for sources. Most of the sources I found were about Zhao Wei (simplified Chinese: 赵薇; traditional Chinese: 趙薇), an actress and singer with the same Chinese name. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Muslim History Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was AfD'ed in 2022 after the organization's first year. It was recreated recently with a lot more references but I don't think the organization or observance has sources for notability. There are 3 types of deficient sources on this article, first is non-independent sources like this one. The second is the plethora of sources talking about Canada like this one because it is a separate event that is held in October. The final group of poor sources are the ones that aren't about IMHM at all and they aren't used to support background information either, like this one.

Other evidence against this having notability includes this celebration in April and this one in March.

I would support a selected merge to International Hijab Day since it is the same founder. Moritoriko (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Islam. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing indepth coverage to meet GNG. I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Either way, we can't merge to an article that doesn't exist Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fassforward (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)

Besides WP:FORBESCON and non-notable awards, I'm not seeing any SIGCOV for this company. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made including more sources to prove notability and the page is no longer an orphan. vfrank (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: sources are press releases, non-WP:RS (blogs, contributor posts, sponsored content, etc.), interviews or written by those affiliated with company. I don't think there is a single source that meets WP:NCORP much less multiple. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is absolutely nothing notable about this company. For all these sources, which are not WP:RS anyway, there's nothing to say. FalconK (talk) 03:34, 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 speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 11:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xentra ERP Software GmbH (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'm not convinced that this company meets our notability criteria for organisations, principally because the many sources either don't have significant coverage (e.g. StartupValley), are not reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines (e.g. Hallo Augsburg), or there's good reason to believe they're not independent of the subject (e.g. Business Insider) ... and I can't find any that really work here. Also the edit history of the user who created this page is ... more than a little bizarre (see their contributions and talk page). Graham87 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Panel Funding (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 notability. Sources are e.g. business directories. Wire723 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertorial offal disguised as a 'government grant program' which is just regular home renovation financing and just another solar contractor. Nathannah • 📮 16:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable WP:ROTM corp that is padded out using grant information to advertise for the company. Should be speedied. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially PROMO and non-reliable high-quality sources. Delete this until that changes. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:52, 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 redirect‎ to List of Judges Guild publications#Fantasy role-playing game supplements. ✗plicit 14:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Map Set (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)

Seems to be a WP:FANCRUFT type article which does not actually pass WP:SIGCOV. Article as currently written only has a single source, and in WP:BEFORE, was not able to find better WP:RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this entire article could be a single sourced sentence in the Judges Guild article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Judges Guild publications#Fantasy role-playing game supplements. I added the reference from the article to that list. --Mika1h (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. There's really nothing to show this is independently notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kimmelman (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)

Promotion for non notable filmmaker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Laundry list of awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I respectfully disagree with the assertion that international awards are not significant. The Cannes Film Festival, in particular, is an industry benchmark. Emmy awards are notable as well. The international honors Ken Kimmelman's films have received reflect the high regard in which his work is held. Meanwhile, I see that 1) the article needs updating; 2) I'm happy to add more reliable sources to support the notability of this filmmaker; 3) there are too many awards, and they are listed chronologically, which makes it difficult to distinguish the most significant, so I will revise, edit and update.Trouver (talk)

Without any sourcing to back the claims up, you could say anything about this person. We have no way of showing what's true and what's bunk. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:COAT, WP:SPAM, and WP:MILL. We are not a soap box, and this page slips in advocacy for aesthetic realism with unnecessarily large number of references to the same. It's spam masquerading as references. Getting into Cannes Film Festival Short Film Corner is surprisingly easy: my partner got in with a film produced with less than 5 figures. As the wealthiest man in the world is out to ruin us financially, we don't need to stray from our very limited charitable mission into advocating other world views. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article in keeping with WP guidelines. Trouver (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your bio here says you've written a Good Article, I would expect you to understand the issues here... Where is the sourcing to show us notability? You won't get a Good Article with what you've provided here... Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero coverage in RS found... This is an interview [35]. Source 8 is a RS, but I'm not sure making the background animation for a play in the 70s is enough for notability, when that's literally all there is for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Almost a hundred awards listed, yet zero media coverage... This does not compute. Where are the citations to support this multiple award-winning individual? This almost feels like a HOAX. Stanley Kubrick doesn't have this many awards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Oaktree b that this list "does not compute": it could be AI-generated; at best, it's unverifiable. First off, I know from my partner's experience that the Cannes Short Films Festival ("Court Metrage") only had a single award for "Best Short Film" as of 2010, to Barking Island. The only winner in 2005 was Podorozhni. As of 2021 they only had one Short Film Palme d'or. Also, the only film festival that gives out a "Best Experimental Short Film" is Melbourne, there are no awards anywhere for "Best Inspirational Short Film ", and the only "Motivational Short Film" awards are in India. This unverifiable list is yet another reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can assure everyone that the Hot Afternoons awards are real. It's very unfortunate that the years were not given (next to the award names in column 5), with no reliable sources to verify. In its present state, I vote to delete. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 19:39, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Suriname0 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Schaffer (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'm not seeing a pass of WP:NAUTHOR here. Most (all?) works seem to be self-published, and I wasn't able to immediately find significant reviews or other coverage. Outside of the authorship criteria, I was unable to identify any WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. No obvious redirect targets or other WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Police. Suriname0 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't find any book reviews, nor any other articles about this author, that would show notability. The best I could find was a blog post about his Sherlock Holmes novel being the worst thing they've ever read... Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep for pete's sake, we listed almost a dozen reviews in the AfD this past January, are we simply ignoring them? Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is my mistake; I hadn't noticed the prior AFD when I nominated it, I just saw a completely unsourced promotional article about a self-published author and failed to find any of the reviews referenced in the previous AfD in my WP:BEFORE. I Withdraw the nomination. (For the record, it is a travesty that we're keeping this horrible BLP violation.) Again, my apologies for lack of due diligence and not searching for prior AfDs. Suriname0 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Creek (California) (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 are several rivers with this name but the subject of this article seems to be one that does not exist. The coordinates of the mouth don't match the claimed location, are in the wrong county, would make it much longer than claimed, and would require it to cross the Salmon River. Indian Creek (https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/234068) is where Copper Creek was claimed to be in the list of rivers of California, but it is several miles west of Salmon Mountain and does not meet another river before the Klamath. Some features named in the article appear to not exist. There are GNIS references but the IDs don't exist and there are no entries with the same name and similar coordinates. I couldn't check the first two works cited but the third does not mention a Copper Creek in California, and discusses the Big Sur River on the pages mentioned. Peter James (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went straight to the topo maps to confirm this one, and I must say I am utterly baffled by the entirety of this article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - creek does not exist. Simple as that. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:30, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubong Essien CSP (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)

Bypassing WP:AFC twice, no indication of any notability in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]