Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 17	June 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Libya at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling. ✗plicit 00:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Shebani

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Libya. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libya at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libya at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling: Subject fails the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Scheduled Castes. ✗plicit 00:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgar

AfDs for this article:

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

Following the previous nomination by a sockpuppet, I went and looked for any sources that could potentially be used for this article, and I unfortunately came back empty handed. It seems as though it may be an existing caste, but this is pretty much all I can confirm. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I'm not sure if this is just poorly written or AI-generated, but it seems off. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete because the article has no sources abut it can probably find more sources

Sunny's Highway 27 20:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Scheduled Castes in Gujarat: like LilianaUwU, I can only find the caste exists in sources like census data. Other sources are unreliable (People of India/K.S. Singh). S0091 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: - Why is K.S. Singh an unreliable source? — ERcheck (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ERcheck see User:Sitush/CasteSources#The People of India. S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - — ERcheck (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Each editor weighing in as a different desired outcome. Hopefully a relisting will help us get to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per S0091, but I'm afraid I'll be difficult and suggest a different target, namely List of Scheduled Castes. This source shows survey data from Rajasthan, so I think it would be better to redirect to a more general list than the Gujarat one. --bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, @LilianaUwU, @Sunhighway27 what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is fine by me. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I am fine with the target being List of Scheduled Castes per bonadea's reasoning. S0091 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Future Access Technology

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

Fails WP:NORG and entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just spam. Not finding any sources at all. FalconK (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is genuine. The personalities and organization do exists. May I what more sources are required to get the page going? Joah Cho (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there should be an article about this at all? I don't dispute that it exists; I posit that its purpose in being here is just to raise the profile of the company, which is backwards and makes it spam. The company needs to be notable; see for instance WP:NORG as another commenter mentioned. FalconK (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is not promotional. I've removed the promotional content and kept it as a simple knowledge. The page not only talks about the company. The sources and hyperlinks I've mentioned are generic. Joah Cho (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is still fundamentally promotional; its purpose seems to be to announce the company's presence in the market and its products. I'm not sure this can actually be fixed, because it's not notable. If you can't imagine opening an encyclopedia on a bookshelf to an article about this company and reading something about it that would be of general interest or historical importance, it's not likely that an article is appropriate. FalconK (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and not notable, plus severe conflict of interest issues (User:Joah Cho is the cofounder of this company). --Iiii I I I (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the content from the article. Joah Cho (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are from a single source Hifuture Article only published for promotion of the business.--FreaksIn 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the sources which were promotional of the business. Joah Cho (talk) 06:02, 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 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Gas and Electric

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

Non-notable company that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weird though it may be that a utility company would escape notability, there's virtually no news or history about this thing, and the article is very promotional. FalconK (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more of an Energy service company vs an electric utility. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, one of their subsidies is "Energy Services Providers, Inc." which they acquired in 2009. [1] – The Grid (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing significant in Google News, or Newsbank Access Global Newsbank database. But I did find a list of awards and honours on an archived version of their website but on further investigation they're finalists but not winners, and according to WP:ORG this would only count as trivial coverage. SallyRenee (talk) 11:42, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Yanagizaki

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

22 professional league appearances. Japanese wikipedia has routine sources. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any notable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sethi752 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Igari

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

A 34 game career is some, but his Japanese Wikipedia is unsourced apart from one press release. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very easy call. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria per GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass GNG as it lacks the needed sources for notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:55, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vårparnatt

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

I think this article is a hoax. I can't find any mention of Vårparnatt anywhere on the internet except this page. I haven't checked out all the sources, but Nilsson is a collection of sheet music (and seems unlikely to contain information about this) and I can't find any book called "Great Classical Thoughts" by Bennett Cerf. EdTre (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the second ref appears to include a mention (comes up on google books when you search "Vårparnatt"), but it's completely paywalled so I can't confirm it myself. The festival may have existed, but I searched a considerable number of sites/archives and wasn't able to turn up any more sources (it's all mirror sites). Zzz plant (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it would be great if someone could check it out – anyone reading this who happens to have reason to pass by one of the Swedish university libraries which have the book? /Julle (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it will be fulfilled by the time this AfD closes, but I've put a library request in. I will update if I hear back in time (and change vote if necessary). My current feeling is that the complete lack of mentions in any typical Swedish archives would imply it's quite an arcane festival at best. Zzz plant (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it isn't a hoax, it's extremely obscure; the newspaper archive of the Royal Library of Sweden which collects newspapers going back hundreds of years (not all Swedish newspapers, obviously, they still have a lot of work to do – but a significant number) finds no mentions. /Julle (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Zzz plant actually finds something relevant. Seems like an obvious hoax – the potato as a symbol of fertility, the rutabaga harvest in January. /Julle (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Ridge

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

No claim of notability for a gated community, which otherwise wouldn't be notable. Location given is for a country club of the same name, which likewise would need some justification for its notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 2008 vintage article never had any cites except to the country club website, and I can't find any to demonstrate notability. A prod in 2009 was rejected, and a second prod in 2017 was improper due to the first prod.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:COOKIECUTTER housing development. Nothing suggests notability. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a normal suburban development. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable gated community. Lacks what is needed to pass even GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:56, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomer, Indiana

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

A rail spot not mentioned in the county history someone rustled up. GHits tended to be for surnames or gazetteers. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From USGS topos [2], this was obviously a rail siding/freight loading point that disappeared sometime between 1953 and 1967. Just a crossing today, not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 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 nomination withdrawn‎. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triloquist

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a single review from a questionably notable source, and none of the reviews aggregated by IMDB provide reliable coverage either. No obvious redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Dom Kaos, Jtrainor, and Atlantic306: pinging users active in the 2017 AfD. Suriname0 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are full reviews at Dread Central here and Horror Society here both of which are listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources. Also there was a link at Rotten Tomatoes to a review at the Washington Times at the time of the last AfD but the link no longer works and has been removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain if there was ever a review published at the Washington Times, or if they just mean that Christian Toto's affiliation is the Washington Times and he has a review (on his personal blog, linked in the nom). Regardless, thanks for finding reviews outside of those linked to by IMDB and RT, it's basically impossible for a non-familiar reviewer to determine the difference between a reliable and a non-reliable source in this space (they all look non-reliable to me!) I withdraw the nomination, but due to the active participation below I will wait for an uninvolved closer. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM based on the reviews presented by Atlantic306 above. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the reviews listed above, there are reviews here (this appears to be an RS as Anthony C. Ferrante was listed as its editor-in-chief here) and from Kim Newman here. Passes GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Pisati

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

Before I edited this article, it linked to a youtube video, the artist’s website, a blog, and a place to order an album of his—all placed under the references section. The article exists in three other languages—commonplace for most older articles—and they all cite databases which sit in the authority control template on English Wikipedia, and are insufficient to make this article notable. Checking online, I cannot find other sources. Roast (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Italy. Roast (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We are not MySpace. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTBLOG

Nixleovel (talk) 04:34, 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. No need to drag this out; it's WP:SNOWing in Anaya. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaya

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

Too short, not enough info. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk}_profile 17:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expand it. Being a stub is no reason to delete. Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK1. "Too short" is not a valid reason to delete a legitimate article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:7773:7F4C:C62B:976F (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GEOLAND--Asqueladd (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it plainly exists and probably could get some expansion. Note that there is a proposal to move it to Anaya, Segovia in line with other placename articles about towns. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This wouldn't even be deleted with other pretextes. Too short is not a good one. Earth605 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep nom provides invalid reason for deletion. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:57, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jabllanica

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

A search shows that the village was the site of a KLA headquarters and prison camp during the Kosovo War. [3] [4] I don't doubt that KLA fighters were killed in and around the village over the course of the conflict, but classification of these disparate clashes as a single battle is clearly not reflected in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Seems to be a bit of original research as well. Contents about the "battle" itself lack RS and verification. Created by a topic-banned editor. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --24.114.69.139 (talk) 02:02, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Project Formerly Known As Kindle Forkbomb

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

Non-notable art project. Sources are self-published our just WP:ROUTINE mention of when art is on display somewhere. No longstanding impact or anything that suggests it meets WP:GNG ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing used in the article is un-RS or primary... I can't find any news stories about the art, only this [5] that briefly mentions it. Without any sort of critical notice, I don't see how this artipiece is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a paper[6] subsequently published in an anthology[7] and incorporated into a book[8]. And three other book references[9][10][11]Jahaza (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd characterize those as passing mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the work in Pold & Anderson (2014) is 700 words. In Pold & Anderson 2018, the book version, it's across 5 pages (56-60). The section in Mancuso is 200 words and so, roughly, is Decker's. This is not what is meant by a "trivial mention." The target of WP:PASSING, which you linked, gives the example, "In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." Jahaza (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that appears to be an essay/chapter posted to an instutional repository, and yes, apparently included in an anthology. No indication of rigorous peer review or heavy citation. To me, that's not WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The journal article is pretty clearly WP:SIGCOV, since it "addresses the topic directly and in detail." You're now arguing instead that it's not reliable, a different criteria (though you keep repeating "SIGCOV"), because it's published in an institutional repository. But, as I stated, it's a journal article. I linked to the institutional repository, because it's available there, but it was published in a journal as the repository itself says:

Pold, Søren Bro; Andersen, Christian Ulrik (2014). "Post-digital Books and Disruptive Literary Machines: Digital Literature Beyond the Gutenberg and Google Galaxies". Formules/Revue Des Creations Formelles. 18: 164–183. ISSN 1275-7713.

The table of contents is here[12] and if you click on the ISSN, you can see the libraries that have held the journal. The journal's executive director is (or was) Jean Jacques Thomas and there was an editorial board, etc. It looks like the journal went defunct after volume 21, since its web site hasn't been updated since 2018.[13]

The material was then republished in the anthology mentioned above as well as incorporated into

Pold, Søren Bro; Andersen, Christian Ulrik (2023). The Metainterface: The Art of Platforms, Cities, and Clouds. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262549677. Retrieved 18 June 2025.

I don't think it's credible to argue that MIT Press doesn't have editorial review. "Heavy citation" of the secondary source isn't a requirement for something to be considered a reliable source or to count as commentary on an artwork for the purposes of establishing notability. --Jahaza (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think mention one journal article that happened to be included in an anthology rises to significant coverage, but alas. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with it? Academic journal articles are reliable sources, unless the journal itself is problematic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think notability requires more than a single source (this article being republished in an anthology is still the same source essentially). Just being covered once doesn't make it notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found three other different sources in addition to the three versions of Pold & Anderson. Jahaza (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are also clearly sigcov? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Jahaza's sources (how would a source in an edited volume be less reliable??? if anything it's more reliable), plainly sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the "three other book references" listed above are plainly significant coverage published by reputable academic publishers. Toadspike [Talk] 11:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per PARANKANYAA's insights. This article is "plainly [passing] SIGCOV". Iljhgtn (talk) 03:58, 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. ✗plicit 00:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Drenoc

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

A search for "Battle of Drenoc" or "Battles of Drenoc" turns up nothing but mirror sites. Other Boolean permutations show there was a KLA prisoner camp in the village in which seven were killed and four disappeared. [14] But no coverage of any noteworthy battle as such, so it likely fails WP:GNG, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Griboski (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ješkovo

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

Tries to jam multiple small skirmishes that took place during a 16-month war into one article. Other than a few press releases in the Kosovo Albanian media written 20+ years after the war touting it as a "legendary victory", I see no coverage on Google Books or Google Scholar, so it almost certainly fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, etc. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of various skirmishes. Doesn't meet GNG. --Griboski (talk) 18:54, 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 Invasion of Yugoslavia. (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian invasion of Kosovo

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable WP:CFORK of Invasion of Yugoslavia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This should clearly be merged with Invasion of Yugoslavia. Earth605 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above the very small amount of info that's actually about Kosovo and not filler about Albania added to make this coatrack seem more necessary

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Vukovar '95

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

Fails WP:GNG. As the article notes, this operation never came to pass, and results for "Operation Vukovar '95" and "Operation Thunder" are extremely thin and close to non-existent. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG and is basically speculation. It might be possible to expand the Croatian War of Independence article by a sentence or two, but not enough to really merge. LightlySeared (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. --Griboski (talk) 18:52, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PatnaBeats

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Bihar. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED; basically all coverage about this is passing mentions in relation to a local booster media campaign that may or may not be notable, but that does not make the facebook page and website notable. Some of the sources cited merely contain photo credits for this site. FalconK (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinara Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a couple sources, which present a more balanced picture than this spam article; see [15]. However, as a bank, it's very run of the WP:MILL and its problems do not appear to be systemically important. Coverage outside of trade press is extremely minimal. FalconK (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:MADEUP. The page reads like a prospectus, not an encyclopedia article. We are not a web host. This company has won a bunch of made up in a day awards; the company might be real, but the awards are of the "20 top ranked companies in Western Upper Bangalore" or Participation trophy type. Every article that steals our bandwidth, every single SPA who uses our trust, is a brick for the richest man in the world to use as ammunition to take away our charitable dollars. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 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 article already moved to draft before AFD‎. Already moved to draft before AFD (non-admin closure) Uncle Bash007 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mame (song)

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

Already exist as Mame (musical) and mostly covered in the article. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Deleted under CSD Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand why this was draftified, it clearly wasn't a good AfD deletion candidate as a song which charted multiple times, and which was at worst a redirect candidate to the musical (as people looking for the song might not know that it came from the musical). Fram (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please I suggest a withdrawal since this article has already been moved to draft before you nominated it for AFD, or better still REDIRECT to Mame (musical)#Musical numbers Allblessed (talk) 15:08, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbledry

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Tumbledry is a leading laudromat chain in India that opened and organized the commercial clothes cleaning market segment in the country. They have over 1200 stores in India and it is a feat in itself, considering that they are profitable and have been essentially bootstrapped. Their franchise model has benefitted many in India and a lot have also achieved profitability.

The information of the content has been sourced from leading mainline publications in India and many articles cover the startup in depth. Please suggest the links that you feel are surface-level. I will do my best to find alternate links. If you feel any other improvements need to be made, please do mention. I will be happy to work on the content again. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use your own words, we heavily discourage WP:LLM use in any project discussions. Nathannah • 📮 19:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nathannah

These are my own words. Not sure how this is sounding LLM-derived content. I am sorry, but this is how I write. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources for this are plagued by WP:RSNOI problems, for example [16] which is obviously not independent. Profiles and inclusions on lists are generally no good for showing notability; a company has to become socially significant and therefore will receive in-depth, contextualized coverage in multiple WP:RS before a Wikipedia article is appropriate. FalconK (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK

I can research and look for more reference links. I am not sure why Ref 1 is deemed 'obviously not independent', because I don't see a disclaimer or a similar suggestion there. What I am understanding is that profile-based articles should be ignored. Please correct me if I am wrong and also share guidance. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more nuanced than that, but it's quite rare for profiles in the business press to be useful in establishing notability because the business press is notorious for doing these profiles in exchange for cash or access, rather than as a result of genuine public interest in the subject. The source, Prime Insights Magazine, does not have a discernable editorial policy; we can't even tell if or how they fact-check; this makes the source unreliable. It does not have an ISSN. No databases seem to index it. The article has no byline. This all makes it seem somehow even less reliable than the sources mentioned as being suspect in WP:RSNOI. The article appears to rely, for all its information, on the subject itself and quotes from people closely associated with it (such as its founders); this makes it a dependent source. It describes the company in glowing superlatives, while doing little to contextualize the company, so it does little to establish notability. FalconK (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi FalconK
  
  Thank you for the explanation. It was helpful. I also checked the ISSN and found that it doesn't exist. This is a new learning for me.
  
  I have removed this citation. Hope this helps. I am keen on retaining the page because of the credibility and authenticity of the business. I believe that 1200 stores across India is a significant and notable feat. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:RS. The page reads like a franchise agreement, not an encyclopedia article. We are not a web host. The sources are not reliable; trade magazines tend to publish verbatim information that is handed over to them. Again, the more of this type of page is further ammunition for the richest man in the world to persuade his on/off patron to destroy our business model. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian
This page is not a franchise agreement or being developed with ulterior motives. There is base for notability which lies in multiple facts, including:
1. The business has attempted to organize the laundry operations segment in India. No other company has done that before Tumbledry.
2. They have over 1200 franchisees in India.
3. Their business model is unique and has helped entrepreneurs across India through its franchisee model.
4. They have never raised external funding and have already reached breakeven point in revenue terms. A lot of startups end up taking funding for the sake of it. Also, it is unfair to claim that all content published by trade magazines is paid content. This is entirely baseless. I do not treat Wikipedia as a webhost. This is a grave misinterpretation that you are making and I would request you to refrain from making such suggestions. While I am happy to edit the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines, I would request you to share pointed suggestions for improvement.
Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue here is that you are treating the existence of a Wikipedia article about this company as a reward that the company is entitled to for success, whereas a Wikipedia article comes subsequently to significant independent coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources, which generally happens as a result of social significance. Consider the difference between the best possible article that could ever be written about this company, and then contrast that with the articles that are already written about Nortel, Microsoft, or Ford Motor Company. FalconK (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK

Thank you for the references. I checked the content and they are well written and sourced well. While I understand the difference, I would also like to share that Tumbledry is a much smaller company as compared to the likes of Nortel, Microsoft and others.

Also, when I stated the points in my previous message, I wasn't suggesting that the page be created because the company is successful, but because it has significance. Some of the references like The Hindu, The Economic Times, SMEStreet Edit Desk, and CINET are valid and credible third-party platforms. I also referred to their ISSNs and WP:RSPSOURCES to crosscheck the authenticity. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK

I have been able to find more third party credible citations for the article. They are:

https://zeenews.india.com/companies/business-success-story-from-laundry-room-to-boardroom-gaurav-nigams-tumbledry-triumphs-as-a-testament-to-entrepreneurial-ingenuity-2702693.html (a leading TV and digital media house in India)

https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-gaurav-teotia-iit-iim-topper-who-built-rs-116-crore-cloth-washing-firm-used-to-work-as-radar-scientist-3044443 (another leading TV and digital media house in India)

https://www.retail4growth.com/news/tumbledry-announces-aggressive-expansion-plan-6345 (a digital retail media outlet in India)

Hope these help. Requesting guidance if any more additions are required. Supriya.jain2511 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article should be deleted since it has a lack of notability. I am not convinced by the confusing wall of text from above posters. Fails:

as mentioned by the deletioner. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to clean up the article from promo tone but by the end I felt like I would have been left with 1 sentence and no sources. As always for articles about topics in languages I don't speak I am more than willing to change my mind if non-English sources are found. Moritoriko (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Shah Al-Zadah

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference is a database and a check for sources on the Eastmain MENA database came up empty. Let'srun (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, Olympics, and Kuwait. Let'srun (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of a clear redirect target. Svartner (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and also without a redirect target Delete is the option here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Combate Global fighters

AfDs for this article:

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

Incomplete list, no one notable linked on it. Minor organization. Just no need for it. Nswix (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very incomplete unsourced list of CG fighters with none of them being WP notable. Leaning towards delete, but will wait to give someone a chance to salvage the article. I'm not sure of the notability of the organization, but I think it's strange that its website lists no champions in any of its divisions. That's a discussion for another time. Papaursa (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons I mentioned above. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 16 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 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jesus Kherkatary

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jesus Kherkatary

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO). There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The references provided are mostly self-published or unverifiable (such as IMDb, Instagram, FilmFreeway). There are no news articles or third-party sources that establish the subject's notability. The content appears promotional and fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Therefore, deletion is proposed. Akash Boro (talk) 09:11, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have corrected the formatting and naming of this nomination. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of wp:SIGCOV. Just a single source is available. Zuck28 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources covering him. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tula Small

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

The assertions of notability in this article are that they were in a reality TV series, and is a musician. There is no coverage in reliable sources about this person in either capacity. Fails to satisfy notability on all counts. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Whpq (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very non-notable individual, being in a TV show isn't quite enough. Musical career [17], with no charted singles, major album releases or any sort of musical notability. I don't find any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. I only found this mention when searching Google News and ProQuest. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both GNG and NSINGER. Seems TOOSOON. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER - the album, as yet unnamed, "is to be released". Bearian (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

FooBillard

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not find sufficient evidence that the subject is notable. Lacks adequate coverage in independent sources for notability. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reviews in gaming or software magazines, [18] [19] [20] [21] [22], also has a Softonic review, would appear to be notable beyond a doubt. Its apparent lack of sources is due to them largely being WP:OFFLINE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these, which I had missed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: If you wish to withdraw, the discussion can be early closed per WP:SNOW. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the reviews listed above, we're good for software notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Zx. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Show 4: Dream The Future

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

This article is about an upcoming event that is completely unreferenced and makes no claim of notability. The contents of the article may be moved to NCT Dream, the band organising this event, if deemed necessary, or draftification as alternatives. If it was notable, then there would be clear referencing and evidence of planning: which there isn't. The Troutinator - Slap me | 10:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 19:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTOUR. So far the tour has only been announced and for now there is no media coverage of any specific impact. That may change if happenings on the tour get media attention later, and if so the article can be recreated at that time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:57, 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. ✗plicit 14:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTTP

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

Notorious online troll group known for doing a lot of bad stuff that I will not explain here. Still, I don't think it's notable enough for it's own WP page. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage by any reliable sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I did add References so why is it not notable AyaanJaved (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references are reliable sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sigcov at all and existing references are all entirely user-generated without defining notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete and salt (in article and draft space)~~ This is a literal copy-and-paste from Google AI mode, and the only 'notorious' thing this group has done is spam comment sections and wikis (Fandom and here) with pointless fighting over kid things. Also assuming this was forced through since we've probably locked the full title and variations several times over, so this needs salting. Nathannah • 📮 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I heard the group spammed dead animals and children on Discord. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can name themselves anything they want on Discord and that is definitely not notable or sourcable in the least. We only consider reliable sources, with veracity on the open web. Nathannah • 📮 21:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about this group have been created at UTTP, UTUBETROLLPOLICE, and UTubeTrollPolice. That's 4 times since the UTTP article was previously deleted in 2016 TheGoofWasHere (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's some sort of political/group/organization in Indonesia that shares this abbreviation, but it's not related to this. I don't see any sourcing about an online group with this name. Sourcing now in the article is... just sad. Reddit, Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary? These are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that @Oaktree b:; I would support a delete/locked redirect to Ministry of Trade (Indonesia), which contains that political department (UTTP is a department there that supports metrology). Nathannah • 📮 22:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject lacks coverage by WP:RS.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i will try and find WP:RS. Jdn2004 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, lacks any reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.: this is a small group of individuals trolling on Youtube, which really doesn't necessitate its own page. In addition, this page was written by AI as proven by other voters. Wickedfandude (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable per WP:GNG — tony 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At its current stage as a stub I see your point but if we manage to add more information about them into the page I think it could stay. Benukasr (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks coverage by reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, it appears to be fully AI-generated. 193.5.232.61 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you proje its AI generated?

Simple - You cant. Jdn2004 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to ZeroGPT, 87% of the article is generated by AI, while Scribblr, GPTZero, and QuillBot score it at 100%. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I literally said above that it's word-for-word a copy of what Google's AI mode generates. It is a full-on copyright violation endorsed by an LLM. 13:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 13:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely fails GNG, no verifiable evidence of notability, should have never been moved out of draftspace — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a small, relatively obscure group of trolls, and spam bots. Other than posting spam comments on certain videos, there's nothing noteworthy. Rickraptor707 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. Barely any reliable sources in the article. This isn't notable enough in an outside web search. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I would generally suggest to not delete the article just yet. It is possible to rewrite it without AI, and if we do not find any credible sources to mention (even if we write this without AI), then it could be deleted. Although I believe that no major sources would actually cover some trolling shenanigans. So relying solely over sources might not so be good. (It's like saying water is wet, but looking for sources to prove it. And if no sources were hypothetically found, then saying the above statement is false.)

Some other internet troll documentation also exists in Wikipedia, so why not this? Only thing is, just rewrite it without AI. L. M. Mahin (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So relying solely over sources might not so be good L. M. Mahin that would go against Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Sure, obvious facts don't need sources, but without reliable sources what "obvious facts" can we say about UTTP? They exist and are a trolling organization, perhaps. Anything related to history, legacy, or targets will need to be sourced, or else how will we know the facts are accurate?

Some other internet troll documentation also exists in Wikipedia please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article needs to stand on its own, regardless of what other articles may or may not be out there. Do agree the AI issue is fixable, but if no WP:Reliable sources are found there's not much that can be done. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. While I do have personal knowledge of the UTTP, there are barely any reliable sources that talk about the group. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess soft redirect to this Wiktionary entry unless that entry has no merit in being on Wiktionary. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should UTTP be soft-redirected to Wiktionary or no? AlphaBeta135 talk 02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need really TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This group has zero reliable sources. The only sources cited here are user generated (like Fandom or YouTube). These guys stopped being relevant in 2024, quit dragging them into the big 25 ( ͡| O ͡|)/\. --TheGoofWasHere (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest salting this as UTTP and UTUBETROLLPOLICE were deleted two times already. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But UTTP came back and they uploaded their video only 3 weeks ago AyaanJaved (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're still irrelevant now TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the irrelevant when their latest video got 273,974 views, 1,260 likes, anc 15,570 comments AyaanJaved (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a huge WP:BLP violation, given the things the group are accused of, with no verifiable sources at all. At least one member of the group is supposedly named. Additionally, the "YFGA" section seems totally irrelevant. Removing these sections is tantamount to deleting the article outright. InklingF (talk) 16:42, 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 14:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Feichthaler

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. WP:ROTM lawyer doing his job. Poor referencing despite multiple AFC reviews. Full of WP:CITEKILL Is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, and Florida. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article was moved to mainspace by its main author, not a reviewer. Subject is not notable for the reasons already outlined in the AFC comments; it should be returned to draftspace. Anerdw (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete due to dreadful state of sourcing (I identified and removed 6 or 7 references that failed verification, and there's WP:REFBOMBing); WP:SPA editor likely has a WP:COI. May not pass WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to delete, the author has removed some of the excess citations but not added anything meaningful: can't see this reaching the WP:NBIO bar, no matter how much editing they do. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see no prospect of this becoming a viable article. Notability is not shown or even indicated. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea. This was rejected at AfC multiple times and is WP:REFBOMBEd out the wazoo-including 10+ self-cites & 5 that are election results from Lee County (at least one is the same results listed under different titles). I don't see the point in draftifying especially given it was rejected as a draft seven times over the past year and the SPA still tried to unilaterally move it into the mainspace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources at all. Fails NPOL by a mile. We are not Facebook. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a close call, per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:23, 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 Syrian Turkmen Brigades. per redirect arguments (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade

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

On 14MAY2025, I PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Plainly fails WP:SIGCOV, as the MEMRI coverage only refers to it as one among many Syrian Turkmen Brigades, The New York Times only devotes a single sentence to remarking on the trend of naming after Ottoman rulers, and Bulbajer's guide on Google Docs is not a reliable source. The Institute for the Study of War is a generally reputable source, but its brief coverage is only cited to X/Twitter posts. Searches for additional sources did not yield significant coverage to merit an article separate from Syrian Turkmen Brigades and Sultan Murad Division." A. B. chose to redirect to Sultan Murad Division as a reasonable alternative to deletion and Durranistan changed the redirect to Syrian Turkmen Brigades, as this brigade is part of that grouping but left the Sultan Murad Division nine years ago. Today, article creator Farcazo reverted the change to a redirect, simply remarking "It's the thought of one user, not all of Wikipedia." in the edit summary. I support the latter redirect target, so per WP:ATD-R, I am proposing that here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin. Also, as Bulbajer, I can confirm that as much as I'm proud of it, my Google Doc guide is not a reliable source, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Bulbajer (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't say that MEMRI and the Institute for the Study of War are not reliable sources, then that would destroy a large part of Gaza War and its related articles. I understand that The New York Times only dedicates one sentence and that Bulbajer's guide on Google Docs is not reliable, but there are more articles that talk more in depth about the militia, such as: Syrian Memory. Misbar, which is about the leader and the militia integrated into the transitional government and although if you notice the photo says "Sultan Mehmed" what happens is a bad translation of the militia

and to clarify, I didn't want my effort to go to waste because of someone and that they literally didn't read a single paragraph of the article and that they literally accuses me of bad faith is something reprehensible, and knowing, I can accept that it becomes a paragraph in Syrian Turkmen Brigades but that they literally waste it is wrong

Farcazo (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim that MEMRI and the Institute of the Study of War are unreliable, only that their coverage of this brigade is insignificant and that in the latter case, the source regurgitates social media posts that would themselves be unreliable. Accusing me of not reading the article before PRODing is itself bad faith. I only meant to express that your reversion made no rebuttal of the PROD rationale for me to respond to in bringing the article to AfD.

As for the newly presented sources: 1) The Syrian Memory Institution link is a repository of villages and other brigades’ communication with this brigade, not a reliable source presenting significant coverage 2) The Misbar link returns a 404 error and has no Internet Archive backup 3) RDI’s one-paragraph listing of three women kidnapped by this brigade is not SIGCOV 4) The Suriye Gündemi article’s only mention of the brigade is listing it among many opposition groups involved in Operation Olive Branch, reinforcing the choice to redirect to a broader term 5) Per WP:MEDIUM, this self-published source is unreliable 6) Alexander McKeever’s Substack profile of the brigade is another self-published source. McKeever’s only publication is his master’s thesis, failing to qualify him as a subject-matter expert per WP:SPS 7) The French version of this article relies on many Twitter/X posts and sources that I am disputing the reliability of here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin's rationale. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:24, 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. ✗plicit 06:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ntung Ari

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

I initially draftified this article, but reverted myself once I realized it is more than 90 days old. Based on the sources cited, the subject is not notable: refs 1, 2, 4, 5 are just quotes from him (not independent), while the other three are not significant coverage. My web search didn't find anything better.

Additionally, the references consistently fail to support the content they are cited for, e.g. ref 1 [23] makes no mention of "Plateau", ref 2 [24] is not about his education at all, ref 3 [25] doesn't mention Plateau, the FRCN, or the NTA. If editors find sufficient sources to deem the subject notable, I ask that the article still be draftified until it is completely rewritten using only information supported by reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per WP:NBASIC, as being a director general of Industrial Training Fund (which had significant critical reception) and also satisfies organizational notability under WP:ORG and WP:NORG. The article now contains multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, which support the content they are cited for (the main reason for sending it to AFD by toadspike). If there were concerns about sourcing, a maintenance tag under WP:VERIFY would have been more appropriate than AfD. Still, it's valid to seek wider input. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. per keep arguments consensus (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyi Jessica Li

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

Promotional biography. Article author has moved this to mainspace after several declines at AFC, and has resisted re-drafticiation, so here we are at AFD. The only independent reliable source cited is for a listing on Innovators Under 35's regional China sublist. The rest of the citations are written by the article subject. I have looked and not been able to find better sourcing. One source is not enough to hang WP:GNG on, and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROFESSOR, so I think this one ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her citation record (h-index over 30, 13 publications with 100+ citations) looks OK for WP:NPROF#1 (maybe a bit borderline) but I would say that her Overton Prize and recent Guggenheim Fellowship (I just added that information to the article) count for WP:NPROF#2. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Overton Prize and the Guggenheim Fellowship both contribute to WP:PROF #2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). After receiving the Overton Prize, there was an extended article on her in the journal Bioinformatics [26], which also contributes to notability. I did a little tidying up to make this less resume-like and more appropriate for Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. While the awards are relevant, they are all early career to at most mid-career, so not the type of major peer awards for WP:NPROF#C2 IMO. When I look at her citations, I think we need to ignore the first (consortium) source. With just the others she has an h-factor of 33, which by comparison to some of her co-authors such as Peter J. Bickel, Steven E. Brenner or Kai-Wai_Chang is not that impressive, it is not a low citation area. (The first two are more senior, but Chang is not.) I am not impressed by just having a few articles with > 100 cites, my benchmark is more > 1000. Perhaps I am harder to impress... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 literally names the Guggenheim Fellowship as a qualifying honor. Keep on that basis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPROF#2a; the Guggenheim Fellowship is limited to mid-career (and later) academics (not students, even postgrads) and is even listed as an example for prestigious awards. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am convinced by the argument that the Guggenheim Fellowship is listed in WP:PROF#C2 as an example of an honor that passes that criterion, but also I think her citation record (discounting the consortium paper and instead focusing on first-author papers with 351, 196, 118 citations etc) is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, unsurprisingly for someone with a full professorship at a high-ranking research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guggenheim Fellowship is enough. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Guggenheim Fellowship is explicit WP:PROF#C2 as is Overton Prize and (w/ admission of COI), Radcliffe Fellowship is also a WP:PROF#C2-level mid-career/later prize. Agreeing also with what Eppstein said about citation record for WP:PROF#C1 -- but noting that this community should be calibrating our idea of what's an obvious C1-citation-count pass based on what full profs at places like UCLA have, rather than vice-versa. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article demonstrates WP:GNG through substantial independent coverage in reputable outlets and scholarly recognition of Li’s contributions to statistical genomics (e.g., groundbreaking work on single-cell RNA‐seq analysis). It is well‐sourced with reliable secondary references and documents her significant awards and appointments. Some minor clean-up is recommended: add citations for a few unsourced early‐life details and remove occasional promotional phrasing for a more neutral tone. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets NPROF#2 for awards as noted previously by editors as well as NPROF#1 with h-index of 34 (Google Scholar) where she is either first or corresponding author on nine articles with 100 or more citations and 19 articles with 50 or more citations which likely lead to awards received. Nnev66 (talk) 13:50, 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. ✗plicit 06:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurley Corner, Indiana

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

A crossroads about which I can find essentially nothing: GHits are all gazetteers or clickbait, and I get only two pages of GBook hits, none of which tell me anything new. A plain notability fail. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NGEO says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" and that in the USA "Census Designated Places usually represent notable places". I'm not sure how to check if Gurley Corner is a Census Designated Place, but I bet somebody knows how? Lijil (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were, it would have been described as such in the article, because CDP's in the US are, as you said, presumed notable (I don't agree with this, but I'm one person). As for the article, nothing to say or find in searching. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep per NGEO. I don't see any other sources. Though one must wonder what makes this corner so gurley. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have been a town at some point, Switzerland County Interim Report (p. 40) talks about Gurley Corner around early 1800s being a town. "Early towns that flourished in Posey Township included Gurley Corner , Patriot , Quercus Grove , and Searcy Crossroads . Though small , these towns served as marketplaces and shipping points for area farmers via the Ohio River." --Soman (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 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 06:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand–Serbia relations

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

A redirect that was recently undone. The relations are not subject to significant third party coverage. Source 1 is primary, source 2 doesn't even refer to NZ and source 3 is a failed verification, in any case the level of trade is minute. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Serbia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I don't agree with proposal for deletion and think that article reaches the minimum for General Notability, especially with the additions and improvements that were made in the meantime.

I adressed some of concerns raised above (since I was the one who edited/created the article): I added verifiable source (source 3) on foreign trade; as for source 2 it doesn't refer to NZ but is needed since it explains the continuity of diplomatic relations regarding the issue of legal succession of the state with which the original diplomatic relations were established by New Zealand. Moreover I added section about political relations since it mentions the New Zealand's recognition of independence of Kosovo (territory claimed by Serbia) and high level visits - all referenced and sourced. Also expanded the Immigration from Serbia section with notable example of Marko Stamenić, New Zealander of ethnic Serb descent who is arguably most prolific NZ football player at the moment.

To conclude, I think article should be kept and give it some time to improve and expand.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's still not attributes that typically make notable relations like embassies, agreements, the level of trade is minute. One Serbian New Zealander footballer hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as relationcruft. No embassies, little direct involvement. Oppose redirection. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree: There's nothing to see here. Certainly no evidence of meeting WP:N. Yilloslime (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, but restore the redirect. The information in the current article could be included in those discussing the Foreign relations of New Zealand and/or Serbia.

Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:29, 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 and move to Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez, without prejudice against immediate renomination. Those calling for deletion focus on WP:BIO1E, which implies that the person doesn't meet our notability criteria, but leaves open the question of whether the event itself does. Owen× ☎ 12:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María José Estupiñán Sánchez

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that indicating any inherent notability. The facts in the article are sourced, but only because of details of her life being reported in the stories about her death. The death itself has been covered in many sources, but I am unable to determine if all of these different citations are truly WP:SIGCOV or just outlets retelling basically the same story (syndicated, chasing clicks, etc?). I don't think our notability guidelines suggest that every killing that happens to make the papers the next day are notable. This only happened a few weeks ago so hard to establish any long-term impact. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Duran) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Encyclopedic in the same way as Valeria Márquez. Encyclopedic as an emerging influencer, entrepreneur. The same sources on the latter's page (Valeria Márquez) were written after her death. María José Estupiñán Sànchez presents, as visible, a much broader entrepreneurial history than Marquez. A case of femicide that turned out to be very covered by the media in an international way, an emerging character like others before her who are present here on the platform. Submitting a deletion request for the article after a few hours of its creation is disrespectful to say the least.-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFF is important to remember, I'd suggest that Valeria Márquez (influencer)'s death received broader notice due to it being live-streamed and coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no excuse to judge her more encyclopedic than Estupiñán. As you can see, María José's career is much more documented and longer than Marquez's and I don't think the fact that she died live makes her more encyclopedic than the other. María José's death was also partly caught on camera, but this reasoning and justification make no sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having a hard time following your arguement, but please remember this isn't a comparative exercise. Either the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez meets our notability guilelines or it doesn't. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let me tell you that it follows all the rules. And also the reason why you asked for the deletion of the page makes no sense nor the justification you gave about being killed live. These are not valid reasons nor should they be taken into consideration. Marquez's being killed live does not detract from being killed, partially filmed by Estupiñán's cameras. That makes no sense and is not a justification. I believe that one is encyclopedic regardless of the way one is killed, and the fact that one girl was killed live is not a justification to diminish the encyclopedicity of the other, nor to justify that of the first. Instead of resorting to these page deletions, which somehow diminish the work of those who deal with these things, just insert a notice of "source needed" or look for these extra sources, avoiding resorting to these drastic and (at least on this page) very inappropriate and meaningless methods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person appears to have had no coverage before the death... Not that I can find. There is lots of discussion around the death itself, that might be an article. The person appears non-notable before passing away. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Maybe change the title to "death of María José Estupiñán Sànchez" as the author of the deletion process did with Valeria Márquez who is in the same situation as her. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried another Gnews search by date today, there was a burst of coverage at the time of her death, then nothing. Still zero sources about this person, going out as far back as Gnews will let you search, from before her death. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez".
María José Estupiñán Sànchez → Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this title change instead of unnecessary deletion of the page:

Valeria Márquez was a social media influencer, and entrepreneur. She collaborated with brands. I think you are wrong in stating that she is more encyclopedic because she died live.
María José Estupiñán Sànchez was a social media influencer at the same way, and entrepreneur. Unlike Marquez, he owned 3 businesses, not just 1. She also collaborated with brands as Marquez. Her death was partially filmed, since you apparently base your beliefs partly on this. The moment of death does not determine its encyclopedicity, but indeed Estupiñán's page is much more compact and with more information than Marquez's. Given the situation, a title change is fairer, as is being done with Marquez herself who is in the same situation as her, even if for her there was no talk of elimination, but of title change, which here was not even taken into consideration before asking for deletion, in fact not caring about the contributions of those who created the page in question, or this one. So I am for title change and not elimination. If you delete this, then you also delete that of Marquez, because they are in the same situation.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation of the page and the unwillingness to cooperate from those who asked for the deletion of the page, I ask for a WP:3O, so that it is visible to everyone that the page Valeria Márquez has nothing more than this one, and that the deletion is incorrect, and it would be fairer to change the title to "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez". Let's see what the difference between these two influences would be. Both entrepreneurs (she from three businesses, Marquez 1, both influencers, both content creators, both with ties to brands and promotions, both models and emerging artists. The only difference is that one died online in front of so many people, the other is partially dead in front of so many people, you can't see the exact moment. Thanks. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting here (seeking a third opinion) is inappropriate. This is an ongoing WP:AFD discussion that follows a particular process. I suggest you read through that page to get a better understanding. Further, this particular discussion is about the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez; discussion of other articles belong elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your motivation for deleting the article and the fact that you don't understand that there is no difference with the article on Marquez and the fact that you evidently don't care about contributing adequately are useless, inappropriate and futile reasons. The request for elimination itself is useless, it makes no sense to have proposed it when the article on Marquez is here. The fact that we have asked for a meaningless deletion when there is an IDENTICAL page is shameful. Unfortunately, I am forced to talk about Marquez because it is the only way to make people understand the uselessness of this discussion. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you submitted the request for elimination without considering anyone else and without thinking of less drastic solutions. This says a lot about respect for others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:AGF, and don't tread into WP:NPA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking for deletion, it is checked. And the request is useless as long as there are articles like Marquez's. So yes, it is not a legitimate nor correct elimination. Name change is correct and your reasons are very unfollowable and arguable. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, ~~nine~~ (now) ten of your comments here have compared this article to the one about Marquez. Comments at AfD should address the article under discussion, not compare it to other articles. All that matters here is whether the Sanchez article meets our notability criteria. Whether the article is similar to Marquez's article is irrelevant. Perhaps the Marquez article should be deleted too. Continuing to harp on the Marquez article just weakens your case, as it may suggest to people evaluating this discussion that the article does not satisfy notability, and arguments based on analogy with other articles are all that you can come up with.

I would also agree with ZimZalaBim that your comments here are unnecessarily hostile and personalized. Discuss the article under discussion, and do not speculate on the motives of other editors. Everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if they disagree with you. CodeTalker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question justifies the presence of one article on another without providing adequate explanations and without having consulted anyone. The same person has no interest in improving the article and the same person treats me as IGNORANT by continuing to report rules and apparent laws, this is a very inappropriate behavior. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I talk so much about Marquez, it is because the user in question justified the presence of her article by talking about the way she died. This is not a motivation and the guidelines establish it, and the same person has always been pointed out by other users that his ways are not right or correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't know how to argue without citing rules says a lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this explains a lot of how you react - this isn't about arguing, but about properly applying our WP:POLICIES. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are evidently not able to follow given the inappropriate, useless request for deletion when you yourself justified the presence of Marquez's article as having been killed live, which is irrelevant. I think I will pursue the request for a name change, given the inability to guarantee adequate explanations. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this is clearly a BLP1E case. The subject has no notability apart from her murder. The murder itself has some coverage and may warrant an article, although only about 1/3 of the current article is about the murder so it would require some restructuring. Almost all of the sources are in Spanish which I am not qualified to evaluate, so I won't offer a firm opinion on whether an article about the murder is warranted. (Also two of the five English sources are unreliable.) CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles on Wikipedia that mainly talk about murder cases but have a section on the subject's biography, although it is not the main focus. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I added some other English sources that I think are reliable and good. Obviously I didn't add all the sources, but internet is literally full of news regarding Estupiñán Sànchez. I added the statement by Human Rights Watch and news-related as I think are reliable and important for the article. Personally I think her notoriety cames from this. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Creating Killing of María José Estupiñán per COMMONNAME, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of María José Estupiñán, as it is the (horrific) event that is notable and got widespread media coverage as well as global condemnation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Also, it's time to hear from some new voices, please. Maria, please don't WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who renamed the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this article is a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I think we need to apply the Wikipedia: Avoid other stuff exists argument in this case. All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for this reason, like many other pages, it must be renamed under another title as happened to other pages, which had nothing of notoriety apart from death. Making comparisons is necessary, because this reasoning is not very correct: articles that arouse notoriety due to the death of a subject are many. And this is one of those cases. The biography of the subject may not have been treated before death, which is very common usually even for articles present here, but this does not diminish its value, when the person dies and his death generates notoriety. It's a normal thing. And it is normal and right that I cite other examples on this encyclopedia that are accepted and maintained in pages under titles such as "killing of...", because otherwise it would make no sense to discuss or even carry out this deletion procedure. Other users have reported the need to keep the page but change the title. Which is much more correct and respectful than an elimination that does not make much sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event." I take this statement of yours into consideration. Very often notoriety is brought after death, although the person before it was not known exponentially. This does not change its encyclopedicity, if the tragic event for which the subject passed away is the reason for such encyclopedicity, and the same event generated a wave of protests in a state, generating indignation, international coverage from the most authoritative newspapers. Encyclopedicity is not dictated by what one necessarily does in life, but also by other factors, and among others, the Estupiñán Sànchez case, by death. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We understand your point of view, please refrain from adding anything further... It's been stated more than enough. We're looking at the validity of the sourcing, not how well known or important the person is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to write this article today but I saw it written. This article is very similar to Killing of Valeria Márquez, which has been mentioned by users on social media and even the media. Human Right Wiki (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Her murder seems notable and numerous reliable sources in various languages cover it (and some indicate she was a notable personality anyway). Wikipedia:Notability (events) states that to assess a page about an event "the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage" are important factors. In terms of geographical scope (Brazil, France, US, UK, India, Pakistan, etc), diversity, reliability and depth of coverage, the existing sources seem to be enough to retain a page about her/her murder.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still leaning !delete, but no objections to a move or redirect, perhaps a draft first, to an article about the murder. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlogML

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

Non-notable software ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find Github and various sites/blogs explaining how to use the software, nothing in a RS we'd use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 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 Greying of hair without prejudice against a merger, as a broadly supported ATD. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Granny hair trend

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

No WP:LASTING coverage; a barely-covered "trend" that really isn't substantiated by a search for in-depth coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely even made in blip in pop culture, about a dozen hits from 2016/2016 in Gnews, then off into nothingness... I don't see lasting notablity, or much of any notability even back then. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be renamed Gray hair trend and focus expanded to include "natural gray embrace" (2025: https://www.journee-mondiale.com/en/my-gray-hair-journey-6-months-of-embracing-silver-and-why-ill-never-look-back/ ; https://www.journee-mondiale.com/en/i-tried-5-gray-hair-trends-for-2025-heres-what-worked-best/ ; https://www.vogue.com/article/kristin-scott-thomas-has-embraced-the-silver-hair-trend https://www.goodnet.org/articles/gray-hair-trend-that-embraces-natural-beauty and so on) but as it is, meets the notability requirements. Is indeed a notable trend with lasting in depth coverage. In 2015, 2016; but also Slate (magazine) 2017 (in French, noblesse oblige) https://www.slate.fr/story/152228/pourquoi-cheveux-gris Allure 2018: https://www.allure.com/story/tracing-the-gray-hair-trend; Essence 2020 https://www.essence.com/hair/sevyn-streeter-dishes-why-gray-hair-trend-here-stay/ Glamour 2023 https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/gallery/grey-hair-summer-trend for example. At worst can be merged into Hair coloring or Greying of hair --Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A conglomerate of reported “gray hair trends” as one notable phenomenon and topic is not supported by the sources. None of these sources link their contemporary trends to other previous ones. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to greying of hair. I don't think we are allowed to combine unrelated (according to reliable sources) topics to pass notability Easternsahara (talk) 15:19, 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 14:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projax

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; zero independent coverage exists. DePRODed in 2022 because the PRODer "failed to notify author", which is not an absolute requirement (and the dePRODer could have just as easily notified the author themselves) Interestingly, this page was created by User:Ngcoders and links to the website ngcoders.com. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also failed to find independent coverage, but the article clearly copies from the ngcoders page about it. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:51, 16 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 03:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per PrinceTortoise. Adding to mention of its creationby User:Ngcoders, this is also their only contribution which suggests it was created for advertisment purposes especially as over the past ~19 years the only changes have been to the phrasing of the article and would not appear to have added content. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 09:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero indication this is notable. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:58, 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 04:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Lund

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No significant and reliable coverage of this author or the book mentioned in the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Keep – I believe the article on Sabrina Lund should be kept. It meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG — she's a published novelist with real-world literary engagement and multiple independent sources discussing her work in depth.

There are three detailed reviews from reliable, editorially independent sources:

BookLife (via Publishers Weekly) called her novel "a thunderous crescendo and shocking ending," and praised the pacing and anticipation for future works.
Review Tales discussed deeper themes like power, corruption, and emotional realism: "The novel masterfully explores the complexity of power—how it can corrupt, liberate, or destroy."
Readers’ Favorite gave a strong endorsement too: "A must-read that oozes with romantic appeal... will, beyond all doubt, entice fans of historical and political thrillers."

On top of that, she’s been invited to speak at Portsmouth BookFest in 2026 and has a signing scheduled at Cobbett Road Library, part of Southampton Libraries, in summer 2025. Those are both independent, public literary events.

The article has been improved recently with clearer structure, citations, and a cleaned-up tone. It’s factual, neutral, and verifiable — and I think it clearly passes notability for a contemporary author.

Happy to help improve it further if needed, but I don't think deletion is the right call here.

Michael Psaila (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not considered reliable because they cannot be easily verified. And they definitely cannot count toward notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Thanks for your feedback. I wanted to clarify an error and reinforce the basis for notability.

The citation for the BookLife review was mistakenly pointing to a Goodreads mirror. This has now been corrected — it links directly to the full editorial review hosted on BookLife.com, which is an editorial arm of Publishers Weekly. These reviews are professionally written and subject to editorial oversight. By Wikipedia standards, this qualifies as a reliable, independent source offering non-trivial coverage.

Per WP:AUTHOR, a writer is presumed notable if they receive multiple, independent reviews that go beyond trivial mention — especially from reliable sources. Between:

- The BookLife (Publishers Weekly) review

- The in-depth critique from Review Tales

- The full-length independent analysis from Readers’ Favorite

...there is substantial, critical third-party coverage of Sabrina Lund’s work.

In addition, she was featured on two independent UK radio stations — Awaaz FM and Fiesta FM — in publicly available interviews that discussed both her book and broader authorial perspective. These interviews offer additional evidence of notability and coverage by independent media.

Happy to keep improving the article if needed. But in its current form, I believe it clearly meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.

Michael Psaila (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the reviews are professionally written does not matter if the reviews are not neutral. Sources have to conform to the neutral point of view policy. The source you pointed out, BookLife.com [27], describes Sabrina Lund's book as follows: This is a rich depiction of the lives of 18th century England’s high society, as well as a thoughtful study on the hunger for power that drives many to destruction... This is not neutral writing. jeyranmain.com and readersfavorite.com suffer the same problem too. jeyranmain.com [28] describes the book as follows: Consequence of Power: Isabella’s Season by Sabrina Lund is a captivating historical fiction novel that immerses readers in the opulence and intrigue of 18th-century London... And readersfavorite.com [29] writes: This intriguing historical novel intertwines a beautiful tapestry of social interpretation, suspense, and romance. Sabrina Lund masterfully explores the intricacies of...

These claims of rich, captivating, intriguing writing are, one, not neutral, and, two, not verifiable. All together, these make the reviews unreliable sources to based Sabrina Lund's notability on. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a review have to be neutral if it's in a RS? Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those reviews are being relied upon for GNG. The problem is that they are not written in manners that are easily verifiable, with the exception of the biographic excerpt in [30]. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not required to be verifiable; the statements that they support are. They are not required to be neutral; the statements that we write citing them are. Please read our policies and guidelines on WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews are mostly definitely valid sources - reviews are EXACTLY how we gauge whether a book is notable or not. See criteria 1 in Wikipedia:Notability_(books)Wikipedia:Notability_(books) - reviews are one of the sources mentioned. This doesn't include reviews on Amazon, Goodreads etc, but reviews in reliable sources. 79.161.174.95 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Wikipedia article that has to be neutral, not the sources. Reviews in reliable sources are allowed, see criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability_(books). 79.161.174.95 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Psaila: Please declare your professional relationship with the article subject, as required by WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on dodgy sourcing, it is nothing but promotion for a non-notable author by a SPA with an undeclared COI. Googling "Sabrina Lund Michael Psaila" gives joint hits. Editor should be warned on top of the delete. Ostalgia (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia. User:Michael Psaila recently changed username to User:Nanocreatorpage. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 08:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe one good review per the discussion above, but I don't see any others. Gscholar and Gnews are bring up nothing. Gsearch only brings up the various places to buy the books. I don't see author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have brought up, I don't see notability really anywhere. The sources are primary and low quality (Facebook, her website, etc). Doing a search for her book (the primary focus in terms of her credibility) on DuckDuckGo only brought up 3 pages of purchase links. OnlyNano^talk 04:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR because book does not have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Reviews can in general definitely confirm notability (this is specified in WP:AUTHOR criteria 1), but in this case the reviews are in rather sketchy publications and they are very surface level and there are not many. The book was only published last year, so may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Lijil (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wrestling at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Stehlík (wrestler)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Czech Republic. Let'srun (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrestling at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight. FromCzech (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per FromCzech. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 07:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wrestling at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight Skycloud86 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:24, 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 The Rasmus#Dynasty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty (association)

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

Small company(?) - music label, no evidence it meets WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. My BEFORE failed to find better sources (fi wiki's article is not much better than what we have here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Finland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rasmus#Dynasty, there's some reporting of financial results in Finnish press: [31], [32] but I think those are routine coverage per WP:CORPTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as our usual practice for NN side projects and the like. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's too small and not notable and any further search for sources won’t be effective.Uni44hossiq (talk) 17:50, 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.