Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 18	June 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 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 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searched ProQuest and Google but only sources are brief mentions or based on what they say. The only article that mentions them is This Is It (concert residency) stating they issued a fraud warning but I don't think that is a good redirect option because it does say anything about them. S0091 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject lacks notability and references, looking through the edit history there also appears to be an editor from the company in question that attempted to advertise the organization [1]. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to J. Barkley Rosser Jr.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megacorpstate

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

At first glance this seems to be a well-organized article with lots of citations. However on closer examination the only source that actually uses the term "Megacorpstate" is the first one, a single academic article by the author who coined the term. Most of the sources instead relate to Seven Sisters (oil companies) or OPEC and their inclusion here seems to be only connected to the article subject through inappropriate OR and/or synthesis. Google results for "Megacorpstate" don't return anything besides this Wiki article and that journal article, and that journal article doesn't appear to have been cited or discussed by anyone. On the whole there is not a lot of evidence that this concept actually exists except as a term of convenience used by one author in one publication. I suggest deleting or merging into J. Barkley Rosser Jr.. -- LWG ^talk 22:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 22:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J. Barkley Rosser Jr. (with a great deal of trimming). The vast majority of this article is WP:SYNTH citing vaguely-related topics and trying to patch them all together into a coherent whole. Not something we should be doing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian material

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

One line definition that is a weak duplicate of content in Newtonian fluid (and other, related pages). Nominated for a PROD by Weirdguyz on June 19th which I seconded on the same day. PROD & PROD2 removed by A. B. without any explanation beyond the statement recommend AfD. Hence now we go to an AfD for a page that also fails WP:NOTDICT. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely redundant to Newtonian fluid and (more generally) Linear elasticity. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify the only source on the page, thus making it original research, and it appears to be a fork of at least one other article. I took some physics courses in college, and taught secondary school physics two years in a row, yet never once have seen this phrase. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - this stub says ”a material is said to be ‘Newtonian’ if it exhibits a linear relationship between stress and strain rate.”. Does a stress/strain relationship apply to fluids, Newtonian or not? Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic, but @A. B. to answer your question, see Newtonian fluid, Non-Newtonian fluid, Viscosity#Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids and a stack of other articles in a Search Ldm1954 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons articulated above: as written, this is a dictionary definition, but trying to fix it up into an encyclopedic article would just be making even more redundancies with existing articles. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern culture (disambiguation)

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

The term "Eastern culture" has a single, well-established meaning and does not require a disambiguation page. There are no other articles that could reasonably have the title "Eastern culture." Hassan697 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hassan697 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think 'Eastern culture' does have a single, well-established meaning. The article itself includes various definitions of 'Eastern'. At the very least, I believe that Culture of Asia is another potential target. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Eastern culture" is an ambiguous expression with no single Wikipedia article. "Culture of Asia" is not a good target: "Eastern" isn't the same as "Asia". Therec is no analogue of Western culture. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an invalid dab page, even assuming "Eastern" means "Asian". Dab pages are not for examples, especially a random assortment of unrelated ones, such as Eastern philosophy, the geographical article Far East, etc. Car (disambiguation) doesn't list Subcompact car, Convertible, Hot rod, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any one find any reliable Sources for Eastern Culture ( disambiguation I would Change my Vote --Unclethepoter (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page has received 113 views in the past 30 days. My take is that if it's something our users are reasonably likely to search for, we should probably have something at that page, whether that's a DAB or a redirect (with no strong opinion on which / redirect to what). If that traffic is too low to be worth consideration, then deletion makes more sense. -- Avocado (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Constable

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

Prior AfD in 2009 was closed as unanimous delete. Page was re-created in 2016. However, none of the citations on the page, nor any I could find, are the types of in-depth profiles in mainstream publications Wikipedia requires. COI Disclosure: I work for Mr. Constable's employer Fluor. My initial intention was to update and improve the page, before I learned that this may violate Wikipedia's rules, since he likely doesn't qualify for a page in the first place. MrKevinGoddard (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:ANYBIO. This appears to be a bio of someone whose employment history was being appointed to given positions, eventually becoming the CEO, and yet another later was appointed chairman and chief executive officer. His background is unknown, and no indication of any accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch is primary links to his employer then various salary websites. Gnews is only six links about his promotion. None of which are helpful to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found it strange that an employee of the company wants this deleted and wonder if there are ulterior motives here. Per my analysis subject is notable and has enough news coverage. Besides citations already listed on the article, there are more that come up in Google news such as 1, 2 and 3.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share your possible concerns about the nomination, but these don't appear to be independent of the press release/announcement of appointment. I think Oaktree b described these above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More likely updating who the executives are. Per fluor-management-team it looks like Constable is no longer with this company. Take Fluor out of this article, and there is nothing notable about David E. Constable. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm only finding articles about him becoming and then leaving CEO positions. Looks like routine reporting parroting press releases. Not enough for WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ulterior motive or no, the GNG isn't met. Of Mysecretgarden's sources, the first one contains two or three sentences about Constable, announcing the appointment. The rest is quotes or the company's financials. The second is better, but I'm not certain that it's sigcov. The third again has two sentences of coverage about him (in the bullet points at the top); the rest is just quotes and information about the company unrelated to Constable. I don't think the citations in the article, also mostly routine CEO announcements with no info about him and one of which is a company website, are independent sigcov either. Toadspike [Talk] 13:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above comments. Fails WP:GNG, among other issues. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy notability requirements per GNG, also per WP:ANYBIO. ZachH007 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:ANYBIO. And also needs rewriting following proper formats.--FreaksIn 13:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If more sources can be supplied to support notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jenkins (sheriff)

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

WP:BLP1E Considering the bribery conviction and pardon to be one event, individual is not otherwise notable. Delete and merge content to Culpeper County, Virginia NE Ent 16:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bribery conviction is extraordinarily rare nowadays. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd still consider that all of one event, and $75k in bribes is a rather trivial amount when we look at other criminals that have articles here. I don't see a notable career either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:N. –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 01:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event and fails GNG in any case. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability generally does not hinge on one event. Also needs more sources to support WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:47, 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 Speedy Keep‎. Original article was hijacked, resulting in pointless nomination. WP:IAR closure (non-admin closure) 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayalamari

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

Whatever this is, an article it is not. I can't find a CSD criterion that fits. It's not gibberish, except that the way it is presented is so confusing it may as well be. WP:NOT is all I can think of. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, I think this is an attempt at a page hijacking from what used to be a film (see Special:PermaLink/1251098868) before being changed to something about an app by Abdullah Al Mamun (Founder Of Next) (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Here's talk about which I told used by make this story". Should probably just be reverted and closed, unless you want to delete the film article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked (log) by @Jimfbleak so I went ahead with the revert, see here. Okay to be undone without talking to me if this wasn't appropriate. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the sorting is based upon the current and long-standing article, not the hijacked version about the Bangladeshi app that is no longer in the current version of the article. (I have no opinion on the film article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Grove, Indiana

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

I'm having some trouble with this one. It was the location of a nasty 1947 head-on train collision when on train overran the siding here, and indeed everything substantial I can find out about it is rail-related. There was a grain elevator here, supplemented by a pair of concrete silos which are still there, and on the north side of the road there was a coop with its bins, but the whole site has an air of rail spot no longer related to the rails. This page discussing it as a Monon station claims the latter was established in 1915, which is almost certainly wrong, based on the post office date; I have to think the earlier station was torn down. At any rate I'm having no luck finding evidence of this as a town as opposed to a rail loading point. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned, only a railpoint. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Welch

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and lacks SIGCOV in independent sources. Currently, the article has one BBC interview that doesn't contribute to notability, and my WP:BEFORE didn't show anything. The 2011 AFD discussion identified several sources, but most of them are considered unreliable by Wiki (+this Daily Star article I found). This source a little bit pushes the article towards notability. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That BBC interview is about all I can find. We don't have enough sourcing for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Not close to notable. One interview certainly does not qualify as notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution songs

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

Pure listcruft, unlikely that any of the content is supported by reliable sources. Repeatedly BLARed and reverted, so I think AfD is warranted. Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Video games, Popular culture, and Lists. Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Lots of sources, but almost all user-generated or non-reliable. No encyclopedic. value. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Dance Dance Revolution Jumpytoo Talk 18:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution as this fails WP:NOTDATABASE. Jumpytoo Talk 18:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. I don't see what a redirect would solve, since a full list of songs is outside the scope of the main DDR article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not a believable redirect term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone's reasonings here. From a quick overview of the page, it definitely looks like a database or directory of almost every song in the game. Wikipedia is not either of those. It would probably be better if it were moved to some other wiki. Redirecting would not be ideal because there is no similar section there. 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: What I meant is that redirecting the page to Dance Dance Revolution would be unideal because that's the page without a similar list section. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDB. Azuredivay (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article which has been on Wikipedia since 2007/2008 at the earliest, was under AFD quite time ago, and the reasons for that, was there was not enough sources for the list material. Due to the haphazard discussion, the consensus was for the time being to redirect the article to the parent franchise, and not to delete. After a work in progress cleanup, sources were added, and there is still some dispute for some reason, despite the fact the article all things considered is structured well and to the point, and similiar articles under Wiki content, are allowed. Sources are from the developers themselves, and from reputable video game publication sites. The main consensus and argument for deletion, is this article is 'Non Encyclopedic' when there are several other similar articles on Wiki. There are articles for Guitar Hero, Pump It Up, Rock Band, so why does DDR, which is the forefront of all music/rhythm games, not allowed to have a concise and complete list for the music? There are even (in my own objective opinion, rather confusing, puzzling and redundant) articles, which has sources from the same networks which hasn't been contested or disputed which list songs released only in 2009 Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2009 video games) (possibly a ghost article), and songs released after 2013. Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2013–present). So why are these confusing, and rather u-turn/dismissive articles okay, but this general article which lists everything in a simple form in the franchise, not okay? I don't understand. For those reasons I gave above, I feel the article should definitely remain. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:17, 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 for deletion, and none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a different article. I removed the speedy deletion tag since 15 of the 25 cited references were published after the last Afd closed 8 October 2024.

WP:G4 speedy deletion "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. Our policy makes clear this article clearly does not qualify for speedy deletion. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[2] as rising star, [3] as a cast, [4] for his early drama roles, [5] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15 of the 25 references cite sources published since the last AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.

[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.

Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.

[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:

Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple significant roles in notable films and enough media coverage is available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.

1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Churnalism/WP:NEWSORGINDIA: Author is part of syndicated outlet that allows for paid content, 2.) Churnalism, reads like promotional routine coverage - author has large amounts of writing in a single day: e.g. 10 articles created/edited on June 20th, and writing style looks LLM-generated on many articles 3.) Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 4.) Source only loads 2 headlines 5.) Same author/reasoning as #2. Also, all of these sources are from May 2025, I assume due to Judwaa coming out this year, but it's not WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aina Asif having significant coverage on reliable resources. Demonstrate notability in terms of Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you evaluate? Your WP:ATA are becoming an issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Most of the current arguments to keep the article are weak/shallow, but there is also not much support to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding it hard to sort through and see actual significant, reliable coverage vs what is paid content. The !keep votes from sockpuppets from this and past nominations make the sources even more questionable to me.
More recent coverage seems to be bylined and (from what I can tell) published by more well-known papers, like Siasat and Gulf News. But the actual articles seems like fast-paced entertainment-style news at best, which makes for questionable notability, and churnalism or paid content at worst (per the sources I commented about above). From what I've been able to look through, I'm leaning towards delete. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found significant coverage which are independent and from reliable sources: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- [5] Interview [6] Already mentioned above, but: Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 [7] Unbylined / churnalism [8] Asif is not talked about in the article, and is only mentioned in the image caption. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at age 17, Aina Asif's career is accelerating and she's increasingly getting attention. Just one year can make a big difference in notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aina Asif has been nominated for the 2025 Lux Style Award for Best TV Actress. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real Magic TV

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Previously deleted, appears to have been recreated with no improvements or proof of notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The return of this article was not because it was recreated, but because the original article as it existed before the PROD was restored as-is after the PROD was contested by Magicfan2025 (talk · contribs) at RFU. Their rationale for having the article restored falls under some of the arguments that would not necessarily fly at AfD, but PROD objections are not required to be P&G-based. (I have no opinion on the article or its notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Regardless, the article was reinstated with no improvements which is why I started this AfD. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both failing notability as well as a failure of WP:NOTDATABASE in the article's current form. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. They are primary, from IMDB and Hulu bio.Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-checking on the actual article, shows most sources cited as reference seems inaccessible, but unsure if just my browser, did it on two different browsers still no go, my web searches so far have yet to find any SIGCOV to support the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:26, 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 06:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actress Universe Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Long Key Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Key Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With awards we tend to establish notability by coverage of the ceremony/award and reprints of the award results in independent, reliable sources. So even if there's little to no prose articles about the award, we could still make some an argument for notability if say, the results were reposted by Variety, NYT, and so on. Of course the catch there is that if major outlets like that were reprinting the results there would likely also be some sort of prose-type coverage of the award.

I searched for this and found pretty much nothing. I tried searching with some of the terms I saw in the sourcing and didn't really find anything either. I searched with the full award name, as well as just "Actress Universe" both with award (no qualifiers) and film festival. There were a couple of hits but nothing that would firmly establish notability. This just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 17 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 14:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ReaderofthePack. These are non-notable awards given mostly to non-notable performers in non-notable films. Also, I see no indication of how these awards are selected, whether by a group of people in the film industry, a group of critics, or anyone else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Digital Forty Four. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 (Australia)

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

I can't find any sources confirming this existed, fails WP:GNG, imo. Could probably be merged into one or more of the articles referencing it, if someone can find sources... Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital Forty Four which appears to cover the programming guide sufficiently. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Digital Forty Four as ATD is agreeable. as upon checking, the subject itself lacks SIGCOV, lots of the hits about the channel seems from primary sources.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:45, 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 speedy keep. Literally no deletion reason. This entry was also the user's first edit ever. A bit more time under the belt is advised before taking on AFD noms, but I'm keeping this without prejudice. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Paulk Henderson

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

Reason FreddyBoy124 (talk) 12:39, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, and United States of America. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 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 12:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Tech Global Foundation

(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) 12:29, 19 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) 12:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Education, Sports, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when I last edited this article > 10 years ago, WP:RSP did not exist, much less WP:RSNOI that clearly affects notability here (based on the sources in this article). Actually, when WP:RSP came to exist in 2018, MTGF may have ceased to exist already. Their last Facebook post was in March 2018. Their website went down in 2017. Their initiative, Micro Premier League, had its last Facebook post in 2018. Their parent company Micro Technologies (India) Ltd has no article here, and possibly ceased to exist in 2014, with their website going down in 2015. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to WP:RSNOI, it is imperative to review non-news sources. Google Books produces four results, which all seem to be false positives (preceding MTGF's founding in 2010, or just no mention in the book). Google Scholar produces one result under "Micro Tech Global Foundation", which merely cites MTGF as a reference for " Land Use Pattern of Navi Mumbai", nothing is described further about MTGF. Google Scholar produces one result for "MicroTech Global Foundation", but this is an article written by MTGF's chairman. Google News produces one report where MTGF's chairman contributed to, and one press-release like report. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in light of the nominator's rationale, including WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE and the lack of coverage in books or scholarly sources as I have written above, plus the already defunct < 10 years existence of this organization means no further notability. Page viewcount since 2015 lists an average of 1 view per day, so not prominent at all. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again an article which is totally drafted in a promotional manner and do not posses any notability guideline.Almandavi (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nilay van der Ploeg

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

Youth player without indication of notability at the moment, Google News only gives passing mentions in match reports and non-independent sources from clubs. Fram (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Bangladesh, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - In a few months time, if he represents the Bangladesh national team, he could be notable. Until then, draftify. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not strongly opposed to draftification yet I do not see the point either. gidonb (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think the subject will achieve any notability. Svartner (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Novatium

AfDs for this article:

(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) 12:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JCW Devil's Night

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

Current sourcing consists of a short blurb, and two primary sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom., the sources are primary and searches don't show up anything better. Non notable event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 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 no consensus‎ for deletion, but no prejudice against opening a merge discussion either. asilvering (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Family Foundation

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

In most sources, the Bravo Family Foundation is a passing mention rather than the focus of the article (typically Orlando Bravo). This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would not be strongly opposed to merging the content into Orlando Bravo, it's important to note that much of the more significant coverage that the organization has received can be found in Spanish-language and Puerto Rico-focused news sites, which may have been overlooked. See the dozens of articles in El Nuevo Día here: https://www.elnuevodia.com/buscador/bravo%20family%20foundation/*/*/*/*/*/ - many of these are passing mentions, but several would certainly be considered WP:SIGCOV. There is a similar wealth of coverage in News Is My Business (see here) and Primera Hora (such as this one). It's natural for articles covering the organization to focus on the founder, since the organization bears his name and the two are inextricably linked. But that shouldn't take away from the organization's distinct notability when the coverage is there. (Note: I have a conflict of interest with the organization, as I work for Thoma Bravo.) JBarTB (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the coverage appears to attribute the actions of the foundation as actions of its founder, and while true that this is natural, paints an odd picture for Wikipedia. It's easy to characterize the foundation as an arm of Orlando Brown based on the sources presented on the page, rather than the foundation standing on its own merit (for Wikipedia notability purposes only - the charitable causes are obviously great in their own right). I think merging would be a better option in this case personally. A merge would allow for the good parts of this article to continue to exist on Orlando Brown's page. I'd recommend against stating that WP:SOURCESEXIST in El Nuevo Día / News Is My Business & instead list the sources found in those publications where the foundation is directly the focus, when attempting to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold. 30Four (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orlando Bravo. I tried to review every non-paywalled source cited in the Wikipedia article, though some were inaccessible. A very brief google search didn't find anything except for press releases. If I have some more time in the next few days, I'll do a more complete search.

I was able to access the San Francisco Business Times article through an internet archive, but it does not contain the word "Bravo". Maybe the intended link was to the article Operation Bravo, which does discuss Orlando Bravo but is paywalled. Providence Journal really only has one paragraph about the foundation itself, which is insignificant coverage. CBS and ncdc.noaa.gov have no mention of the foundation. Forbes was written by a staff member, so it should be reliable and independent, but it doesn't have significant coverage of the foundation. Same with SFGate and People: no coverage of the foundation. There are two Caribbean News articles, neither of which I can access (web.archive.org isn't loading for some reason). For the purposes of notability, one publisher counts as one source, so this is potentially one source supporting notability. Sin comillas 1 and 2 seem like press releases. They're purportedly by the editorial staff, but I'm struggling to figure out who the editorial staff is. The website doesn't have an article on the English or Spanish Wikipedias, and it doesn't have many on-wiki citations: [10]. It looks like it's being published using WordPress. Both articles end in the same exact paragraph, which suggests they are press releases. News Is My Business isn't significant even if it checks all the other boxes. PR Headline News parrots the same line (Guided by the belief that...) as Sin comillas except in English rather than Spanish, so I suspect all three articles get that paragraph from the foundation (the source fails the independence criterion). Overall, there's not enough sourcing to suggest notability. Maybe San Francisco Business Times and Caribbean News. That's maybe-two sources, which is not quite the three that are usually needed to establish notability.

@JBarTB: It's been a few weeks since you last edited, but it would really help if you could name the three best sources you can find. For example, a particular news article published in El Nuevo Día about the history of the Bravo Family Foundation (not a link to all articles in El Nuevo Día that mention the foundation). We're looking for reliable, secondary sources that are independent of each other, are independent of the Bravo family, and contain significant coverage (ideally 100+ words but maybe as low as 50 words) about the foundation. It doesn't matter if the sources are in English or in Spanish. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a few sources. Anything sourced to www.bravofamilyfoundation.org would be non-independent. I missed one News is My Busines article[11] that states that it is based on a press release. I missed a two-minute CNN video that is giving me an error message. It is about the businessman rather than the foundation. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceTortoise: Thanks for pinging me! I hope you get a chance to see this before this AfD is closed. First, the San Francisco Business Times article (Operation Bravo) is very strong - it is almost entirely focused on the foundation. I also struggled with the paywall initially, but managed to get the text from the article's source code - happy to email you the full text if you like. Other SIGCOV sources include:

a lengthy overview of the foundation in the philanthropy news site Inside Philanthropy
2022 article about the foundation from EFE
2021 article in El Nuevo Día on the foundation's support of those displaced in the Surfside condominium collapse, which also covers the foundation's earlier history.

As I said above, I'm not strongly opposed to a merge result here. But it would be a shame, as I believe significant coverage can be demonstrated. JBarTB (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually managed to work around the paywalls. Thank you JBarTB for finding quality sources. Here's my source assessment:

Source assessment table prepared by User:PrinceTortoise
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/11/01/puerto-ricos-first-billionaire-turns-his-focus-and.html		No obvious issues, affiliated with American City Business Journals	Dedicates significant parts of the article to the foundation's programs	✔ Yes
https://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/magnate-orlando-bravo-ayuda-miles-173842577.html	Seems like original reporting by EFE. The generic byline looks typical for EFE.	Agencia EFE ought to be a reliable source given how prominent it is	It's close, but I think this is a "yes"	✔ Yes
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/find-a-grant/grants-b/bravo-family-foundation	Claims independence	Seems legit, founded by David Callahan		✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20210628141735/https://www.elnuevodia.com/negocios/empresas-comercios/notas/fundacion-de-la-familia-de-orlando-bravo-dona-250000-para-brindar-apoyo-a-los-afectados-por-el-colapso-de-edificio-en-miami/	Seems like original reporting	Newspaper of record	~ In my opinion, it's not quite significant coverage about the foundation.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

With at least three good sources, this foundation is looking like it is notable. While this article will naturally have some overlap with Orlando Bravo's article, I think there is enough information in the above sources to justify a separate article. I've struck my redirect suggestion and now vote that we keep this article. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 02:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeferson (footballer, born 1989)

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

Previous PRODed. Played only six professional matches according to ogol.com.br [12]. Survived by WP:NFOOTBALL in the past, but now fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Obscure Brazilian soccer player who only played in lower leagues. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only 6 professional matches, fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, requires more sources to bolster notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguim

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

Played less than 20 professional matches, only for Minas Gerais regional leagues. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Obscure Brazilian soccer player who only played in lower leagues. Not to be confused with penguins. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:43, 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 12:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Amoo

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

Played two years for USL Championship, but lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Ghana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Svartner (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plain listings and stats, no WP:SIGCOV, so the subject fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far, asides from the usual Hits from generic Sports stat pages. Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:01, 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 merge‎ to Applied linguistics without prejudice against a future spinout, once content and sourcing support this. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical applied linguistics

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

I dont see it much mentioned Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to work written or co-authored by Alastair Pennycook, there are also numerous independent articles, including
- Carlson, Matthew. "A critical look at the construction of power between applied linguistics and critical applied linguistics." International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, 2 (2004): 167-184. HTML
- Mahboob, Ahmer, and Brian Paltridge. "Critical discourse analysis and critical applied linguistics." The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Blackwell (2013). PDF
- Iyer, Radha, Margaret Kettle, Allan Luke, and Kathy Mills. "Critical applied linguistics." The Routledge companion to English studies, pp. 317-332. Routledge (2014). PDF
- Talmy, Steven. "Critical research in applied linguistics." Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource, pp. 153-168. Bloomsbury (2015). GBooks preview
- Bouchard, Jeremie. "Critical applied linguistics." JALT Journal 44, 1 (2022): 153-169. PDF

Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Applied linguistics. Only because of WP:SIZERULE, not notability. Nothing against re-establishing as a separate article once our coverage is more substantial. hinnk (talk) 22:04, 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 12:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

César Zamora

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

Player with only appearances for United States U20 squad, but never played profissionaly. Svartner (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and California. Svartner (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Sadly, very very brief career that did not pan out. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not qualify as notable, with little prospect of notability in the near term. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waste of time, I tried my best to save the page and find the sources, but it fails GNG. Insillaciv (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here are the sources I could find [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. These are mainly database entries that prove he exist, some with a small bio but they can't be independent. I couldn't verify the majority of the sources or claims presently in the article and most that I could open were not BLP quality. Moritoriko (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands is not in good shape - most of the sources are 404 not found, which is not helpful. I am still doing WP:BEFORE, and it may help other editors participating in this AfD to also search for the subject under his full name Tahseen Qureshi (as, for example, here) under which name many of his academic papers appear. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a de-prodded article, this is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a variety of searches under various permutations of the subject's name, and could not find really any reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, so I do not think WP:BIO is met. And although there is a track record of academic publishing (ResearchGate), I do not think that this meets any of WP:NPROF. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:04, 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. Even ignoring the drive-by voters, I see a consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Self written articles can't be considered for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case of a badly written article, not notability. The person is notable enough and is cited by many sources, and it was the article writer's fault for using primary sources. We should instead improve the article, not delete it. If we were to refer to WP:GNG, it says that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I will mention below, the person in question has significant coverage in the media over the course of time, and they come from reliable sources independent of the subject (newspaper and television). The person is not only known for one event, and WP:ONEEVENT is therefore not applicable. Although the article talks about his police report, he is actually more known for his analysis, which is found both on newspaper and television. These, however, are hard to cite due to the inaccessibility of Malaysian media online, such as TV reports not being entirely well documented. The person being 22 does not mean that it is too soon, as WP:TOOSOON refers to something that is still too early to anticipate. The person, as mentioned, is an established writer and political analyst in Malaysia, and has even been referred to by television for election analysis along with notable domestic radio stations such as IKIMfm, aside from his weekly newspaper writings. The reason why the article is considered self-citing, as it is citing his analytic works on Utusan Malaysia, the oldest living newspaper in Malaysia which is well-established and reputable. We can see that most of the citation is to refer to the time he started writing, or certain things like his personal information which is part of information included at the end of newspaper articles where they write the biography of the author. What we should do as editors is to help improve the page's quality, not remove pages entirely just because it's in a messy state. EmpHaziqR (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmpHaziqR The quality of writing is not the issue here. Even poorly written articles can be kept if they meet the general notability guideline (GNG). But this article does not. The subject is primarily cited through his own columns, opinion pieces, or media appearances without independent coverage about him. Being published is not the same as being covered.

There is no significant secondary coverage about Ahmad Ali Karim as a person. The article is mostly supported by primary sources (his own writings) or brief mentions. Without independent, in-depth reporting on him, the subject does not meet GNG.

Utusan Malaysia is a reliable source: That may be true as a publication, but using it only for the subject’s own articles does not establish notability. Self-authored work is not independent coverage. Even if it's printed in a reputable newspaper, it does not satisfy WP:GNG if it’s not about him.

We should improve it, not delete it: Improving an article is ideal only when the subject passes notability guidelines. Here, despite claims of media presence, the article provides no actual in-depth third-party sources discussing the subject’s impact or biography. Without such sources, there's no foundation to improve upon—we can’t build an article on unverifiable claims.

The subject may be active, but activity alone ≠ notability. Without independent, significant, and in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the article does not warrant retention per Wikipedia's core inclusion policies. If future reliable sources emerge, a new article can always be written, but as it stands, deletion is appropriate. WikiRockk (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe the article fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies of living people. Specifically:

Primary or self‑published sources only — nearly every citation links back to the subject’s own writings or platforms that promote his work, rather than independent coverage. These do not satisfy notability requirements.
One‑off mention only — his sole notable action appears to be lodging a police report about politicians. Even that received minimal attention and no follow-up coverage beyond routine reporting.
Lack of sustained or in‑depth independent sources — there is no sustained coverage in reliable, third‑party media (national newspapers, magazines, or independent online outlets) that analyze or profile him. This is essential under WP:NOTABILITY.
Autobiographical tone — much of the article reads like a resumé or self-promotion. Wikipedia requires a neutral, verifiable summary of significant coverage, not self-written biography.

The article lacks independent, reliable, and lasting coverage, and appears to exist for a single fleeting mention, it does not meet even the basic threshold of notability. For these reasons, I support deletion. WikiRockk (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to found independent sources for the subject --Unclethepoter (talk) 21:58, 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 merge‎ to Japan Society of Applied Physics. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Society of Japan

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't read Japanese but I'm not seeing sufficient RS to meet the inclusion standards. I'd be interested to see if others can find anything to discuss. JMWt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Japan. JMWt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Society of Applied Physics Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a quick check in 2004 it had ~2000 members which for me is big enough. I added a couple of sources, from Google there is a bit more but I think this is enough for a WP:HEY pass as a stub. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the main society seems fine. I ran it through here [18], hoping a history of the org would show up, no such luck Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I had no problem finding sources for the history using simple Google -- I added some. To me any scientific organisation with 2000 members, one general journal, one membership journal, connections to other comparable societies in other countries should be a Speedy Keep (particularly in light of WP:BEFORE). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- as an ATD, adding it to the Japan Society of Applied Physics would help add context for both articles.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:07, 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. The IP who contested the PROD (or any editor) is welcome to submit a new draft at AFC. I see no justification to SALT the page at this point. Owen× ☎ 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RIPfest

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

(I hope this tags you @Veko)

An expired PROD resulted in this page being deleted 9 days ago. An IP asked for it back saying, "One reason I am asking for r4econsideration[sic] is that the founders - now emmy winning producers - are considering a new, rebooted RIPfest for 2026". I decided to let them have a week to make some edits to show some kind of notability or movement on notability. The only edit since has come from Veko adding an under construction tag, since it is now ineligible for PROD I am bringing it here. Moritoriko (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for incoming people's awareness, there's another festival by the same name that focuses on a specific horned toad. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the festival had taken place in one set location this could probably redirect to the applicable state in List of film festivals in the United States, however it looks like this took place in multiple states. The history section is unclear whether or not it's the non-profit that turned into a NYC-based film group or if it's RIPFest that did. The language implies that it's the non-profit. The website comes up with warnings not to click through so I'm not going to risk my computer opening that up. If anyone else wants to check, please do.

Reasons for the redirect is that there are two sources, one obviously better than the other. There's some mild offhand mention here and there, all trivial passing mentions at best. The list page also doesn't appear to be limited to notable festivals only. Reasons against the redirect is that the list page is already pretty lengthy and the coverage isn't that extensive. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, California, and New York. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand with no prejudice against a merge. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Greens

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

Not notable, currently no sources in the article and google only brought up stuff from 2011 related to Nándor Tánczos TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be any sigcov of this. There are trivial mentions of the group/spokesmen for the group but that is not sufficient coverage to establish an article with. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Not notable outside of the parent organization. Appears to lack the sourcing to be independently notable. Better suited as a section in the article about the Greens. Bkissin (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent organization Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand seems a good ATD, as in my searches so far the org itself lacks hits to even add citations to support it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Voice Awards

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this. (The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia is also unreferenced) ApexParagon (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Awards, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable award, lacks sourcing. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:22, 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 and redirect‎ to Foreign relations of Iceland. ✗plicit 03:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Serbia relations

AfDs for this article:

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

A redirect that was undone. There are minimal relations between these 2 countries, and definitely not covered in any detail in third party sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and Serbia. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:GNG not met. Yilloslime (talk) 14:29, 18 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 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore the redirect, per nom Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:59, 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 redirect‎ to Padakkalam. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Pradeep

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the first two sources are the same source, one in English the other Malayalam and does provide in-depth coverage but independence is questionable as it is clear some of the content came from him (his dreams, etc.). Another source is about his wedding with a generic by-line so WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the other sources are not reliable or a press release so does not meet WP:GNG None of his roles are significant (no starring roles and toward bottom of cast lists) so does not meet WP:NACTOR either. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His role in Padakkalam is clearly significant and can be considered a "starring role" and is certainly not "toward bottom of (the) cast list". Please see this article in The Hindu; he's on 3 of the 4 film stills in the article. Can we redirect to the Cast section of that film (at least for now)? Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon cite that Hindu source in the article so it is at least there as part of the history if it ends up either being deleted (which can be restored) or redirected. You might be right about Padakkalam...maybe not starring but at least a significant role. The only issue I have with it being redirected is he is part the cast in other works and if redirected a reader will only get pointed to one them. However, happy to defer to others though and no issue if a closer opts for that as WP:ATD. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 what are your thoughts about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with an WP:ATD. Just noting that a lot of times this winds up with the redirect being undone and coming right back to AfD. Either way is fine with me. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I know it could lead to disruption in the future but that is a deal with it if it happens. I have gone ahead and added The Hindu article. Thanks Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon for bringing it forward. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is lot more to add Infinityeditor (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shalom

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

This entire article, beyond the opening paragraph, is about a totally different person. Should be deleted or sent to drafts. How this passed the new page checks I can't understand. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Boxing, and England. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a copy paste of Moses Itauma, besides the first sentence. Masohpotato (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I imagine that the creating editor (same for both Moses Itauma and this article) based this article on the previous one and forgot to remove the copied text. I have now removed it. Anxioustoavoid as far as I can see no-one up until now has marked the page as reviewed, so it has not passed the new page checks. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ping me if you can find three reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the above !votes, I think Shalom passes WP:GNG. Understandably, I think frustration over this article passing our new page check system may have yielded insufficient WP:BEFORE. There are numerous articles which mention him by name and cover him to an extent that I would say passes WP:SIGCOV: e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some of these might be debatable given that much of the coverage relates to the Eubank vs Benn fight, but there are articles with interviews of him and discussion of him as a promoter going back to 2024 - if he is a promoter who is being mentioned by name in article headlines across multiple fights spanning years of time, that seems notable. I will also ping Bearian per request. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Flipandflopped. And yes, this is a flip-flop. Please add the sources to the article. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article has been updated. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on the new sources that have come to light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Flipandflopped Sam11333 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep close call, but per “FlipandFlopped” above, seems to cross the notability threshold. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:54, 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.