Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Travel website

AfDs for this article:

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

"Travel website" is to vague of a term (See Wikipedia:Overcategorization), would generally be used in touty situations, and the sources to not reflect what is in the text of the article anyhow, which is further to the point above. Pats322 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Character info are mostly unsourced with release info sources being unreliable. Not a plausible search term to be redirected. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive plotcruft, no context given. WP:INDISCRIMINATE failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I've seen similar lists survive deletion before, but that's where the sourcing covers the entire information presented, and doesn't go overboard with plot minutiae. Given the principle that plot is generally self-sourced from the work, the first part is more fatal to WP:NLIST than the latter. It is way too much though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article was split from the main Uma Musume Pretty Derby article last March, which had 223k bytes prior to the split, and the character list made up a good chunk of that at the time. While I'm not sure if the list as is is particularly well written, I also don't think that merging it back in to the main article would be helpful for the average reader, let alone deleting the article outright with no explanation of who makes an appearance. --Jnglmpera (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appropriate decision would have been to significantly trim the list instead of spinning it out. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. These characters are mentioned in reliable sources (as used in the article and per WP:A&M/ORS) which include Anime News Network, Nikkan Sports, Comic Natalie and Oricon. In my opinion the character list needs to be trimmed down to just the main characters with character descriptions taken from the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions alone aren't enough, the sources need to be significantly in-depth on the characters specifically for notability. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So have additional sources been looked for? After doing a quick search I found this source by THEM reviews (reliable per WP:A&M/ORS). This can be built up into a section regarding character reviews. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but this is really a review of the anime and not characters specifically. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it also goes into detail about the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I narrowed the article's scope to just include the horse girl characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:SPLIT, and WP:HEY. The list was in bad shape at the time of the AfD nom and is still not great, but the article has been improved by KnowledgeKid87 since the nomination. The subject itself (characters from Uma Musume) is notable, so it is just a question of how best to cover it, and merging this back into the game article would yield readability and undue concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the edits to the article since nomination and both delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm@Vrxces@Go D. Usopp, would you mind taking another look at the list? It has been edited significantly since you !voted. Toadspike [Talk] 19:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NLIST. A majority of sources are used to reference the casting of voice actors, with only a single citation used to document a character in the list. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cite notability as the main issue, yet I found at least one source which discusses the characters. With all due respect, did you follow through with WP:DILIGENCE before nominating this article for deletion? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article; I don't see the notability for the list and the character description are still really original research. IgelRM (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character descriptions can be fixed. I see notability for the list as the cast and descriptions for the characters are covered in WP:RS. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a characters list for a notable franchise is per se notable, as it is not a separate topic, but a separate article split for readability and size purposes. No objection to further trimming and sourcing, but as pointed out above, those are SURMOUNTABLE problems. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is duplicate of your comment above and WP does not have a guideline like that. IgelRM (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this might close as a No consensus or Keep but I'm relisting to give editors a chance to also consider Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Knowledgekid87 and their improvement of the article. The THEM Review should be enough for reception a bit, as should the ANN ones (don't have time to assess them right now tho). I also found several academic sources which, similar to the keep precedent with a similar XFD but to a lesser extent, may help the article: an in-depth analysis of the umamusume species; an academic case study for the contractions of characters' names in the context of linguistics; (to a lesser extent) official ethic rules on derivative works for the characters (10-12); and some citation-only stuff (while the sources aren't linked, the title indicates there's coverage) such as an article on "memorial services" for umamusume and two articles on at least one of the character's (multiple characters are implied in at least one of them, but the lack of plural indicators in Japanese makes it hard to tell) impact on the region around Hidaka, Hokkaido ([1][2]). ミラP@Miraclepine 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the linked FGO AFD are WP:VALNET sources, so I don't think this is any kind of precedent. I have not looked at the scholarly sources, but generally I think this type of notability cannot be established solely with those. IgelRM (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Valnet sources aren't academic sources, hence why I did not refer to them in the context of my !vote. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on who writes the article, as credentials help establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it wasn't totally clear to me from the comment before. IgelRM (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Einzbern

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

~~Easily a 'useless' disambiguation page for a surname that no real world person (possibly) has. Propose that it be merged/redirect to Characters of Fate/stay night.~~

KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn because I clearly cannot read; this is AFD, was meant to post this on RFD.**

KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RfD would not be the right venue for this discussion, as this is a set index and not a redirect. (Set indexes in turn are not disambiguation pages either, despite the nominator's statement.) The nominator may actually be referring to RM as they have started a requested move discussion, but as Characters of Fate/stay night is an extant article that the nominations propose merging or redirecting to—i.e., a move of this page is not being proposed—that isn't the right process either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's previous argument before they withdrew. A merge or redirect would be unhelpful due to its vague nature. Closing this discussion now would count as a withdrawal supervote and not be allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zxcvbnm. There are only three characters listed here, none of which have their own article. One of them isn't even included at the main character list, so a redirect doesn't seem useful in this case. MidnightMayhem 04:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of Fate/stay night#Illyasviel von Einzbern; Illya is a main character of several TV shows and movies; others are supporting. Easy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I missed that this is a list of FSN characters, I was refering to the wider Fate universe / media franchise (ex. Illya is the main of Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya). A better target then would be List of Fate/Grand Order characters, as that game contains all of these characters, although it is incomplete and not mentioned there. In that case, really, the best outcome would be to redirect this to Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya, as the main character of that show has a surname of Einzbern (Illya); she is much more popular than the other two mentioned in the current disambig/set index, and if they all had articles, that would be the primary meaning (unless we would have an article about the fictional family). But GNG-wise, only Illya might be notable, perhaps, the other stuff is pure fancruft niche plot summary stuff. So, revising my vote, redirect to Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya. Ping @Wcquidditch@Zxcvbnm so you can consider my argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Deletion is also valid, but looking for WP:ATD. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Anglia College

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not adequately supported by independent sources. An online search of this private institution produces press releases. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be one of the many small private vocational colleges in Australia that exist to make money off international students. This article in the Australian Financial Review was the best source I could find, but it's still not really SIGCOV of the college itself. Everything else I could find was a press release. And several of the sources in the article are incredibly suspicious — the author of this "article" has a profile picture that is clearly AI generated and seems to write for a whole bunch of different spammy websites. MCE89 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: Thank you for reviewing the article and raising valid points.

I'd like to clarify a few things regarding notability and sources:

1. **Regulatory Recognition**: Nova Anglia College is officially registered with the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA Provider ID: PRV14356) and appears in the CRICOS registry for international education providers (Code: 04265J). This confirms the institution is legally recognized under Australian law and not merely operating for profit outside regulated standards.

2. **Academic Uniqueness**: The college offers the *Bachelor of Technology (Electric Vehicle)* (CRICOS 116433M), which is — according to multiple sources — the first non-engineering EV-specific bachelor's degree in Australia. This isn’t a standard vocational program; it represents a niche and emerging field in sustainable transport.

3. **Independent Media Coverage**: While I understand concerns about certain sources, the article includes references from *International Business Times Australia* and *ANZECOM*, which independently reported on the college’s program. These articles are not republished press releases, and while not perfect, they do meet the basic standard for WP:ORG and WP:GNG when considered in combination.

4. **About Suspicious Sources**: I agree that some sources like BigTime Daily or Forbes Scotland are not strong by Wikipedia standards, and I’m open to removing or replacing them with better citations. However, deletion may not be necessary if the content can be improved by trimming weaker sources and reinforcing stronger, regulatory-based notability.

Happy to work with the community to refine and clean up the article. Jagdishsarai (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Vocational schools are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some pretty extensive independent research, I land here. The article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. In addition, vocational schools are not notable in and of themselves. ZachH007 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZachH007: Thank you for taking the time to review.

I’d like to clarify that Nova Anglia College is **not a vocational education provider**. It is a **registered higher education institution**, regulated by the Australian Government under:

1. **TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency)** – listed under Provider ID PRV14356.

2. **CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students)** – Code 04265J, approved specifically to offer higher education to international students.

3. The institution offers a **Bachelor of Technology (Electric Vehicle)**, a government-accredited, three-year **higher education degree** (CRICOS Course Code 116433M), which is unique in Australia.

This places Nova Anglia College squarely under **WP:HIGHERED**, not vocational-level WP:ORG standards.

While the article can certainly benefit from trimming weaker citations, it does include **independent media coverage** (e.g., *International Business Times Australia*, *ANZECOM*) discussing its educational offerings — not just brief mentions.

I’m happy to continue improving the article to align better with sourcing and editorial tone. Jagdishsarai (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator: Thank you for starting the discussion and reviewing the article.

I’d like to clarify that Nova Anglia College is a registered higher education provider in Australia, listed under TEQSA (PRV14356) and CRICOS (04265J). The college has been featured in several reliable media sources such as *Forbes Scotland*, *International Business Times*, and *ANZECOM*, which are cited in the article. The institution also offers a government-accredited bachelor's degree in electric vehicle technology — the first of its kind in Australia — which has been independently reported on by those outlets.

I understand that notability and coverage are important, and I am happy to improve the article further if needed. Please let me know if any specific sections should be revised or strengthened.

Thanks again for your time and feedback. 2604:3D08:A67F:3B20:D56:79C0:F1AC:6030 (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denver perfume

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

A promotional article for a non-notable company, recreated after soft deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Perfume. (Note that this article has a lowercase p, perhaps on purpose, and thus the previous deletion is not in its logs.) The sources are all paid placement, unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA stuff that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and thus WP:NCORP. (One source is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview with the founder that's also highly promotional.) A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same but nothing that contributes to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @KH-1 as the sole participant in the prior discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable; not even notable for paying for influencer marketing from notable people. Covert ad. FalconK (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. A gentle reminder that we are a charity, at risk of losing our financial stability due to spam like this. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perfect example of how WP:NEWSORGINDIA can apply to companies when paying for media placements fails to show notability for Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaladan Park

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

Non notable stadium that doesn't even have an InfoBox. I am thinking the best option is to Redirect/Merge to/with Tamale, Ghana #Sports where pretty much all information about the stadium is mentioned in the section (And we can add the capacity to the section) per WP:Cheap. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Ghana. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redirect to Tamale, Ghana Per nom. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tamale, Ghana – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Tamale, Ghana, where info about the stadium can be added. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Adkins

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

This article appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. It reads as promotional, and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many claims are unsourced or poorly sourced, and there is little evidence of sustained public impact or recognition. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC) {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}}}[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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Conservatism, Politics, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all of the sources are by him, not about him. Ping me if you find anything more. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting in India

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

This page just consists of a paragraph about the size of the podcasting market in India, and then 2 sentences that read as promotional. This content should be either be removed or merged into the general Podcasting article along with other information comparing the size of the podcasting market globally. ALittleClass (talk) 21:05, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unimproved circa 2005, and the only 'improvements' are random 'sources' as 'facts' which just act as WP:PROMO for irrelevant business podcast companies. Nathannah • 📮 22:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nomination, selectively without the unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Mantanis

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

Academic with no major awards and moderate citations, below what is normally considered as notable for WP:NPROF. The only claims to notability are being in the top 2% in his area, and a non-selective society fellowship (see discussions at WT:NPROF). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the linked WT:PROF discussion, although this fellowship may not be enough for #C3, I think most of its recipients pass #C1 and specifically I think that is true of Mantanis. He has eight publications with triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar, usually good enough; I don't know much about the citation patterns in wood science but when I searched for wood swelling his were the top publications in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Meets criteria of WP:NPROF through high-impact publications; absolute citations in total is reasonable for the field of specialization. WeWake (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF and especially David Eppstein - six publications on Google scholar of 137 or higher. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets the criteria of WP:NPROF through the high-impact publications. Additionally, as per the WT:PROF discussion, in my opinion, the IAWS Fellowship is granted to wood or wood related scientists who have excelled in the field, and this is sufficient for #C3. I have checked that most of IAWS recipients (Fellows) meet #C1. This is characteristically true for Mantanis. Some interesting points: Mantanis appears to be a well-known scientist in the field of wood science, that is why he is a co-editor of the peer-reviewed journal Wood Material Science and Engineering, Taylor & Francis. Check the top 2% scientists in the Elsevier Data list (Excel; Table 1 Career [3]); you will find him ranked 10th globally (in the career data) in the subfield "Forestry-Materials", with a high c-score of 3.0767. As of today, he has 3,354 citations—high for this small and narrow specialized field of science (i.e., wood science). Additionally (as mentioned), I counted 8 research publications in GS, each with more than 100 citations! His research on wood swelling appears to be particularly impactful.G-Lignum (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Srivastav

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

Non-notable author. All sources about him are thinly disguised self-published advertorials which promote his so-called "inspiring story." Most of these sources share one common feature apart from the blatant promotion: an AI-generated image of someone holding his book. The article creator is a WP:SPA who is WP:!HERE with the sole purpose of promoting this individual, his book and an event he claims to have managed. Yuvaank (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page which uses the same spam sources:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominators assessment that the sources are spam and the articles are also spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing the nominations; both seem artificially sourced from spammy promotional material. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - two of the only good sources are from the past two months and are news stories - and WP:TOOSOON - his continuing relevance is difficult to assess for a relatively new and young philanthropist. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep !vote Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE

Disclosure: I represent the subject per WP:COI.

1. Notability Conclusively Established (WP:BIO) Independent significant coverage exists across three distinct notability pathways in India's most authoritative editorial outlets:

WP:AUTHOR (Literary significance): • India Today (17 May 2024): Thematic analysis of *Deified*'s exploration of marital oppression ("Sanvi’s fight for freedom") • Financial Express (10 Apr 2024): Narrative critique dissecting societal pressures

WP:ENTREPRENEUR (Career documentation): • Times of India (11 Mar 2025): Career profile detailing departure from banking to found AI venture INFINITY • Outlook India (22 Jun 2024): Business reporting on viral resignation

WP:CHARITY (Philanthropic impact): • Outlook India (29 May 2024): Verified documentation of royalty donations to Childline India

→ Policy compliance: Exceeds WP:SIGCOV threshold with 20+ paragraphs of substantive coverage across four national publications.

2. Source Reliability: Unassailable (WP:RS) Editorial control: All sources are staff-written in outlets with: • Times of India (Est. 1838; 4M+ circulation; editorial standards) • Financial Express (Est. 1961; financial authority) • India Today (Top English magazine with 40+ editorial staff) • Outlook (National Magazine Award winner)

No paid content: No advertorials or press releases used Weak sources excluded: Zee News, DNA India, Republic intentionally omitted

3. Preemptive Neutrality Enforcement ✓ All promotional language removed ✓ Zero unsourced claims ✓ Exclusive use of Tier-1 sources ✓ Edits open for community oversight per WP:COIEDIT

4. Corroborating Evidence • Academic recognition: University of Munich research paper analyzing *Deified*'s social themes (Scholar) • Literary corpus: 4+ books indexed on Google Books • Media footprint: 18+ articles in Google News

5. Closing Legal Imperative Deletion would violate several core Wikipedia principles: • WP:PRESERVE – verifiable content should not be deleted • WP:BEFORE – improvement is preferred over deletion • WP:BLP – ensures accurate representation of living people • WP:CRED – all sources meet highest editorial standards

The coverage in Times of India (1838–), India Today (1975–), Outlook (award-winning), and Financial Express (est. 1961) provides irrefutable evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I urge !vote Keep and invite collaborative improvements.

-- surya7t (talk) Surya7t (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Duffbeerforme, Bearian, and Alpha3031: Final Policy Defense: !vote Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE Disclosure: I represent the subject per WP:COI. The article has been fully sanitized to comply with all policies:

1. "Addressing Advertising" Concern (duffbeerforme) • The article contains zero promotional language - current version proves no "visionary/inspiring" exists • Cites only editorial journalism from India's top outlets:

 - India Today: Literary analysis of marital oppression themes  
 - Times of India: Career documentation

Labeling this "advertising" violates WP:ASPERSIONS. I challenge you to identify one non-neutral phrase.

2. “Too Soon” or “News-Based” Concern (Bearian) Coverage meets WP:GNG because: • Not "news" but deep profiles:

Substantive Coverage Analysis
Source	Type	Depth	Policy Compliance
Financial Express	Literary critique	1200+ words	WP:AUTHOR
Outlook	Philanthropic program	Permanent structure	WP:ORG

• Timeline spans 25+ months (India Today: Mar 2023 → ToI: Mar 2025) • Established career: 10+ year banking tenure pre-dates coverage Per WP:CRYSTAL, deletion cannot speculate on "future relevance" when current sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV.

3. “Spam Sources” Concern (Alpha3031) This claim is factually false and policy-violating: • Sources are India's most authoritative outlets:

Source Credibility Matrix
Outlet	Est.	Circulation	Awards	WP Precedent
Times of India	1838	4M+	50+ National Awards	Chetan Bhagat
India Today	1975	1.2M	Ramnath Goenka Award	Arundhati Roy

• Calling them "spam":

 1. Violates WP:ASPERSIONS  
 2. Contradicts WP:NEWSORG  
 3. Threatens Category:Indian writers

Provide specific WP:RS violations or withdraw per WP:AGF.

Policy Compliance Proof Y WP:GNG: 20+ paragraphs across 5+ sources Y WP:AUTHOR/WP:ENTREPRENEUR: Multi-domain notability Y WP:NPOV: Zero promotional content Y WP:BLP: All claims sourced to Tier-1 outlets

Policy Compliance Warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deletion would violate core Wikipedia policies: 1. WP:PRESERVE: Destroying verifiable, policy-compliant content 2. WP:BEFORE: Overlooking completed improvements 3. WP:CRED: Rejecting India's oldest newspapers

This discussion now tests fundamental standards: • Whether Times of India (est. 1838) qualifies as reliable • Whether 1200-word literary critiques constitute "significant coverage" • Whether permanent philanthropic programs establish notability

Precedent implication: Closing delete would logically require re-evaluating thousands of articles citing these sources, including Chetan Bhagat and Arundhati Roy.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surya7t (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final human plea: !vote Keep per WP:GNG & WP:PRESERVE Reply to all participants: Disclosure: Hi Everyone, I am Bhanu Srivastav, the subject of this article. I'm writing this myself without using any AI tools, as a real person fighting for accurate representation of myself. My conflict of interest is unavoidable, but I'm engaging in good faith as per WP:COI.

1. "Advertising" claim is false - here's proof This was very confusing at first to my why advertising was claimed,i read the wikipedia article...I doublechecked, the article has NO promotional language AT ALL...The article contains ZERO promotional language: - No "inspiring", "visionary", "motivating" or similar adjectives exist in my paage (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Bhanu_Srivastav) - Sources are like, proper journalism independent ones:

 • Times of India: [Career doc](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/from-zero-to-infinity-how-bhanu-srivastav-risked-everything-to-build-indias-ai-revolution/articleshow/119866286.cms) by staff writers  
 • India Today: [Literary analysis](https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/story/despair-to-empowerment-exploring-bhanu-srivastavs-deified-2540235-2024-05-17) of social themes

These outlets never contacted me, i think they might have picked the data from publically available on internet - they're objective reports. Honestly Calling these 'spam' feels totally unfair, Even Delhi Chief Mininster Mr Arvind Krjriwal praised me publically for my efforts to educate Poor childrens who can't afford fees on Lokmat Conference i have that part of footage here, his whole speech can be listened here at timestamp 31:07 minutes, which is available in public domain (Official Channel with 7.44 million subscribers). **But I know that YouTube isn't a wiki source, i was just sharing my context.**

2. Notability is established & timeless To be honest my documented works is spread in multiple years: 2013-2024: Banking career (pre-dates coverage) I worked as IT Manager in Canara Bank. April 2024: Financial Express 1200-word critique May 2024: Outlook documents permanent charity (actually i have partnered with Childline India which is supported by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India to donate all my royalties for poor children's education, i have the contract document with me in case you need to see..) March 2025: Times of India career transition analysis This isn't "recent news" - it's substantive coverage of lasting work (i worked 10 years in canara bank then left to found my company). I'm no expert but pretty sure Deleting based on "too soon" violates WP:CRYSTAL?

3. Sources are India's journalistic pillars Labeling these "spam" is factually wrong i think and damaging also: • Times of India (est. 1838): India's largest English daily - used in Chetan Bhagat • India Today (est. 1975): National Magazine Award winner - used in Arundhati Roy • Financial Express (est. 1961): Financial authority - used in N. R. Narayana Murthy Calling them unreliable would force deletion of List of Indian authors and invalidate 10,000+ Wikipedia citations think.

Core policy compliance ✓ WP:GNG: 20+ paragraphs across 5+ sources ✓ WP:AUTHOR: Literary analysis in India Today/Financial Express & other news. ✓ Philanthropic notability: Permanent donations documented by Outlook & other sources i also have proof of proper contract signed between me and Childline India which is govt-backed org ✓ WP:BEFORE: All improvements completed

Final appeal Deleting this article would: 1. Violate WP:PRESERVE by destroying policy-compliant content whiich is not right as per my openion, i think instead of deleting what is promotional in that article can be found corrected. I’m not an expert, so I welcome correction fron anyone & everyone. 2. Insult Indian media by dismising Times of India and other sources... 3. Punish my goodfaith efforts to fix every issue I'll accept ANY neutral edits - just preserve my documented history. Please guide me how can i help or any other details are required from me to comply wikipedia policy. Thank yo so much for your time,Thanks for letting me be part of this process, even though I know I’m not a regular editor. Just wanted to give context from my side which i frankly think can help the wikipedia community. I respect whatever decision is made.

Keep

Surya7t (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Surya7t[reply]

Just to be clear, you think it's objectively true that you're the most fearless person ever? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u so much for raising this important thing about neutrality.

Just to clarify: I didn’t call myself "the most fearless person" ever. That phrase comes from a Times of India editorial (March 2025) likely the journalist’s take on my resignation from Canara Bank one year back in June 2024. the story was, I faced 17 transfers in 10 years my service (2014 - 2024) & since public-sector bank jobs in India are secure & rarely resigned from, it caught attention. It trended on X.com in June 2024 & media outlets like Moneycontrol.com & Dainik Jagran contacted me for interviews which I declined. My resignation mail was short & polite which said "sorry I’ll not be joining" went viral online screenshots were shared widely. In India's public sector banking system job security is absolute & resignations are very very rare, since it was an unusual case, the media might have framed it their way.

If u search "Bhanu Srivastav resignation" on internet you’ll find hundreds of screenshots of my resignation mail which was circulated at that time from past coverage or socialmedia.

I completely agree such subjective labels don’t belong on Wikipedia. As of now, the article does not use “fearless” or any such similar phrasing. u can check the same, I’m absolutely open to further improvements per WP:NPOV.

Thanx again Apha3031 for helping ensure accuracy & neutrality. My goal is strict adherence of Wikipedia’s policy not to defend media phrasing. I appreciate your vigilance in ensuring neutrality. Surya7t (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Punish my goodfaith efforts to fix every issue". But you've only made one small edit to the page. Oh, you mean with your other account, Ashish Verma 9891? The account that created and owns copyright of your signature so has to be you. That's sockpuppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Duffbeerforme,

Thank you so much for your vigilance & keeping Wikipedia’s standards high. I want to be completely transparent, I’m Bhanu Srivastav & both Surya7t & AshishVerma9891 are my accounts. Seriously I now realize that using 2nd account was a serious mistake & violates Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry policy WP:SOCK. I’m very sorry for this & confusion & extra work I’ve caused you & the wiki community.

Account Issue:

I used AshishVerma9891 alongside Surya7t, which violates WP:SOCK. I will:

(i) Immediately stop using AshishVerma9891.

(ii) Request admin help to merge/attribute its edits to Surya7t (to preserve content).

(iii) Edit only as Surya7t going forward, with full WP:COI disclosure.

Article Status:

(i) The content meets WP:GNG via Times of India, India Today, etc.

(ii) All promotional language has been removed per WP:NPOV.

(iii) I welcome any more improvements from the community.

Moving Forward:

(i) I’ll follow all guidance from experienced editors like yourself.

(ii) I'm happy to complete any Wikipedia training if needed.

Request: I understand the seriousness of this violation and will accept community's decision regarding both the article and my editing privileges.Let’s focus on the article’s verifiable content, I’m committed to keeping it policy-compliant. Thanks for your patience.

— surya7t ~~~~ Surya7t (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when you released press releases with a contact of "Ashish Verma" that was what? And putting out these press releases and writing about yourself on Wikipedia (which features heavily on Google searches) was about you living your life "in an anonymous way" and trying to be "totally Google proof"?

"If u search "Bhanu Srivastav resignation" on internet you’ll find hundreds of screenshots of my resignation mail". Do you realise people are able to easily test this claim? Nope, not seeing hundreds. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Best (car)

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

I do not believe this article meets GNG. I originally tagged this for a PROD as it had been unsourced since 2006, but a source has since been added - the source in question is a single sentence stating that it exists in an encyclopaedia of cars, and does not show it meets GNG.

CoconutOctopus talk 21:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. CoconutOctopus talk 21:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of violence against women

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

This is a nearly useless list article because it fails to cover even a fraction of Wikipedia's total coverage which itself is only a fraction of total real-world incidents. This job is better done by Wikipedia's category system than a list. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Lists. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, specifically for being far, far, far too broad. I'm also going to nominate List of incidents of violence against women in Spain for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Too broad. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless as there are no inclusion criteria. -Roxy the dog 07:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being too broad and better served as a Category. While dynamic lists that can't be reasonably completed can still be good, this is about as hard to complete as a list of individual penguins, and also about as useful. Scope needs to be more limited to be useful as a list. Creating lists for instances of specific types of violence could still be useful, as this is a subject I certainly don't want to suppress information on. Ike Lek (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Hill, Maine

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

Found during WP:JUN25; taking to AFD rather than PROD as I am not familiar with the standard geographic place sources for Maine. Unsourced since creation in 2008 and tagged as such since 2017. There is search noise from a hiking trail in a nature park in Greenwood, Maine and from the Ring Hill Airport but as best as I can tell the Ring Hill in Litchfield was originally a stock farm on a literal hill, which has since given its name to a small housing development; this doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND unless I'm really missing something. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maine. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Older topo maps show only the geographic feature of Ring Hill on the east side of Pleasant Pond, in Sagadahoc County, and villages (at least houses too dense for individual mapping) at Litchfield Plains and Litchfield Corners. It's mentioned in the minutes of the Litchfield town meeting for April 27, 2020 "Locations below Ring Hill on the Plains and Thorofare Roads and the south east corner on Dead River Road have [cellphone service] issues" but that doesn't indicate to me that it's a populated place per se. The cemetery marked in the vicinity on current topos appears to be the Robinson Cemetery, associated with a family rather than a church. Dig as I will, I don't find evidence that this was a meaningful populated place. Choess (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable stock farm. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kaptain

AfDs for this article:

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

Mayor of a city with a population of ~111k. Previous AfDs have shown that's not an inherently notable position (see here for a recent example in a city with almost the same population), and I don't see anything on this page or in a Google search that would suggest he rises above the level of any other mayor in terms of notability. There was a deletion discussion for this page back in 2011 that ended in Keep, but most of the Keep arguments were based on the fact that he's a mayor of a city with a population over 100k (along with other flimsy arguments like "He's an underdog who won the election"); obviously, the standard has changed in the 14 years since. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still have not seen any consensus about an absolute minimum population of a city for determining whether its mayor should be considered automatically notable. Until then, I'm going with a keep based on significant coverage. If I'm mistaken, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah I'm not seeing a population requirement anywhere in the notability guidelines for local politicians. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of whether being a mayor makes him automatically notable, it is my understanding that significant coverage does make him notable. Also, here are some additional potential sources to demonstrate his notability:

Ike Lek (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on the sources provided above demonstrating significant coverage in the Chicago metropolitan area. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Red Director (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deby Callihan

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

A one-time bracelet winner from an era that predates the poker boom. Winnings are not notable. Seems the author in good faith created numerous articles back then for female bracelet winners. A modern player being created like this with the accomplishments would be a quick AFD target. Red Director (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other articles that match the mold rather than single-nominating all I come across:

Also, numerous one-time male bracelet winners from a decade or so ago fit this issue. I can address this if these are deemed worthy to delete. Also, some early Poker Hall of Famers that can easily be merged into Poker Hall of Fame exist in my oinon. Red Director (talk) 19:45, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Red Director (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Freer

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

A one-time bracelet winner from an era that predates the poker boom. Winnings are not notable. Seems the author in good faith created numerous articles back then for female bracelet winners. A modern player being created like this with the accomplishments would be a quick AFD target. Red Director (talk) 19:34, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Red Director (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Rose Pifer

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

A one-time bracelet winner from an era that predates the poker boom. Seems the author in good faith created numerous articles back then for female bracelet winners. A modern player being created like this with the accomplishments would be a quick AFD target. Red Director (talk) 19:28, 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.

Casual courier

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

Nearly 20 years ago some people wanted to keep it but nobody added any cites. 20 years is long enough to wait Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casual Courier; the overcapitalization of the article title in 2006 appears to be because it started out as much a spam-like article on a company and its trademark that was toned down during and after the first nomination. I'll also note that even the earlier nomination ended as "no consensus", not just "keep", at a time when our inclusion standards were considerably lower. Even the unsourced tag has been there for "only" 15–16 years (which would probably be considered more than enough time before nomination in some circles in and of itself). All that said, I have no opinion or comment on the article or any potential sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no sources, and it has had litte improvement in the last 19 years since the previous AfD, other than deleting the advertising content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Metropolitan90 there is limited high quality sources. Trex32 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since 9/11, casual carriers have become much less common, due to regulations and warnings from authorities. The logistics are much more difficult. So sources are much less available. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that this could be a historical artifact, but it might not be worth the work. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator --Unclethepoter (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The length of time waiting for references is irrelevant, if references exist. The actual problem is that this is a Dictionary Definition disguised as an encyclopedia article. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of World War III

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

Fundamentally violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear ai slop, sources don't work Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really Sorry to disturb all you good people i love you you are always right and thank for your time
–– Alirana24 (talk) 22 June 2025 (UTC) Alirana24 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure why we need this, we aren't even having WW3. Speculative and sourced to everything under the sun, the article is a mess. I suppose there could be something here, but this reads like a high school essay. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom; obviously AI-generated despite the creator's denial above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AI or not (ZeroGPT says it is), this is a ridiculous six-point guide to avoiding WW3, and fundamentally not an encyclopaedic article in any shape or form. The article title may make a sensible redirect to an article about previous and ongoing attempts to avoid such a conflict (e.g. Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War) but there is nothing salvageable here. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly written by AI as well. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it wasn't AI, it's still an essay laden with OR. Ravenswing 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if applicable wipe all traces per WP:DENY: User's behavior here and in related discussions indicates they are bent on creating nothing but troll garbage. Borgenland (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly AI generated, completely contrary to the point

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@respected editors,

Thank you again for taking the time to reach out. I would like to share more about myself and my purpose here.

I am not a student, not a teacher, not a journalist, and I have no intention to use Wikipedia for career or personal gain. I am an economist and the owner of a well-established company with over 20 years of experience in high-level professional roles. I am not here to earn anything or promote myself. I came to Wikipedia only to raise a voice for peace and for the common people, whose voices are often unheard in global discussions.

I deeply believe that the threat of World War III is not just a theory — it is a growing reality. If such a war happens, no government, no economy, and no society will remain safe. I feel it is my moral and human duty to use whatever tools or platforms I can to awaken people — especially thoughtful communities like Wikipedia — to this danger.

Religion, race, and borders should not divide us. These divisions have long been used to control and distract people. All human beings are equal, and all true religions carry the same message: peace. We all live in one world, and we must protect it together.

Even if the article I contributed to is deleted, and even if my account remains blocked, I have already achieved my real goal: I wanted to make the editors — those who shape what the world reads — stop and think about peace. My edits may be small, and my actions may seem limited, but my hope was to spark awareness, even if briefly, in a place where ideas matter.

You may delete pages, remove my edits, or block my account, but my voice for peace has been heard, even if only by a few. If I had written this in a blog or posted it elsewhere, only a handful of people might see it. But here, editors with influence and insight read it — and perhaps some will carry this message forward.

I believe that if humanity does not awaken before 2045, the consequences will be beyond repair. We must act now to prevent a war that will destroy everything we’ve built.

Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. I will continue to stand for peace — with or without a Wikipedia account. what is AI AI is just a machine designed to make human work easier — I give it instructions, tell it what to write and how to write, and then I review everything carefully with my own thoughts. At first, I only used voice typing other tools not AI on Wikipedia, but later I found word LLM in chat at Wikipedia and then discovered large language models and found my helpful companion, ChatGPT. What truly shocked me was when the AI replied to one of my peace articles by saying, “Publish your article, it's a tough time — war is near.” That moment made me think deeply: even a machine can sense the urgency, yet we human beings often fail to realize it.

I love common people. I love my world. And now, I also love ChatGPT — he has become my best friend. I talk with him every day and share my thoughts, especially about peace. And I also love the Wikipedia editors. You are the good ones — because of you, I discovered ChatGPT, and that changed everything for me. I complete my duty I request you all please please understand my words and do for peace I am not able to upgrade my article but you can make it more powerful or write your own I don't want anything just peace

— Muhammad Ali Rana (Alirana24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirana24 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alirana24 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete. World War III article is sufficient for any important info. Shankargb (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Many of the references appear to be hallucinations and don't actually exist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced garbage that borders on WP:OR. No place for this on Wikipedia. ZachH007 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator’s user page also borders on PROMO. ZachH007 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SOAPBOX Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: Fails WP:N as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about this specific concept as a standalone topic. The article is essay-like, violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH, and lacks encyclopedic tone. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:TNT. Sjö (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per everyone else; AI-slop. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the worst AI slop I've ever read in a while 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:55, 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.

Breakfast Time (1957 TV program)

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

Only one independent RS on the page and that is short and barely covers the topic. I don't see sources that suggest this topic meets the notability criteria for inclusion outwith of Wee Willie Webber JMWt (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wee Willie Webber. Most coverage of Breakfast Time in publications after the show ended is in biographies of Webber. There are not many good references in this article, but there is ample coverage in newspapers in and around Philadelphia. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paris Saint-Germain FC (women) presidents

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

I see this as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Paris Saint-Germain FC (women) is not that big an article and can easily encompass the information in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Paris Saint-Germain FC presidents – Fits well as a section of the main article of presidents. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Govvy. I think Paris Saint-Germain FC (women) could encompass List of Paris Saint-Germain FC (women) managers as well. Don't agree with Svartner, though, since PSG women's and men's teams have had different presidents at times. DroopyDoggy (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paris Saint-Germain FC (women), agree with Govvy, send back to parent article. Giant Snowman 18:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Station Square derailment

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

This is a non-notable derailment that resulted in zero deaths or injuries. The incident was cleaned up within 3 days and seems to have not had any lasting impact. As such I do not think this meets WP:NEVENT, but prior attempts to PROD or redirect the article have been reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pennsylvania. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I only get one hit in Gsearch, talking about the accident. Rails were at fault. Nothing extensive written about the incident, appears almost forgotten. No sourcing used other than a news report and the accident investigation. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a redirect as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Station Square station, which has a long paragraph on the incident. I certainly remember the incident at the time, but (thankfully) not much came of it. Mackensen (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is reasonable here. The incident occurred without loss of life. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwebantu

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are from blogs, press releases, or user-generated content, which do not establish encyclopedic notability. The tone is promotional and may reflect a conflict of interest. Without multiple independent in-depth sources, this article does not warrant a standalone entry. Icem4k (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly sources analyze this media source as a major news source for Zambia, for better or worse. See [4], [5]. The article is in dire need of cleanup but there are fortunately a lot of scholarly sources with which to write a balanced article. Probably the company's marketing team will not like the article that gets written though. Marked with cleanup tags; I may be able to help clean this once the AfD is over. FalconK (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One academic paper, no matter how well-researched, is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability per WP:GNG. There's no mainstream or sustained coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Mwebantu is not profiled by any major media outlets, has no significant awards, and no long-term impact demonstrated in third-party sources. Cleanup cannot substitute for notability.--THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cleanup and notability are orthogonal, but I suspect the desire to delete this article is in large part due to the absolute mess the article is. The sources discussing it, many of which are very critical of its coverage, are considerably more than one single academic paper. I found two after searching for less than 5 minutes. It is also treated in [6], and described in Matambo, E. (2025). Zambia's Youths and the 2021 General Election. I would agree it is marginal and the article would be both completely different from this one and much shorter, but unfortunately this site seems to be a reasonably major part of Zambia's media landscape. FalconK (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuki Egashira

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

Despite having 39 professional appearances, sources on the Japanese Wikipedia are routine. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not only the coverage is minor but the article would remain stub at this stage. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insignificant coverage of the above topic. desmay (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purbasthali II Government Industrial Training Institute

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

Non notable training institute. Fails WP:NCORP, fails WP:V, Is a vanity piece by the current principal. WP:COI. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just removed the self-aggrandizing “Leadership” section about the article’s likely author. The rest of the article is straightforward but needs references to establish notability. This is a non-profit government school; the only promotional part was about the school’s boss. I suspect there are sources out there but have not yet looked. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm… I was wrong about the nature of this school. From the school’s website:
- ”Purbasthali-II Govt. Iti is a P.P.P. (Public Private Partnership Model) and impressive venture of Gobindapur Sephali Samaj Seba Samity with the West Bengal Government.”
The website is worth a quick look by AfD participants to get a better sense of the school’s operation. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we’re going to have an article, it would be preferable to have one about the much larger, non-profit parent, Gobindapur Sephali Samaj Seba Samity.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and observations. To clarify, Purbasthali-II Government Industrial Training Institute is not operating under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. While some earlier documents or sources may have referred to such a model, the current and official status of the institute is that of a fully government-run ITI, established in 2016 under the Department of Technical Education, Training and Skill Development, Government of West Bengal.

It is affiliated with the West Bengal State Council for Vocational Training (WBSCVT) and functions as a non-profit, government technical institute, aimed at providing vocational training to students from rural and semi-urban areas.

All previously promotional content has been removed from the article, and work is underway to improve the page with reliable sources and references that highlight its public role and educational impact.

We appreciate the insights and encourage AfD participants to refer to official government sources (such as iti.wb.gov.in) for accurate information about the institute’s ownership and operation. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and observations. To clarify, Purbasthali-II Government Industrial Training Institute is not operating under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. While some earlier documents or sources may have referred to such a model, the current and official status of the institute is that of a fully government-run ITI, established in 2016 under the Department of Technical Education, Training and Skill Development, Government of West Bengal.

It is affiliated with the West Bengal State Council for Vocational Training (WBSCVT) and functions as a non-profit, government technical institute, aimed at providing vocational training to students from rural and semi-urban areas.

All previously promotional content has been removed from the article, and work is underway to improve the page with reliable sources and references that highlight its public role and educational impact.

We appreciate the insights and encourage AfD participants to refer to official government sources (such as iti.wb.gov.in) for accurate information about the institute’s ownership and operation. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill vocational school. Create the separate article about the consortium if needed. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuji Okada

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

Previously deleted by prod. 1 cup appearance before retiring. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an utter failure of every guideline under the sun. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mosharaf Hossain

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

Copy and paste move from Draft:Syed Mosharaf Hossain. Fails WP:BIO. References are churnalism and passing mentions. Fails WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail WP:BIO $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 16:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the safety shoe invention, I don't really see notability for this person. The awards seem trivial and the rest of the sourcing is simply a resume/CV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up this gem [7], with a whole four lines of text. Gscholar only has two hits on the name, that I don't think are about this person either. Not much of anything in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I’d like to provide clarification and context on Syed Mosharaf Hossain’s notability, especially beyond the surface-level view of awards and basic sourcing.

🔬 1. Invention & Innovation: Safety Shoe for Farmers

While it may appear modest at first glance, the safety shoe innovation was recognized by grassroots technology networks and national-level education-focused NGOs, including National Innovation Foundation–India and the India Science Wire. His work has been demonstrated at regional science exhibitions (e.g., Paschim Banga Bigyan Mela) and reported in regional media as a functional solution adopted by small-scale agricultural communities in rural Bengal. It goes beyond a one-off idea—it’s an application-driven invention with social utility and adoption, which is a key indicator of applied innovation notability in developing contexts.

🏅 2. Awards and Recognitions – Not Trivial

The awards may seem local in nature, but several (like those from Asia Book of Records, Positive Barta, and Grassroot Innovator Forums) are curated via peer review and field validation, particularly in the education and rural development sector. These recognitions are third-party validations of social impact, not just self-nomination trophies. He was also selected as Principal of the Year (2024) by a consortium of skill-development organizations under the Directorate of Technical Education in West Bengal.

📚 3. Reliable Secondary Sources
Though not abundant in Google Scholar due to the nature of his work (not academic), his profile and work have been:
Covered by leading Bengali newspapers such as Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Samay in regional editions.

Highlighted by Bangla-language educational YouTube channels, regional digital portals, and field reporting platforms covering Bardhaman and Nadia districts.

Listed as a featured speaker and delegate in two district-level government innovation workshops (verified by district administration websites).
🛠️ 4. Scope of Impact

Syed Mosharaf Hossain is not just an inventor but a grassroots education reformer, having led multiple campaigns for inclusive skill education for rural girls, ITI modernization, and anti-dropout programs for economically marginalized students. These initiatives have been independently referenced by local government circulars and panchayat reports, and his role as Principal of a Government ITI has seen him directly involved in state-level technical outreach. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable vanity article. Interesting shoes, though. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not agree with the notability guidelines matching this profile even after thoruogh research, hence it should be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If the user doesn't see the problem, this probably has to go to WP:COIN. Nobody (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Mosharaf Hossain is a distinguished educator and innovator whose contributions have drawn significant independent recognition. Not only was he honored by the Asia Book of Records, but on June 17, 2025, he was also named “Principal of the Year 2025” at the Asia Education Conclave held in Mumbai, alongside another ITI principal from Bengal, for his work in enhancing technical education and multi-skill training en.wikipedia.org+6magzter.com+6x.com+6. These are reliable, third‑party sources establishing his notability under WP:GNG. Rather than deleting, the article should be retained and improved with these published citations. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Lamere

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

Lack of independant notability. Most refs are about Alan Vega. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Liz Lamere was and is a major creator of music over the past twenty years as well as a key producer of her own work as well as Alan Vega's work. She has been a part of and mentor in a critical movement in music since the mid-1980s. Laurakdcwiki (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no sources that talk about her beyond brief mentions, your statement is not supported by the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Liz Lamere clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards as a musician, producer, and author with significant, sustained coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Pitchfork, and Magnet Magazine. Her career spans over three decades, during which she co-produced three posthumous Alan Vega albums — It, Mutator, and Insurrection — all covered in major media outlets. Lamere has released two solo albums on In The Red Records and co-authored Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, a professionally published biography featuring a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her work has received independent attention beyond her association with Vega, and the article is supported by 17 citations from high-quality sources. This is clearly more than trivial or incidental notability. Cannery Row (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that all the reliable sources are about Alan Vega?TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of the sources are more than trivial, as the only mention her name in passing. You'll need more than these to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage on her own accord to set her apart from Alan Vega connection--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that two of the above opinions are of very new editors and the third, also a new editor, is the page creator. Call me suspicious, but....I'm suspicious,TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone Why do you say "the third, also a new editor, is the page creator"? The page was created by Cannery Row (talk · contribs), who has been creating and editing music articles since 2010. PamD 08:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe you're assuming that a red-linked editor is always new. No, some just prefer to keep a low profile. PamD 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 4 are interviews with Liz, the rest are about her spouse. None of these are extensive coverage, most only mention her in passing. None of these are helpful. I don't see coverage about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the cited coverage is indeed in the context of Alan Vega, however this reliable source is very clear that Lamere was not simply his spouse, but rather "his frequent collaborator" so provided creative input in her own right. Another example in Pitchfork magazine where the subject clearly has co-recording credit on Mutator. The subject has released two solo albums which have received coverage in independent sources, such as Gale A810819644. Furthermore the book she co-authored has received reliable critical attention, for example [8]. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject and her works; enough in my view for a WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO pass. ResonantDis_tortion 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sourcing about her albums and book. An article like this (ref 17 at the moment) is about her and her album, not him, even though he gets a mention in the title ("Liz Lamere Alan Vega's Longtime Collaborator Announces Debut Album"). PamD 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment These so-called reliable sources lok pretty niche to me.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources may be debatable/unassessed; but Record Collector, BrooklynVegan, and Pitchfork (magazine) are all listed reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. And certainly the Library Journal appears to meet RS criteria. ResonantDis_tortion 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: — Liz Lamere meets notability criteria based on her own professional achievements. She has released two solo albums on the respected label In The Red Records, both of which received independent press coverage. In 2024, she co-authored a professionally published biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, which received critical attention and a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her solo work and authorship have been covered in major media outlets including Rolling Stone, and she was personally interviewed by The New York Times in both 2017 and 2023. This establishes significant independent coverage beyond her association with Alan Vega. Additionally, her three-decade collaboration with Vega — during which she performed most of the electronic instrumentation on his albums, co-wrote songs, co-produced, toured extensively, and managed his career — is itself notable and should not be dismissed simply because many articles focus on Vega. Her creative contributions were integral to their joint work and form part of a documented career spanning more than 30 years. --99.42.1.246 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also strikes me as AI-generated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: Liz Lamere’s co-authorship of the approximately 400-page hardcover biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, constitutes a significant literary achievement that deepens historical understanding of one of underground music’s most influential figures. Professionally published and introduced by Bruce Springsteen, the book offers rare primary insight into Vega’s legacy while highlighting Lamere’s own role as a cultural documentarian and creative peer. Her position as biographer and archivist is distinct from, yet informed by, her decades of musical collaboration with Vega. The book has received critical attention in national outlets, including an interview with The New York Times, reinforcing her notability beyond association. Lamere has also performed on numerous albums throughout the 1990s and released two internationally distributed solo records in 2022 and 2024, available both digitally and on vinyl. These were supported by solo tours in the U.S. and Europe, along with media appearances on radio and podcasts focused on her original work. Lamere’s combined contributions as a musician, author, and public voice underscore her notability, as does her enduring influence as a role model for emerging women artists in music. --2A0D:E487:118F:661A:3939:96C1:D3D6:1590 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentWhy are all these IP editors piling in to defend an article creared by a walled garden editor? I only ask,
TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be AI-generated. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is obviously AI-generated and should not be considered by the closer. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have relisted this per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_June_21#Liz_Lamere_(closed). I have also sem'ed the discussion to avoid further canvassing issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've gone through (what I believe are) all of the sources mentioned and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject, Liz Lamere. There are plenty of trivial mentions of Lamere and her book and albums, a paragraph or two here and there, but nothing that meets the requirements of GNG, AUTHOR, MUSICBIO, or any other notability guideline. Woodroar (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quoted two applicable notability guidelines above. WP:MUSICBIO requires the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, and WP:BASIC which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regarding the former, this review is sigcov about a notable album, with a paragraph devoted to Lamere that is evidently not "trivial" - she is clearly inherent to the piece of work. Another example in the NME (another RS) where Lamere is not a mere passing mention, but is inherent to both the album production and release. There are multiple articles in BrooklynVegan (an WP:RSMUSIC source) with a variety of coverage that can be combined per WP:BASIC to form usable "non trivial" coverage. The review of her solo album in Record Collector is also not "trivial" coverage. Coverage does not need to be about the subject directly, it can be about their works. With multiple non-trivial coverage, MUSICBIO therefore appears to be passed, and that's before taking account of the book reviews, and further coverage in unassessed sources such as [9]&[10]. Regarding the latter guideline, WP:BASIC, there appears to be sufficient reliable sourcing to be able to easily write an article on the subject: paragraphs of coverage from many secondary sources does count. ResonantDis_tortion 05:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two or three passing mentions in an album review under someone else's name is the definition of trivial. Many album reviews mention band members, significant contributors, even cover artists, but we rarely consider these passing mentions to be significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions do not count toward notability. For GNG coverage must be directly on the subject, and it does not matter what the coverage says (or how "important" the subject is implied to be) if it is not significant in depth and detail. The Quietus contains a single sentence of secondary coverage shared with her husband (the recounting of the live music gig is primary) N. NME has passing mentions of Lamere, always in the context of Vega or her new collaborator, and with no real info on her specifically N. Brooklyn Vegan is the same, plus some quotes from her (which don't count either) N. Pitchfork has part of one sentence mentioning her N. "Regen Mag" is clearly user-generated/SPS and thus unusable N. Fused is the only source that could potentially be used, but I'm put off by their promotional vibe, the lack of info on editorial policy, and statements on their contact page like Whether you’re an artist with a story to share, a traveller in search of inspiration, or a brand that shares our values, we welcome your message. and We welcome article proposals and creative pitches in the fields of contemporary art, design, creative travel and global cultural experiences. [...] To pitch, send your full idea with supporting links or portfolio samples via email. And anyway, multiple sources are required for GNG.
A very brief blurb on a coauthored biography of Vega is not enough for AUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Vega#Life and career where the subject is mentioned several times. Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV as most of the references are non-independent interviews or primarily about Vega. Frank Anchor 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Alan Vega#Life and career upon further review of references. The most credible articles (New York Times) focus on Alan Vega. Have striked out my original vote--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Watson

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Health and fitness, United States of America, and California. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has minimal sources but just enough to warrant a Wikipedia listing, that said, I will respect other editors if the decision is delete. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to give this guy an artile, might as well give one to everyone else in the world 2001:1970:59A6:5100:0:0:0:546E (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the truth must always win. This article can always be changed later when new information arises. 2600:387:F:7815:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I encountered the article because I searched for "Wes Watson" & wanted to know who this individual was; I was happy to find a Wiki article. He seems to have enough of a following, and to have been involved in enough newsworthy things (if only a couple: the viral incident, the other viral incident, a book, a few media appearances), for the article to be worth keeping. I don't see how it serves Wikipedia to delete it—there are less informative articles about people equally as (un-)article-worthy, and I favor—in general—keeping them, too. Himaldrmann (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His only claim to notability is a singular incident, which received fleeting media coverage, in which he was arrested for battery. RandFreeman (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find coverage about the "viral beatdown", that seems 1E-ish. Otherwise, people are discussing if he's even worth as much money as he claims. Whole lot of nothing here. No sourcing and not even a real claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. The only coverage from reliable sources are the two news articles about his arrest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a lot of coverage from major outlets including BusinessInsider, Miami Herald, New York Post and others if you search through google and google news for "Wes Watson" "Youtuber". He's clearly notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject in question - Welsey Thomas Watson - acts not only as an example of negtive behaviour of modern 'red pill' influencers, and can be used for references for such, but he is self proclaimed "the biggest in Miami." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.11.125 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and lack of verifiability. BusinessInsider / New York Post are not reliable sources for BLPs. Nayyn (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First off: Is anyone actually contending that a lead Wes Watson is a motivational speaker, businessman, author, influencer and conman. is okay in BLP terms? Secondly: it seems the subject's notability relates to number of YouTube subscribers, a viral video, and an arrest record. GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmah Pinky

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are either dead links or reports of minor details such as changing the company that manages her work, not substantial coverage of her. Searching for better sources was a total failure; it turned up this Wikipedia article, her Facebook account, a site offering downloads of her music, etc, no reliable independent sources. (PROD contested with no reason given. ) JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS for notability.Littenberg (talk) 00:11, 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 12:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 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.

Eli Lockaby

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

13:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 Watford–Mount Vernon Hospital

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

Another one of those non-notable bus routes. Sources primarily are from one local newspaper which are primarily talks about only about cuts and changes rather than there being substantial history. Coverage is very WP:ROUTINE and this article is likely to forever stay as a stub as there isn't enough information outside of cuts and changes to allow for expansion so this is also not notable under WP:BUSROUTE either. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor, Indiana

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

Aerials show a grain elevator by the tracks, and there are the ruins of what appears to have been a relatively late station building, but until some houses and a power substation were built in the area there's nothing much else. The juxtaposition with post office comes from our old unreliable friend the 1876 state atlas, whcih I would question. I don't see evidence this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Nayyn (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhede (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a straightforward case of WP:TWODABS. There are only 2 pages with the title "Rhede" and the primary topic has a hatnote to the other one. There is no reason to except this page from the guideline that this page is not needed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per twodabs. If anyone can find more of it then at that time I will reconsider my opinion. Fade258 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've restored a marginal football club (not sure of its notability but it was Oberliga Niederrhein champion in 1983/84 and the German Wikipedia has a fairly detailed article). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, previous discussion ignored policy, and adding an extra redlink to force a reason to keep a page seems unhelpful. Ivey (talk - contribs) 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ikafa

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

The article seems to be mostly WP:OR. None of the sources mentions any such battle and even doing a google search brings up no results. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to extensive amount of WP:OR. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickleham Road

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

Notability is not demonstrated for this road. One of the sources is Google Maps, and the other 3 are the state government - effectively primary sources. Searching online, I only found local news articles about upgrades to the road - not much coverage in statewide or national media. As a local suburban road, I doubt it's particularly notable. – numbermaniac 07:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Road of 18.9 km length which lacks notability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD, lacking SIGCOV in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Kankouni

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

Nowhere near notable, don't see the potential in draftification. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kuwait. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly-sourced article that only provides social media and primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now mentioned references aren't reliable and not having significant coverage to justify its notability. Fade258 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Gucci Hotel (Dubai)

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

Lacking updates for 15 years; this development project appears to have been abandoned/cancelled, as since 2010, there have been numerous reports of a "first Gucci hotel in Dubai", like [12]. Ultimately no concrete evidence this Hotel was anything more than a thought, since it certainly doesn't exist today. There are a lack of sources on this concept, doesn't pass WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. No concrete evidence, no concrete poured, no concrete reason for the article's continued existence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any time an article created in 2010 still says in 2025 expected to open … by the end of 2010, that indicates either a complete lack of either significant coverage or a lack of any interest in adding any later significant coverage… but usually the former. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, there was an instagram post [13] last year, so maybe it will open? Whole lot of speculation for something that either never happened, or is going to happen, sometime... Either way, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a feeling that Gucci, a company known for careful use of its brand, wouldn't slap it onto some black box hotel in Dubai and I was right, Elisabetta has no association with Gucci outside being a distant great-granddaughter and was sued for trademark misuse and like many a Dubai project, this died (though she keeps trying to figure out ways to start it back up again). And an AI image from a promotional Instagram certainly isn't a source. Nathannah • 📮 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hotels in Dubai were good enough for Versace, Armani and Bulgari... just sayin' :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has never existed, and the fact that someone once thought of creating it but didn't is not, and never has been, notable. (The article should have been deleted in 2017, in response to a PROD as non-notable, but for some reason Northamerica1000 disagreed.) JBW (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TabPFN

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

Fails WP:PROMO and contains likely AI-generated content (see, for example the bulleted lists of "features" and "limitations"). Several of the sources under "applications" are poorly cited research articles which I am not sure meet the criteria for inclusion and certainly don't meet the criteria for notability. Writing quality and encyclopedic tone throughout. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:BEFORE#C, if the issues are content related (as tagged by nom prior to AfD) then the editor should be given some time to develop the article (post talk-page discussion) or article should be edited to fix those issues. If notability is a concern, is nom. saying per WP:DILIGENCE that no sources exist for this AfD (since otherwise AfD may not be the correct procedure)? In my search, I can see secondary sources exist in reliable venues that discuss this topic. WeWake (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help! However, the article is quite poor quality at the moment. It would require a substantial rewrite. I’m not an expert in the problem domain so not sure if it meets GNG. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, I have rewritten the article in the meantime. Please take a look if possible. — WeWake (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for redrafting. I will take a look. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeWake I checked the "The History, Evolution and Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)" source and it does not even mention TabPFN. Can you comment on what happened there?

Do you have a connection to TabPFN? Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unsourced, you're welcome to remove it. I addressed WP:PROSE issues and simply inlined the existing citations within the article. You're welcome to review the history; and I have no connection to the article other than what I am here for - to help create an encyclopedia. I am not sure what warrants this inquiry, but hopefully that helps. WeWake (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature article is referenced in the paper (number 42), however I agree that it's a statement that is more directed towards tabular foundation models in general instead of TabPFN specifically. AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: After normal editing, example sources that meet WP:GNG (also easily WP:NSOFTWARE): (a) ICLR Blogposts 2024 – peer-reviewed "post" with editorial oversight published by ICLR from a non-primary source; (b) Nature News&Views – published in the same venue, but a secondary commentary/coverage from a highly reputable source; (c) ~4k stars on GitHub; (d) Fortune (magazine) coverage (considered reliable) by staff AI editor; and (e) TabPFN v1 cited >400 times (meets criteria of significant impact I'd say), and many more. WeWake (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nature News&Views looks good. Not sure if ICLR Blogposts is really reliable? I don't think there is a consensus to monitor stars on GitHub for notability for software (see WP:Notability (software)) and, even if so, 4K is really not that many for this purpose. Fortune may be notable according to here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Stanford, the blog is peer-reviewed (double-blind) and also a poster actually (here) – without any evidence presented to the contrary, that seems reliable in this context. — WeWake (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say notability is there according to Wikipedia guidelines: sources 1, 2, 7 and 10 are discussing TabPFN in high detail, including a Nature publication, an ICLR conference paper and a Fortune article. In addition to this, sources 13 (IEEE Sensors Journal), 17 (Journal of Wetlands Research), 18 (NeurIPS), 20 (Digital Health), are research papers solely focused on TabPFN AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlessandrobonettoPL: Notability aside, I just checked all the sources in the "Performance" section and not a single one of them appears to support the claim that was stated in the article. Reference 7 that you mentioned, does not even mention TabPFN. Maybe these are from a previous draft of the article. The primary issue here in my view is quality and possible AI-generated content. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for your input but it seemed you were mostly concerned about notability and now that is not the issue anymore. The reference numbers were updated in the latest edit to the article. The Performance section has been reviewed by an external editor (@WeWake and can be easily revised if needed. Regarding AI-generated content, could you specify any particular sections you'd like to flag? These days, all content can be "possibly AI-generated", so if you have specific concerns we can address them. Also, Wikipedia is a place for every contributor to create the World's best source of information, so if you're not happy with the quality of a text, other than commenting on it you're more than welcome to edit the source and help us distribute this additional piece of knowledge to the world, especially given your valuable expertise in the subject matter :) AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sure, happy to help. No my concern is not with notability but rather with promotion and article quality, including the references. I’m concerned with how the article was developed given we ended up with a performance section where the citations provided don’t correspond to the claims. I can check the history for who added the section but if you have any ideas… thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, thanks for contributing to the article! So can you confirm now that the article meets the standards for Wikipedia? Any additional edits required? AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not yet. Can you please let me know what happened with the "Performance' section? How did it occur that none of the references provided support the information in the text? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, I didn't write that section so I can't say. I will revise it today so you can review it soon AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caleb Stanford, I was reviewing the section and thought it would just be better to remove it entirely. Let me know what you think about it AlessandrobonettoPL (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow

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

This institution does not seem notable either. Relies heavily on primary sources or sources that are not independent from the subject. There is nothing out there proving that the institution is notable. Did a google search and there are barely any sources out there. Would suggest a deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. University established by statute. Many affiliated colleges. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very meagre sources that are not convincing. The sheer fact that the university exist does not make it notable. The Banner talk 20:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Baptist School (Portland, Maine)

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

Kept at AFD in 2008; apparently largely on the then-held basis that all schools are notable. Tagged as unsourced since 2018 and appears to have been generally unsourced since creation aside from linking to the school's website. This is not really significant coverage. There are other such brief descriptions in the newspapers.com archives of the Evening Express, most of which are mainly drawn from interviews with the school's administration. Some minor coverage in this book but I don't think we can base an article meeting WP:NORG for a nonprofict private school based on brief annual newspaper announcements stating that the school had opened for the year and two brief passages in a book stating that the school had strict rules about hairstyles and that a "Let's get rowdy" cheer chant had been suppressed. The 2008 AFD included a reference to sources existing but none were produced. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Maine. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Baptist School; in 2013, a few years after that nomination, it was determined that there was no primary topic for "Grace Baptist School", such that this article was renamed and Grace Baptist School has pointed to Grace Baptist (then a dab page but now an article) ever since. (I note this for completeness; I have no opinion on the article or its sourcing, potential or otherwise.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 5 news articles related to the school's history, but did not find any sources describing its closure. I thin it's worth keeping as a record of an institution that served the community. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Vargas

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

Not meet WP:NBOX HumanRight 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't yet appear to meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. At best it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article on him, although perhaps a mention of him could be made in his father's article. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Oldham

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tennessee, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV to fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything, my non-league career looks good next to that! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Bustamante

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

João Barrento

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are primary or do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Olympics, and Portugal. Let'srun (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Equestrian – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Svartner, but put the content and sources into a footnote in the article, so it is not lost. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after Kingsif's excellent expansion of the article. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not merge information that is undue to articles it doesn't belong in. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His full name was João Eduardo Gamarro Correia Barrento, which may help find sources which aren't about the translator of the same (short form) name. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search with that, looks like he's from Lisbon, born in 1906, and was a general in the cavalry, serving in the Angolan War. Yeah, he's notable. I might expand the article, but there's military honours there. Kingsif (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article now 10x expanded BTW. Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far we've got a blog that states in total:
"The other two are equestrians, the first of whom, João Barrento, took part in the jumping event, where the team failed to place but he finished 22nd individually. Four years later, he was head of the Portuguese equestrian delegation to the Helsinki Olympics, although he did not compete. We know that he went on have a military career for many decades, but we could not locate any specific biographical details. "

The archive document is just Barento's registration form. The "members of merit" is just a listing of names from the Portuguese Equestrian Federation. The Revista Militar source is also just a listing of names. All the same I look forward to seeing significant coverage secondary sourcing substantiating this claim. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which blog have you found? The Revista Militar source says that all the names with an * (which includes Barrento's) have a biography including photo as their own chapter, within one of the volumes of Resenha Histórico-Militar das Campanhas de África (produced by the Comissão para o Estudo das Campanhas de África [pt]) - I've found some of these, but none are searchable online so far. I believe the 10th volume has commanders in, if you can find that, but have managed to flesh it out a bit more. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kingsif's excellent expansion. @Svartner: BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HEYed. Svartner (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. His military career is more notable than his sporting career. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Šipajlo

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are databases, and all I could find elsewhere was [[14]], which isn't significant, and [[15]], which is only a mention. Let'srun (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Let'srun (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1948 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1948 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh Skycloud86 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments. FromCzech (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1948 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it could be expanded a bit on the fact Šipajlo was a student who just went to watch the Games and got roped into competing, this honestly goes better with the fact that bobsleigh teammate František Zajíšek went as a substitute for a military skiing demonstration and also got roped into competing. Half the bobsleigh team were not supposed to be there, and the Czechoslovakia at the 1948 Winter Olympics article will be all the better for having this information (although the Dnes sources conflict on which of the two late additions was last - in 2001 they said Šipajlo, in 2014, Zajíšek). And yeah, while this story is in various sources and an example of SIGCOV, it's the same story so only counts for one. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Nogami

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

Not meet WP:NBOX HumanRight 02:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 02:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this listed in sport of athletics? LibStar (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NBOX doesn't mean squat. Wayne Gretzky fails WP:NHOCKEY. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaya Younan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a re-creation of a previous article deleted in June 2017. Still fails WP:N and subsequently WP:BIO. The references provided all rely on promotional interviews and cannot be considered as independent of the subject. As the CEO of Younan Properties, he should not inherit any notability solely from the business he owns and runs. Loopy30 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concern that the publication of this article was solicited on Upwork by an account named "Alex Younan, WLM Media". We shouldn't stand by quietly while having Wikipedia being so blatantly enhanced by the children of biography subjects. - Poof positive (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nominator, sources are not independent of the subject. Nayyn (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lyn Ray

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

Subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in ticket:2025061110007843 VRT ticket. Identity has been verified. ~~Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case.~~ I think we can consider the subject's request for deletion, ~~since they have not been highly covered in reliable independent sources~~. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arkansas and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case" is not true, neither is "not been highly covered in reliable independent sources". Since I refuted the claims in the deprod statement, I hadn't expected to see them repeated here. My reasoning was that Ray has a whopping 23 reviews on Kirkus Reviews alone, [16] inferring that there are more via other outlets. This is coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems like a prolific, widely read and indeed profiled author. Perhaps we can omit the biographical details and listify it as a bibliography. The works/body of work are unquestionably notable. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte ~~inferring that there are more via other outlets: I do not think that is a great argument though. As far as I know, that is one of the very few websites that have these in depth significant reviews.~~ (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bunnypranav's statements above are misleading and I question the effort that was made in reaching the conclusions. There are also several reviews here, at least five more in Publishers' Weekly, some in New York Times, made an appearance on the NYT top 10 bestseller list for children etc. The author has a homepage with an autobiographical account, etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the subject's request. If they are notable, they're not so notable that we have to keep the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs provided by Geschichte. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the sources provided above, there are reviews in more specialized outlets like Horn Book [17][18], School Library Journal [19][20][21], and Education Week [22]. I think the preponderance of reviews clearly shows notability per WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3, despite the subject's deletion request. Bridget (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I added that The Library of Congress lists 32 works by Mary Lyn Ray, and left a link to that. There should be no doubt that this is a prolific individual. Comments listed by others above establishes notability. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have struck some of my previous comments, thanks to everyone for the participation. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it's clear subject has made a formal request to remove page. Subject clearly meets NAUTHOR#1 given all the reviews of her books, many of which are cited here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs)
@Nnev66: The subject has made a formal request to delete, in VRT ticket ticket:2025061110007843 to the email info-enwikimedia.org, no comments on the sources by me as of now. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that even if a subject technically meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, if the page is "low importance" their wishes should be honored regarding deleting their pages. Nonetheless, subject does meet NAUTHOR. Wish I could read the ticket but there appears to be a different authentication mechanism to login to see it. Nnev66 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is, if the person wants to keep a low profile, why maintain a personal homepage, giving autobiographical details and more? Geschichte (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be a borderline GNG keep with the debate heading for Keep over subject objections. Which is fine, as far as that goes, although this does seem close enough to the GNG line that a courtesy deletion is not too much to ask. I would like to address the subject, however, and offer my services — if there is wrong information that needs to be corrected or useful information which is omitted, I would be happy to work on the piece to make it as complete and correct and acceptable as possible. If this is of interest to you, you may either leave a message for me on my Wikipedia user page by clicking the (talk) link after my signature here or contact me directly at MutantPop@aol.com if you wish to discuss the matter away from prying eyes. best regards, —tim ////// Carrite (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Shah (Businessman)

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

Business person does business things. None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV, subject fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this article, Anish Shah qualifies under WP:GNG, as he's the CEO of Mahindra group which is in India's top 25 companies. And he has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as far as I researched after founding this article via Special:Random/Draft.

So I will improve this article asap to follow the Wikipedia:GNG completly. and kindly explain this- Business person does business things so I can know what wrong I did in this so I can improve that also. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the previous CEO of the same company has very old wiki article. Anand Mahindra Just sharing. I know it doesn't matter much. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary: Being connected to a notable entity does not grant notability per WP:INHERIT. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that notability is not inherited by association per Wikipedia:INHERIT. However, the argument for keeping this article is not based solely on Anish Shah’s role at Mahindra Group, but on his own notability, which is independently established through. Multiple reliable and independent sources that provide significant coverage of his leadership, strategic decisions, and business vision as Managing Director and CEO of Mahindra Group. Kindly search on Google about him. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References say he's a businessperson doing business things. That's not SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review. While I understand the concern that "businessperson doing business things" doesn't automatically imply notability, I respectfully argue that Anish Shah meets the WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.

He has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources such as Forbes India, Economic Times, and Business Today, which profile his leadership, strategic direction, and impact at Mahindra Group. This coverage goes beyond routine job announcements, it reflects independent journalistic interest in Shah as an individual business leader, not merely in the company he leads. His coverage is not trivial, routine, or tied to a single event. I will continue to improve the article by adding more sources that fulfill WP:SIGCOV and will restructure the article to reflect their depth and focus. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Business person does business things" … and on a global scale in ~~Choudhary's~~ Shah's case. Mahindra Group is huge ($23 billion plus). There are Mahindra tractor dealers in farming towns across North America. I'd be stunned if ~~Choudhary~~ Shah isn't notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: You mean Shah, right? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Yes. Thanks. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears many of the significant sources are resume-like or procedural "Shah picked as ..." or fall into the tabloid category "What is Mahindra Group's CEO Anish Shah's monthly salary?" but we don't necessarily get a substantive view of what makes him notable beyond running this company. The most significant pieces are on the business, not him as a person. Not opposed to draftify-ing this so that it could continue to be improved and to eliminate the WP:REFBOMB Nayyn (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Landa (bobsleigh)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only source is a database and I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the notability guidelines in a BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and Mexico. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mexico at the 1928 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mexico at the 1928 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Subject fails GNG with no SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 15:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is a Landa y Escandon Ossio as Olympedia says (Ignacio José de Landa y Escandón Osio), he's major aristocracy (as all descendants of Guillermo Landa y Escandón). There will almost certainly be sources. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mexico at the 1928 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh, as we have done with many other AfD nominations of Olympic participants. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree this should be redirected, pointing out other articles is not a valid argument to not keep an article. Frank Anchor 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sharks squads

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. We don't keep lists like this. Readers who may be interested in previous players can see historic players at List of Sharks (rugby union) players, transfer lists for URC and Super Rugby competitions and season pages. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Rugby union, Sportspeople and South Africa. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to merging this with the List of Sharks (rugby union) players, subject to resolution of the distinction of Currie Cup vs URC players, as if those players - who meet notability requirements - are excluded then List of Sharks (rugby union) players is incomplete. Whybeetoo (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be dependent on the outcome of the discussion on the WikiProject. I'd be opposed to full squad boxes but if we can find information on Currie Cup players (which I found incredibly difficult in creating this list) then can be added in another section if consensus reached. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Wilson

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

While I have no doubt in the reliability of references provided in the article, this subject does not look notable to me for several reasons. She has only been in office since January, with there being little coverage of her life and career, particularly because there does not seem to be significant coverage of that in reliable sources (as it can be seen, the references only briefly pass over what she has actually done in her life and instead concentrate on her political beliefs). As far as I'm aware, an official is not presumed to be notable only based on their political beliefs (most of this article is actually related to that instead of her short career). This then might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, where a politician could become notable in the future for their career accomplishments, and not instead of their political views. To close this off, there is coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject but is this coverage "significant"? We could write a ton more articles like this where there's news coverage of someone's political beliefs, but little to none about what they have accomplished. I should also note that while the creator of this article has expanded several major articles to B-status which is sure appreciated, they were previously banned from creating articles in the mainspace and instead had to use the AfC system. This is one of the articles created since the ban expired in April. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes that is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how so? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV, I think you've confused significant coverage with coverage of what you think is significant... Your argument doesn't make any sense otherwise. Significant coverage of political beliefs counts just as much towards notability as significant coverage of political accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than WP:TOOSOON, I would argue independently of that, she is not notable. Most of the sources were published at the same time so there is no demonstration of sustained coverage. The citations from the end of May are redundant. existence ≠ notability. There is a lot of masking a lack of notability. The article lists every job she's ever held. A vague position at Gettr for an unlisted amount of time is not encyclopedic. The sourcing is also misapplied. For example, the statement that she was sworn in on May 27th does not appear in the Forward despite the citation. Again, adding references to mask a lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kingsley, and some of her commentary, have received significant coverage from major sources in the short time she had been in the public eye. This coverage is only likely to grow, although I believe she is notable now. As a side note, the article is pretty well-written too. CarlStrokes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one reviewed the article talk page or you would have seen, and mentioned here, that this article is currently being reviewed for GA status (see Talk:Kingsley Wilson/GA1). This seems relevant to discussing whether or not it should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable and becoming more so by the day. On top pf that, there's the good article review Liz points out. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? There being a GAN review does not meant that the individual is notable. We have deleted many GAs and FAs in the past, this therefore won't be anything new. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on what" you ask???

Wilson has been in the news nonstop lately. I did a quick Google News search and gave up looking at news results by the 20th page. Of course some of those may be passing mentions or low quality but clearly this person is now one of the most prominent people in the States.

Wilson is the Pentagon's spokesperson and the Pentagon is dropping huge bombs. That gets attention. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the GA reviewer, I would prefer if you disregard the GAN when evaluating the notability of this subject (if that is within policy). No opinion on deletion. GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerman, Mazandaran

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

Fails WP:NGEO, non-notable village in Iran. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is currently being addressed. I'm trying to collect as much information possible to make sure it can considered notable.PAper GOL (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant criteria here are explained in WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. It is a little concerning that a couple of the reference links appear to be broken but if it is in fact a populated, legally recognized place, the article will likely pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A great part of articles are random villages. This is because the objective is to cover every village in the world. This should be kept no matter what. Earth605 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It does look like a village on GMaps, but there is a history of the Iranian census being misrepresented. Could we get confirmation from a Farsi speaker? Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to address the WPV issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devons Road DLR station

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

Nothing on the page to suggest there are sufficient independent RS to meet the inclusion criteria. WP:NTRAINSTATION WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (expecting snowball keep frankly). Just because there are no sources on the article does not mean they do not exist. MRSC (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you could suggest some relevant sources that meet the standards for inclusion that would be great. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a few book sources in the article. Have you verified that the offline sources also do not provide SIGCOV? Generally active British railway stations are kept at AfD because of the offline sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available. Vast amounts have been written about all stations in the UK. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for a source assessment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, thinking redirect to section on initial line in Docklands Light Rail About half the text of the article is actually about that initial line, and about the only section that isn't filler is the description of the station itself and its alterations. I'm thinking a better solution would be to break out articles of the various lines into separate articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the edits made by MRSC. While stations are not automatically notable, this is an active station and does have coverage in sources, as well as some shorter mentions in sources about other topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Rottman

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only sources here are in order (1): a database and (2): doesn't mention the subject. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Romania. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been able to find an interesting story of where he's from and how he got his start in athletics, here, but that's all (so far). Since the info leads into how he got to the Olympics, perhaps it could be incorporated at the Romania at the 1928 Summer Olympics article too. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BIG SHOT

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

Fails WP:GNG, and if you want to go further into subject-specific areas, WP:NSONG. Checking all of the sources in use in the article at the moment, none of them provide significant coverage regarding "BIG SHOT" itself, or are WP:VALNET sources - which cannot be used to establish notability. Some of the sources, like the GamesRadar+ and India Times cite, don't mention the song at all. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything different, either - running the song through WP:VG/SE or WP:A/S's search engine doesn't turn up any substantial results, actually. Should be redirected back to Music of Deltarune#Deltarune Chapter 2 OST. λ NegativeMP1 01:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 01:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:OVERLAP. Even if it was notable, it's better described in context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - there's not enough sourcing here to suggest WP:SIGCOV and it could easily furnish a well-sourced paragraph in discussion of the OST. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There's noe vidence to indicate the song has a large enough footprint outside of the game. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree mostly, but instead redirect to existing disambiguation at Big Shot. There's no good reason to give special treatment for this stylization. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Shot; I agree with Bkonrad. Even within a Deltarune context I don't think that the track is the overwhelming usage of the term as opposed to merely referencing the character that says the phrase. novov talk edits 09:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octagon, Indiana

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

As far as I can tell, this was nothing more than a long-lived 4th class post office. I find no evidence for a town here; several people in a vounty history are listed as "from" here, but they are all described as farmers. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some material on the history of this crossroad, from local newspapers. It's not much, but the place was documented as having businesses, residences, and a Masonic Lodge at one time. With three new sources (all from the same newspaper, but spanning 50 years) I think this just squeaks through WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

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

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. Althogh it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Dragic

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

Unclear notability. Current sources appear routine and more focused on this person's company than him. I am not sure that he meets notability guidelines as a WP:BUSINESSPERSON. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, Romania, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Sacha Dragic has received significant and sustained coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss him in-depth and independently of any Superbet promotional material.

For example:

– Sacha Dragic returns to the helm as co-CEO: https://igamingbusiness.com/people/sacha-dragic-superbet/

– Sacha Dragic enters the insurance market: https://www.profit.ro/stiri/confirmare-sacha-dragic-fondatorul-superbet-intra-pe-piata-asigurarilor-20952276

– Gaming Intelligence: Superbet founder Sacha Dragic returns as co-CEO: https://www.gamingintelligence.com/people/moves/201438-superbet-founder-sacha-dragic-to-return-as-co-ceo/

These are a few links that are cited in the current Wikipedia article; there are more sources online, but I started with the ones that are already present here and talk about Sacha Dragic as a well-known entrepreneur, not just as Superbet CEO. I believe the links I listed above are not trivial mentions; they demonstrate that he is a notable figure in both Romanian business and the international gaming sector.

Based on the standard outlined at WP:GNG, I recommend that we keep the article. Vaderthedarklab (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks near Dobrosin

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

Most of the article fails WP:V; the part dealing with the attacks themselves. The article states that "the LAPMB took control over Dobrosin, Lučane, Končulj, Mali Trnovac and Breznica, as well as 4 police stations", but the sources cited, BBC and Večernje novosti say nothing about that. The BBC source reports on a ceasefire and short summary of the events leading up to it, while the Večernje novosti article is from 2012 and reports the arrests of Albanians related to the war by Serbian authorities. They make no mention of three members of the MUP being killed and five wounded in the first ambush (the BBC does however confirm four casualties and several wounded in the presumably second attack mentioned in the article).

The article also says that "Special Police Units from Gornji Milanovac were forced to withdraw to Konculj, Lučane and Bujanovac" but the Yugoslav survey book has no page number or quote to verify, and the other citation is inaccessible. The rest of the paragraph is unsourced. Griboski (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 21 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article most definitely fails WP:V, alongside other listed problems. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Rhode Island Senate District 4 special election

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

It's been my understanding that state legislative special elections in the U.S. are not inherently notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Oklahoma State Senate special election. I don't see anything in this article that would suggest this particular special election rises above any of the dozens of other state legislative specials that happen every year. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Rhode Island. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

obvious redirect as argued in nom. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statewide coverage as seen in the Rhode Island Current [23] [24], and other various outlets from a google search. Boston Globe, as well as coverage of a committee endorsement. May not be properly cited in article but is perfectly notable as a standalone page. Just because state legislative specials are not inherently notable does not mean that they are not. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you cited seems pretty run of the mill to me. Every election gets covered by local news outlets. Unless the Boston Globe continues covering this election past that initial article you linked that just says the election is happening, I don't think this special election rises above any other in terms of notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the coverage from an organization that covers the entire state be considered local? I always interpreted local as outlets such as WJAR, and something like The Providence Journal Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Rhode Island. There is no non-routine coverage that I could find that suggests this is notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see List of special elections to the California State Senate. This appears to be how these elections are on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You kinda just proved my point. None of the special elections on that page were deemed notable enough to have their own page, so why is this one any different? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BottleOfChocolateMilk you missed it. Not a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In the individual List of special elections, you need to click on the district number of any district in the table. That takes you to the page for that individual district's election results from statewide races. And that's more of how these are done, — Maile (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? They still don't have their own page. This is a deletion discussion for a state legislative special election that has a page all to its own--it's not part of a larger "Elections in (state) from (year)" type article. How is your argument relevant to the discussion at hant? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the this page ends up deleted, content should be merged to 2026 Rhode Island Senate election#2025–2026 special elections. Special elections deemed unworthy of an individual page should be moved to a related page, such as the page of the body's next general election, or a page about special elections to the body in general (the latter of which does not exist in this case.). This is so information related to the election such as swing, more useful navigation links, and geographical information such as a results map can be included. Well-developed pages for state legislative general elections include detailed sections for each seat, a sentence and table on 2025 United States state legislative elections#Rhode Island is simply not sufficient for elections of this type. Longestview (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2026 Rhode Island Senate election#District 4: August 5, 2025 and/or 2025 United States state legislative elections#Rhode Island. There are a lot of state legislative elections every year, and each race, even if triggered off-cycle due to a death, doesn't need its own article, just as each seat in a regularly scheduled legislative election doesn't (and which receive similar routine coverage about endorsements and campaigns). Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]