Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 24

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 25 (Wed)      June 24 (Tue)      June 23 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

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

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

Similar to previous country articles that were AfD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadling Country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winkie Country. Very doubtful that The Maps of Oz ref is WP:SIGCOV. Finding Oz book talks mostly about the Munchkins themselves. The book is available for borrowing at Archive.org: [1]. Note that Munchkin is a separate article to this country article. Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Land of Oz#Munchkin Country in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country - The Munchkins themselves are undoubtably notable, but as mentioned in the nomination, they already have a full article dedicated to them. Searches are not producing any significant coverage on the actual land itself that would really justify having a separate article wholly dedicated to Munchkin Country in addition to the existing articles on the Munchkins and the Land of Oz as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to double-check that there is really not enough there in secondary sources. @Mika1h: Could you perhaps elaborate more on the results of the WP:BEFORE search in this regard? Thanks!

The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds, p. 362 has a comparison to regional US as non-plot commentary. "Utopian Tension in L. Frank Baum's Oz" notes that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in American Popular Culture has commentary on "the class divisions in Munchkin Country (e.g. the rich Munchkin Boq) and the general economic disparity in Oz", but I have no access to this book to check how extended that is. Does anyone else? Daranios (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an article by Screenrant: [2], which according to WP:VALNET shouldn't be used to establish notability. There's also this book that talks about the map of Munchkin Country: [3]. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Who Put the Rainbow in the Wizard of Oz? discusses the implementation of Munchkinland into music. That works equally well in The Wizard of Oz or here (but no problem with duplication in accordance with WP:NOTPAPER). Fairy Tales Reimagined, p. 216, has rather serious observations on what Munchkinland means with regard to real-world history. That would work within Wicked (Maguire novel), but probably better here. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to really cover this separate from Oz more generally. Building a strong Land of Oz article would be more constructive, and it's good for editors to look for common ground and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Land of Oz or keep. With the found secondary sources I believe a short but non-stubby article could be written which also fulfills WP:ALLPLOT, i.e. this seems to be a noteable topic. I expect that there are more sources out there, as I have found some in only a limited search, but don't want to invest the time to do more here now. So I have not problem with a merge until such information gets to detailed for an Land of Oz article on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE and Shooterwalker's suggestion to improve that article first. Daranios (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NNAME; no enwiki notable entries and the only valid bluelink points to an article on eowiki. Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The surname does exist, and so do the two subjects of the redlinks, and there is some substantive information about both of them, so this article is better than nothing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:47, 22 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!} 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolaang Mongondow mine collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mine collapses that kill 29 people aren't very routine. I don't think point 4 should be read this expansively, this seems notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Only secondary sources contribute to GNG. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Death count is not a factor in determining notability. Anyone is welcome to add a history section to Bolaang Mongondow Regency and add a mention of this, or to create a list of mine collapses and add this as an item in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:40, 23 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!} 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Reywas92. I'm familiar with mine collapses in general; this one was significant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One transaction rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:DICDEF that really can simply be mentioned in Australian legal system. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a reasonable target, with a smerge of the single citation. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Sentence (law) to expand on concurrent/consecutive sentences. Otherwise just stands as a WP:DICDEF // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others, although I'm not convinced of either of the targets suggested so far. Sentence (law) doesn't mention Australian law at all so I think mentioning this somewhat obscure Australian sentencing principle would be fairly out of place. Australian legal system is a much more high-level overview of the framework and origins of Australia's legal system and barely mentions criminal law. Ideally this would redirect to the article Criminal sentencing in Australia (similar to articles like Criminal sentencing in the United States and Sentencing in England and Wales), but that article does not yet exist. So I think the best place for this information for now would probably instead be Criminal law of Australia. MCE89 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I got ahead of myself with my merge target suggestion. As far as I can tell, a similar rule to this one applies in multiple legal systems, including Criminal sentencing in the United States, but isn't really expanded on there or in Sentence (law), so I'd hoped that this article could provide a launching point for describing this common rule. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 10:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is more than one target article mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 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!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the nomination, that would really only help if he was on the final ballot. Normally being nominated (but not winning) would not help count towards notability at all, however the Academy Award is kind of the pinnacle of things one can be nominated for with films in the US. At the same time, being shortlisted doesn't mean that someone ended up on the final ballot. Even then it kind of goes back to the issue of establishing notability for producers. Honestly, most producers tend to end up failing NCREATIVE, regardless of how successful they are. It's just really difficult to argue for notability for them.

What would really be useful here is coverage of James or coverage of the work that gives some detail on him. For his acting roles (including stage), reviews of the work that specifically mention him would be as good as gold. With the notable films and shows, those roles are only as notable as the mention he receives in reviews and independent, reliable, secondary coverage of the episode or film. Many of his roles were background or minor, which typically don't get much coverage. He does seem to have been in a few episodes of some anime, but I'll be honest in that establishing notability for VAs is insanely difficult. I remember trying to argue notability for someone who voiced multiple main characters in several large, notable series. It was insanely difficult, because people usually don't highlight specific VAs - even the anime outlets are bad at that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 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!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.

GalStar (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominating per request here by IP editor show states - "The last AfD for this subject was closed as soft delete which was treated as an expired PROD. recently the soft delete was challenged by user User:124.104.175.128 and was accepted and moved back into mainspace by an administrator despite there being zero usable sources. The IP user then removed the notability tag without a reason and made no improvements to the article. This leads me to believe WP:COI as the request for undeletion was the first edit the user ever made. Requesting an AfD. 2600:1011:B037:C57F:2834:79AD:326B:D5B6 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)" CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources in the article don't cut it and I was unable to find anything demonstrating WP:GNG or meeting WP:NACTOR in searches. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Toadspike and @Madeleine961 as participants in the previous AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only real source cited, the Celluloid Social Club, doesn't say more about him than his name and some past roles. A sentence fragment. This is not sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per TarnishedPath and Toadspike. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 06:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Emily.Owl 124.104.175.128 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• THis IP requested the undelete and is now blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All minor roles, no WP:SIGCOV in refs, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AfD. I believe this can be closed per WP:SNOW. Madeleine (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above. If you find evidence that he's a cult figure amongst the Brony crowd, ping me. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a few hours of independent research and was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Claim to notability would be stronger if there was evidence of RS SIGCOV to meet notability requirements. ZachH007 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While there are sources that discuss this particular Hulk alter, none of them are the types of sources that can be used to prove notability. Aside from a single mention in a scholarly book, all but two of the potential sources were operated by Valnet. With regards to the article's current sources, all of them were published by Marvel. In any case, this character could easily be discussed within the Hulk's main article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with the "other identities" section of Hulk in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hulk#Other identities - Very minor version of Hulk with only a handful of actual appearances. There is nowhere close to enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, but there is no reason not to include a couple sentence description to the appropriate section of the main Hulk article where the non-notable Hulk versions are discussed. Rorshacma (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per all, as WP:ATD. There is already an article about this character, and sources don't cover it as a separate topic deserving of a scond article. Deletion would be valid, but a redirect is at least appropriate as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Adams (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I nominated this article for deletion as the subject is not notable. It reads like the subject's own LinkedIn page. As IP I cannot complete the process. 2600:1700:3522:3740:F001:D969:9012:B477 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from their message at WT:AFD. I have no opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but basically run of the mill business person. We are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KAAB (Hot Springs, Arkansas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was already moved to draftspace, and then returned to mainspace after the adding of another source. However, that source may or may be reliable, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The original source isn't truly about the station, but rather about the process of awarding the license to the station. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with KZNG As standard with former stations on a frequency (though KZNG's own history needs further clarification itself). Nathannah • 📮 19:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't work on this now, but I have the newspaper access this page seems to need. Maybe when I get back I can peer in on this one. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:13, 15 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!} 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and pinging User:Sammi Brie to see if they would be willing to take a stance on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Liz: I'm voting Keep. I have enough newspaper and material to salvage this one and have already accumulated some clippings from GenealogyBank. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sammi Brie. (I'm counting on you, Sammi -- thanks for taking this on). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @A. B., Liz, Onel5969, and Nathannah, I'm excited to say this one's been improved. It's a bit thin, but I wanted to ensure this got done. The final years of this station were an out-and-out mess. Leffingwell was sorely underused, too. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable filmmaker / actor. No notable productions as filmmaker. No good roles for NACTOR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A few lines in Variety is not enough. Awards are not major. Just showing at festivals is not notable. Sockfarm creation. Prod removed cause it's apparently Anglocentric to nominated an article on an Anglo for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Japan, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: On one hand, I hate sock farms, but on the other hand, he didn't merely show up but won something. I'm always "torn" about how to !vote in such situations. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has appeared in a major role on one of Japan’s highest-rated television programs for over a decade, which is a marker of notability among others. If you don’t read Japanese, it may be difficult to understand that the subject is a foreign figure who is well-known in Japan, hosting television programs and receiving coverage in major newspapers and magazines. For those interested in understanding Japanese entertainment and media in English, preserving articles like this adds depth and cultural diversity to Wikipedia. In addition to Variety, he has also been featured in Time Out and a few other English-language publications, but there is much more in Japanese. Wata78 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wata78, I don't see any sources in the Japanese Wikipedia article. If you know of sources in Japanese, please could you post links here? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Thank you. I will post a few Japanese sources here. Maybe they're helpful?

Independent reporting in Aera_(magazine): https://dot.asahi.com/articles/-/2444?page=1

Independent review of his book in Bookstand and its promotional comment from Nicolas Cage: https://bookstand.webdoku.jp/news/2019/03/07/120000.html

Recent MSN News article on his TV show (June 16, 2025): https://www.msn.com/ja-jp/news/entertainment/2025%E5%B9%B46%E6%9C%8816%E6%97%A5%E3%81%AE%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8B%E8%A6%8B%E3%81%88%E3%81%AF-%E6%A2%85%E9%9B%A8%E3%82%92%E5%90%B9%E3%81%A3%E9%A3%9B%E3%81%B0%E3%81%9B-%E6%B0%97%E5%88%86%E7%88%BD%E5%BF%AB-%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8B%E8%A6%8B%E3%81%88-%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AB%E3%83%83%E3%81%A8%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%98%A0%E5%83%8F%E5%A4%A7%E9%9B%86%E5%90%88%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9A%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%AB/ar-AA1GmBgh

News coverage in Natalie (website) for short movie Toshie the Nihilist] : https://natalie.mu/eiga/news/535713

Real Sound reporting on Sony Pictures event: https://realsound.jp/tech/2023/12/post-1510660.html

Nikkan Sports reporting: https://www.nikkansports.com/entertainment/news/202308080001093.html

More Nikkan Sports reporting: https://www.nikkansports.com/entertainment/news/202308090000475.html

Cinefil reporting: https://cinefil.tokyo/_ct/17645878

FM Yokohama coverage: https://tresen.fmyokohama.jp/38119/

Stereo Sound reporting: https://online.stereosound.co.jp/_ct/17670796

Information in English about his book translation: https://kyokoyoshida.net/archives/60

Tokyo MX article: https://s.mxtv.jp/tokyomxplus/mx/article/201910010650/detail/

Radio DMT: https://radio-dtm.jp/page/?p=7633 Wata78 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Liz. I’ve made a few improvements to the page and added some important missing information, such as the Galaxy Award (Japan) for television work. Wata78 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more feedback from editors and a review of sources. I assume User:Wata78 is arguing for a Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, this is a page that I wouldn't have considered nominating myself but now that I am looking through the sourcing it seems quite thin. He has appeared in a major role on one of Japan’s highest-rated television programs for over a decade, which is a marker of notability among others @User:Wata78 do you have a source for this? especially calling his role major? From what I saw in my investigations he appears to often be a guest on shows, but that is very different.

Looking at some of your sources:

MSN: he is listed as Agent but no other context about what he did.

Radio DMT: Some book blurbs and a short biographical paragraph.

Tokyo MX: A standard "ask a foreigner's opinion" article that mentions his opinion but is not significant coverage of him.

FMYokohama: Pretty thin article.

I have further comments on the other AfD about other sources in the context of the short film. WP:BIO#Basic Criteria does say "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" so I am not fully committed on a decision of what to do with this article. Moritoriko (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko, thanks. Yes, the Wikipedia quote in green is indisputable if you're familiar with the Japanese media. For over a decade he has been on the huge Nippon Television program "Sekai Maru Mie" in a prominent role on hundreds of episodes (credited as such on the show and Nippon Television website). His job is to introduce TV shows on the program (and that's central since it is a show about shows, which he leads). I’ll share some information in English below from Tokyo media to help provide a clearer context, since the translation tools don’t seem to be conveying an accurate picture to you. A lot of your descriptions (like with the Tokyo MX piece) are not correct. That article is reporting about something he said on a TV news show.

Metropolis

Experience Suginami, Tokyo Government Tourism Page

What I Use To Study Japanese - Matthew Chozick How a TV star in Japan studies Japanese

Time Out Tokyo

Podcast talk in English Wata78 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need you to say it, I need a reliable source to say it.

And no, I read the TokyoMX piece, I know that it is just asking his opinion, it is not talking about him in an in-depth independent manner.

The rest of the sources you shared just now are also interesting but they are all interviews which are contentious in establishing notability because they aren't independent since so much of the content is from the horse's own mouth.

Moritoriko (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but before each of those interview articles is a paragraph of context in English. None of it is from the horse's mouth. It all says the same thing about his TV work. It is not controversial.

The TV shows credit him on official network websites like this one and this one. Ratings for episodes are online. Here is a rating for a "Sekai Maru Mie" episode that received 17.1%. That is bigger than Sunday Night Football or American Idol in the US.

Since "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" this seems like an easy Keep. Wata78 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonat-Verlag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find any significant coverage on them. Darkm777 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. Darkm777 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article lacks sufficient scholarly references. While the death marches are well documented in reliable sources, there is limited direct coverage of the Dachau Uprising itself. I’ve made efforts to improve the page, as it was previously poorly written and somewhat misleading, but ultimately, I believe it would be more appropriate to delete the article or merge relevant content into the main Dachau concentration camp page. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 20:03, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article does not cite any sources. A review of its history shows no signs of vandalism, and a quick internet search did not produce any reliable information. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Somalia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG. None of the sources in the article provide sigcov and an (albeit quick) Google search brings up nothing of note. Zênite (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find any coverage through either newspapers.com or google, and as such the subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only sources currently in the article are either match results or are primary to the school Herring played for in college. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG, only one source that provides adequate sigcov. Zênite (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Zênite (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In addition to the one piece of WP:SIGCOV already in the article, I also found [[4]] but it just a interview. Let'srun (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is some coverage about its founder ([5], [6]) but none of these articles are directly focused on Lexicon Branding. Working with big brands is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. there is also a suspsicion that this is a paid, promotional article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This individual does not pass WP:GNG or fulfill the requirements for WP:BIO as this person has "not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Coverage of this individual in media is routine or passing mentions. Some of the sources do not appear reliable or particularly independent.

The argued notability of this person by editors that have removed prior tags appears to hinge on certain "honors" such as the "Order of the Eagle of Georgia" and the conception of "Lord Leslie" while these honors might sound significant it appears that honors like these can apparently be acquired without much difficulty (according to a source that was previously cited in the text by one of the contributors and later removed).

Another concern is that a number of the key contributors of this article appear to be very close to the subject including HearldicFacts and Mediascriptor. Another key contributor was previously blocked for sockpuppettry Judasith1234 which is not a good sign. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Nayyn (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Law, Singapore, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only passing coverage in low-quality sources. Worth mentioning that HeraldicFacts added a picture to the article which was uploaded by Judasith1234 to Commons 19 minutes prior, so another likely sockpuppet.

— Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Arcaist - I will not take a position on this page retention, however just to clarify yours and @Naayn comment on "sockpuppetry", it was a misunderstanding of 6 months ago, which was opened in a sockpuppetry debate and resolved through a discussion and a final decision of several Admins, that ended with the deletion of user Judasith1234. It is unfair and incorrect to motivate a further deletion proposal based on this specific topic as it was already discussed and resolved in full previously. HeraldicFacts (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The subject meets WP:GNG through multiple non-trivial, independent sources covering his diplomatic and cultural roles. While some honours may appear unusual, they’ve been reported by independent media and involve internationally recognised institutions, not self-promotion. Rather than deletion, improvement is the constructive path forward, especially given existing sources and the subject’s international footprint. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done a WP:Before on this individual? Which of the references would you consider to be "non-trivial, independent sources"? I struggle to find a source that would be considered either to support this individual's dubious claim to notability. If editing is the way forward, how would you propose to edit this piece so that it is appropriate? I'm afraid WP:AKON applies here. Nayyn (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Giacomo Merello clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Multiple reliable, independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of his career and roles, beyond routine mentions. Concerns about the subject’s honors and the contributors’ proximity do not negate the existence of independent sources demonstrating notability. Below, I outline the sources and relevant policies supporting retention of the article. Roles and impact: the coverage centers on his notable roles – as a Special Economic Envoy of Antigua and Barbuda, as a legal expert in digital assets and legal heraldry, examples 1. https://expatliving.sg/antigua-and-barbuda-citizenship-by-investment-and-coat-of-arms/Expat Living - this interview is a secondary source (Merello is the interviewee, with the magazine providing context) and offers significant biographical detail, demonstrating coverage in an independent publication; 2. https://www.henleyglobal.com/events/henley-partners-presents-celebration-caribbean about his activities as diplomat; 3. https://www.vietnam.vn/en/viet-nam-truoc-nga-re-tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon about a seminar held for the State Bank of Vietnam. 4. https://antigua.news/2025/05/17/bridging-oceans-and-opportunities-giacomo-merello-on-promoting-antigua-and-barbuda-in-singapore-and-in-asia/ Antigua News - this is far beyond a trivial mention – it’s a full profile of his activities and impact, published by an independent news source (not a press release); 5. Multiple other independent articles about him from VIR and Malta Invest;  6. https://www.liveranionline.com/immagini/118224/retrospettiva-marcella-bella-cantante-con-il-figlio-giacomo-merello-nel-1985 ; https://dilei.it/spettacolo/marcella-bella-figlio-giacomo-singapore/1279204/ ; https://www.wemusic.it/marcella-bella-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-nella-vita-i-figli-carolina-tommaso-e-giacomo/ are all articles directly about him in connection to his very notable singer mother Marcella Bella, and not just as a routine mention, these are all independent secondary sources and are not "routine mentions" but the subject is the main topic. These roles have been covered in context by third-party sources, indicating he is a “significant, interesting, or unusual enough” person to deserve an encyclopedia entry, as per WP:GNG. The titles on their own may not necessarily meet by themselves WP:BIO, but in connection with all the rest, they definitely support and they have multiple mention in secondary sources on their own, like Debrett's, RSN, and Royal House of Georgia. On the Scottish Feudal Baronies there is currently in place an editing war which makes deletion based on that also shaky and not well thought. COI claim is vague and per WP:COI policy, an article should not be deleted solely due to who edited it, especially if just to fix objective links and factual elements, and any promotional tone wascleaned up by neutral editors in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Mediascriptor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Mediascriptor has been blocked as a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I was doing a random round of edits and came across this one. As I did that before, I thought my knowledge could benefit Wikipedia. Anyway, I think according to WP:NONENG Italian sources could be added and are reliable. And, according to WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor the subject seems notable. Also, I have seen discussions where admins say that even a single reliable source is enough for notability verification. AppleBoosted (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the "well-known and significant award" you are referring to here, @AppleBoosted? Nayyn (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Knight Grand Cross (GCEG) of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Seems an important honor for those people and region. Anyway, that was my analysis as per my knowledge and research on topics of Wikipedia. Thank you! AppleBoosted (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  if you read the article... Merello works for the organization that hands out this "honor" and helps people acquire such titles.. this is his business. So I can't imagine that we can consider it independent of anything. Nayyn (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, as its sources are clearly insufficient or trivial. The few reputable sources are passing mentions or focus on his family (His mother and uncle meet some criteria), not his professional activities – no significant coverage in reliable sources, not even from Italy or the country he supposedly represents at diplomatic level. XICO (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note with Added material - non vote. This is not a vote as I know the subject and may have COI, but for completeness I want to share further additional info and material supporting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NONENG. All is WP:RS and WP:V for everyone and closer admin to have a fair, broader view. None of these appear currently in the article.

https://thoibaonganhang.vn/tan-dung-kinh-nghiem-quoc-te-de-viet-nam-quan-ly-tai-san-dien-tu-hieu-qua-163455.html (This is the Vietnam Banking Times, piece all on subject);

https://daibieunhandan.vn/tai-san-so-tin-chi-carbon-co-phai-la-tai-san-bao-dam-10370864.html (this is Vietnam's official parliamentary press);

https://vnba.org.vn/en/digital-assets--carbon-credits-expected-to-be-collateral-in-bank-loans-17452.htm totally independent news article;

Series of other articles on Vietnam Investment review (which is State-linked):

https://vir.com.vn/the-tropical-paradise-that-appeals-to-travellers-and-investors-121662.html ; https://vir.com.vn/a-comparative-investment-guide-to-singapore-and-malta-124553.html ; https://vir.com.vn/navigating-offshore-opportunities-in-a-globalised-world-123277.html ;

a prime time TV show on Singapore Channel Five, called Makan Times Stories, also features the subject (the Italian martial artist and lawyer in the trailer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzWKthxtlM ;

Another Italian article: https://www.true-news.it/facts/giacomo-carolina-tommaso-chi-sono-figli-marcella-bella-carriera-vita-privata ;

There may be also qualification as WP:POLITICIAN as subject represents directly the Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda as Special Economic Envoy (the same exact role from the same Country is covered also by actor Robert De Niro, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/29/robert-de-niro-economic-envoy-antigua-barbuda .

There is a clear constant pattern of coverage in international sources and from multiple reasons of different kind.

Also I simply observe that several of the editors participating in this AfD discussion, including the proposer, seem to be very actively involved with each other in the broader context of arguing and engaging in what appear to be editing wars, which somehow casts a doubt on their WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.220.129.231 (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, you are casting aspersions if you are suggesting the proposer and other editors are colluding on some sort of agenda here. If you are trying to insinuate something, do provide evidence. Nayyn (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For precision and intellectual honesty, I never accused you or anyone else of "colluding on some sort of agenda", these are words you are putting yourself in there. And "casting aspersions" involves direct accusations which are "repeated or particularly severe", which, again, it is objectively not the case. 5.148.85.22 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have declared a COI in this case, it is quite serious to suggest that uninvolved persons are purportedly engaging in editing wars over this subject. This is not true. Nayyn (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which IP user am I talking to here, 5.148.85.22 or 205.220.129.231? Or if you're continuing the same conversation across two IPs.... Nayyn (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please stop and try to make an argument. I added a number of quality sources and you ignored them. What for clarification I meant is that there seems to be an ongoing drama between you @Kellycrak88 @Mediascriptor @Arcaist which apparently resulted in ANI heated discussions, blocking of an entire section of the Baronage of Scotland, and so on. The IP changes depending where you are, sorry. Also I recently noticed this: https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=User_talk:Mediascriptor ; as an external onlooker I simply noted that there seems to be again and again the same persons, including yourself, over the same topics, and it does not look balanced and respecting WP:NPOV - this is not casting aspersions at all, I am merely stating facts that anyone tracking all the above users interconnected involvements can notice. I will no longer reply on this specific topic, as I believe I explained it to you clearly. However, I do ask you to reassess the page you proposed for deletion based also on the newly shared RS, and in conjunction with everything else. You could easily edit to improve the page further. 119.56.98.99 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only replying because you pinged me. Your COI should make you think twice before accusing others of lacking WP:NPOV. The "ongoing drama" (an expression which borders on WP:PA) is a good-faith effort to deal with non-notable individuals connected to bought Scottish titles; it's not surprising you see the same editors appear in multiple places.

Let's look at the sources:

• Thoi Bao Ngan Hang: a report on a workshop in Vietnam at which he was one of eight speakers.
• Dai Bieu Nhan Dan: the same workshop, he's marginally quoted in one paragraph.
• VNBA: same workshop.
• VIR articles: this is not "coverage", they are simply promotional articles written by him.
• YouTube: I'm not even going to comment on the notability implications of 4 seconds of him swinging a katana and making meatballs in a trailer with 200 views for a "primetime show".
• True-News.it: The fact that family members are notable doesn't make him notable.
• I don't think I have to explain why the existence of Robert De Niro doesn't make Merello notable? I can't even find a press release about his envoy status besides an article in Antigua News, which is owned by his buddy Dario Item.

None of this fulfills WP:SIGCOV in any meaningful way. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited. The sources do not discuss him in depth. Angryapathy (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A search through News, Books, and Scholar yields very little on this guy. While there are a few brief hits and mentions of Rassilon's plot roles, Rassilon himself has very little in the way of actual WP:SIGCOV analyzing or discussing him in particular. Any relevant mentions of him are better discussed at Time Lord due to the character's wider in-universe importance in regard to that species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject to expansion with sources linked below or merge into Time Lord with expanded sections (see below): I am surprised Rassilon only has three appearances in the entire 62 year run of Doctor Who. Especially considering the importance of his character. This article does actually have a fair bit of information on him, so currently I really don't know what to vote. I will edit this once I read the opinions of others. 11WB (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having considered the possibilities of topics such as religious perspectives and the other sources that have been mentioned (which appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS). I think keeping this article or merging into the larger Time Lord article, with potential for expanded sections on the perspectives mentioned below in both cases, is most appropriate at this time. 11WB (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For collecting some sources, there is limited commentary beyond pure plot summary in these web articles: [9], [10] (closely related to the former), [11], [12], [13], as well as "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", available at WikiLibrary. A little more substantial, Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 208-209 interprets Rassilon as "the force of supreme patriarchal power". Very brief characterization here. A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, p. 246, while not long, is interesting in its characterization and comparison to Shakespeare figure. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Villain's Journey, p. 205, ends up talking mostly about the doctor, but the section is dedicated to and discusses what we can learn from Rassilon embodying a tyrant. TARDISbound compares Rassilon and Omega from the scriptwriters' perspective and their relative importance in the franchise (and the same text also appears in Adventures Across Space and Time, p. 31. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are some nice finds here, but the bulk of these are about a sentence or two within a larger article, or are information not pertaining to providing notability. I feel most of these are Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'd be a bit more hesitant if there were some big sources in the mix, but there's very little in the way of proper Wikipedia:SIGCOV on the subject, even in a borderline case like I've seen for a few other Who articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Doctor Who, p. 9, 185-186, has similar commentary to "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", although viewed more through a Buddhist lens. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, however I feel this sort of thing is more appropriate for a specific DW wiki (like TARDIS fandom), rather than a Wikipedia article.

My current thinking is a merge to Time Lord, however I'm still mostly unsure. 11WB (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, a section on religion in Time Lord might be appropriate so long as the aforementioned source above and other credible sources are used. 11WB (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb: My understanding is that wikis like TARDIS fandom concentrate on presenting the in-universe lore (plot summary), while an interpretation of a character from a real-world Buddhist philosophical point of view is the type of analysis which fits in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Said book does not document Time Lord religion, but rather which real-world religious concepts have entered the scripts of the series. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios That would likely be the case usually, definitely for main characters like The Doctor himself. For Rassilon though, which as this AfD suggests, a full article that includes viewpoints from Buddhism or other religions I fear may be unnecessary.

The point you make however did initially cross my mind after I replied and that's why I added an extra part on adding a religious sub section to the larger Time Lord article. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, p. 162-163, examines Rassilon's opinion on life. Which might acutally be more of a borderline case than the above. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe the listed secondary sources contain enough commentary to write a non-stubby article which also fullfils WP:ALLPLOT, which means this is notable in accordance with WP:WHYN after all. As discussed above none of these commentaries is very long, but short does not automatically mean trivial. Rather, it is a question if they have something meaningful to say on the topic which fits to an encyclopedic article, and I believe they do. The fact that this is not a main character should not hinder us to include certain types of commentary. I think a merge to Time Lord, in the absence of a better target, is perferable to deletion with regard to WP:ATD-M. But the majority of found commentary does not readily fit to Time Lord but is directed to Rassilion directly. So I believe keeping this a stand-alone article is the better solution. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are valid points you make. If the sources do contribute substantive commentary on solely Rassilon, then an article using those sources I believe would be appropriate. I think the current AfD has been started due to this very thing being missing from the article. 11WB (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've updated my vote to reflect these thoughts, whilst keeping WP:ATD-M open as an alternative to deletion. 11WB (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation and clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable businessperson. The sources are mostly primary/press releases or broken links. Fails Wp:GNG. Created by a blocked user. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be notable but lacks significant coverage. I suggest to improve the article with the notable news links.Almandavi (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea and Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, lacks wp:SIGCOV in secondary reliable sources. The majority of the sources are primary and not in depth. Also the article was created and extensively edited by blocked socks in the past. Zuck28 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, India, and Delhi. Zuck28 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the basis of WP:SIGCOV, This topic demonstrate notability and meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources demonstrate the notability/has SIGCOV? As far as I can see, I can only count this. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject appears to not meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG. From looking at the sources, they are mainly mentions, listings, partnerships (shown by the last two sources in the article) and etc. this comes from a website whose reliability is questionable, as a site that lists all businesses, and the page is promotional in nature. this source is probably the only one that count towards WP:GNG but it is clear this is not enough. I tried to search for the subject online but failed to find any.ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previously draftified by me and PRODed by @Clayoquot:, but contested.

PROD rationale: At least 3 sources in this article are fake: https://www.iea.org/reports/hydrogen-strategies , https://www.irena.org/solar/Hydrogen , and https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-net-zero-industry-green-hydrogen/ . A previous version of the article was reverted for being LLM generated, see User talk:HydrogenEagle.

The article remains fundamentally unverifiable due to the method of its creation, with obviously fictitious references and questionably true information. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge into Hydrogen economy The article is clearly an advocacy document. The majority of the sources lead to a couple of advocacy organizations. The primary contributor, @HydrogenEagle edits almost exclusively about green hydrogen but has not declared a conflict of interest. The overall content in the article is undue detail about a narrow topic and it does not present a neutral point of view. Nevertheless reliable sources use the term "hydrogen strategy" in way consistent with the use in the article. I do not see any reason for deletion that can be used to eliminate this topic. All of the issues with the article can potentially be fixed. The following references are fake:

• Kim, J.; Park, H. (2024). "Impact of Green Hydrogen on Global Energy Transition Scenarios". Applied Energy. 355: 122134.
• Becker, A.; Richter, K. (2023). "Green Hydrogen in Maritime Shipping: A Feasibility Study". Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 178: 103210.
• Ullah, S.; Ali, A. (2024). "Green Hydrogen Production from Wastewater Treatment Plants". Journal of Cleaner Production. 430: 139876.

I think merge is the best solution because a notable topic like this can be resurrected in future. By merging we know where to look.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is notable. I'm arguing that the current version is so fundamentally unsalvageable (for concerns of references being not read by the author, being cited for things they don't say, or being entirely fictitious, and thus failing WP:V) that it shouldn't exist in mainspace, so either a WP:DRAFTIFY or a WP:TNT delete. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assertions would be more convincing if you provided specific examples. Here are some examples of government documents discussing the article topic by name:

• https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strategy
• https://www.government.nl/documents/publications/2020/04/06/government-strategy-on-hydrogen
• https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/publications/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy

Per WP:DELETE, Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have an article at this title, my argument is that this version is unsalvageably bad and should be deleted because improving it would require a complete rewrite, as per WP:TNT.

Let's look at some specific examples from the current version. I'll use the North America subsection.

• [14] - this doesn't exist. Glaringly, it doesn't exist at the claimed accessdate, 2025-06-02. [15]
• [16] - This exists, but there is substantial content in the body text that cannot possibly be cited to here. For example, the "National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap" is not referenced at this source, (for the record, this does exist, [17]), and the source provides no specific numbers to back up the claim of "10 Mt production by 2030, 20 Mt by 2040, and 50 Mt by 2050".
• [18] - this doesn't exist. Same story with the archive [19]
• [20] - This doesn't exist. The URL resolves, but notably does not mention hydrogen.

~ A412 ^talk! 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, some of the reports cited do in fact exist if you search for them by name, but under different URLs, and in at least one case, under a completely different site. Is it possible that the references were actually read by the author, who consistently misenters nearly every reference URL? Maybe. Is the far more likely explanation that the references are generated by language model? To me, yes. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I rewrote it completely. I could had a bit more with a few examples, say EU and Japan. Rather than get all worked up about this article it seems to me we need to work to avoid a repeat. Merge would be a start as would agreeing to topic ban for the editor responsible for the mess. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a ChatGPT version of the Hydrogen economy article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your evidence for this claim? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the topic is probably notable, every source I checked was a dead link or did not support the cited claim, as another user noted. This has all the calling cards of an LLM-written article: The vague, general language; the references that don't exist or don't say what they're cited for; the bullet-point-heavy organization. But frankly the dead citations alone are reason enough for deletion IMO; if the author can't be bothered to check their URLs, why should we be bothered to keep their refbombed-to-the-stone-age article? Let someone who actually cares enough to check their sources write a new article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete immediately, given that some references are fake. How can we believe any of this? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only a few are "fake". Make your own count. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok almost all of the journal citations were fake. The linked ones were ok which threw me off. I guess I should have known from green hydrogen Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hydrogen economy (first choice) or delete. Johnjbarton did a great job of removing the LLM-generated crap and replacing it with a reasonably WP:V and WP:NPOV passage. The sheer number of hallucinated references makes it clear that none of the original content can be trusted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since nothing created in the bowels of an AI slop factory can be trustworthy, and nothing suggests that this is a sufficiently distinct topic that needs an article of its own. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The criteria for article inclusion is spelled out in detail in Wikipedia:Notability. This topic has significant reliable coverage in secondary sources independent of the topic.

  • Andrews, J., & Shabani, B. (2014). The role of hydrogen in a global sustainable energy strategy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 3(5), 474-489.
  • COAG Energy Council Hydrogen Working Group. (2019). Australia's national hydrogen strategy.
  • Esily, R. R., Chi, Y., Ibrahiem, D. M., & Chen, Y. (2022). Hydrogen strategy in decarbonization era: Egypt as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(43), 18629-18647.\
  • Vivanco-Martín, B., & Iranzo, A. (2023). Analysis of the European Strategy for Hydrogen: A Comprehensive Review. Energies, 16(9), 3866.
  • Nagashima, M. (2018). Japan's hydrogen strategy and its economic and geopolitical implications (pp. 12-75). Paris, France: Ifri. ISBN: 978-2-36567-918-3
  • Hjeij, D., Biçer, Y., & Koç, M. (2022). Hydrogen strategy as an energy transition and economic transformation avenue for natural gas exporting countries: Qatar as a case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(8), 4977-5009.
  • Meng, X., Gu, A., Wu, X., Zhou, L., Zhou, J., Liu, B., & Mao, Z. (2021). Status quo of China hydrogen strategy in the field of transportation and international comparisons. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(57), 28887-28899.

  and so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we don't need it, it doesn't exist as far as we can verify it, and it turns out to be a toxic dump of original content, AI content creation, and unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian I just posted 6 WP:reliable sources to this topic beyond the ones already listed in the article. Did you find any problem with the sources now given? What basis do you have for any of your claims? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not clicking on anything associated with AI. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, once an article is infected with unreliable sources, it would need to start from scratch. I linked TNT for you. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you find any problem with any source in the article I will fix it. I have checked all four of them. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how can you make any reasonable contribution here? I completely rewrote the article which you would be able to see if you read it. See also Wikipedia:TNTTNT.Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the only remaining option is to Userfy it, work on it more, and then return it to main space. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nigerian player who has only played for minor Vietnamese football teams. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think they're minor. Do you really think so? They were top league clubs, and he was also among the top scorers of 2015. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had seen that they were teams from the lower divisions. Still, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Arguments about level of play largely irrelevant. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I only found one spell of this player in SE Matonense, in the third level of the Campeonato Paulista (Série A3). Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed to find any mentions of this player on Brazilians newspapers. Fails WP:NSPORT. Coeusin (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Could not find any in-depth coverage per WP:NBUILD. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no explanation, other than it was once the tallest building in a small city, and user:Bearian/Standards#Estates, developments, and housing projects. If you can show a reliable source that a thousands of people live there, ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmad Quraishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable politician. All sources are either YouTube (not WP:RS) or passing mentions (not WP:SIGCOV). The only English source doesn't even mention Quraishi at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Self-published material on YouTube is usually not a reliable source, but a newscast from a television station that is normally considered a reliable source does not stop being reliable just because it is uploaded to YouTube. I have not viewed or analyzed the newscasts cited as references, but I think it is likely that at least some of them are reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - party officials, especially at the local level, are rarely notable. Maybe if they are called a political "boss" like Boss Tweed. Ping me if you find a reliable source saying something like that. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFF. Attempted to move to draft space but that was objected to. Users keep changing the name and redirect names as well. Film was supposed to be out in April hence why I did not send to AfD sooner. Now it has been delayed yet again with an "anticipated" date of December 2025. Sources are all the normal promotional announcements you would get for a film, but nothing notable about the production that I can find to allow it to meet NFF. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There appears to be sufficient coverage of this film in reliable, independent sources, and additional coverage is likely as the release date approaches. This will support the article’s verifiability and provide more material for improvement and citations. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), a film can be considered notable even prior to release if it has received significant attention from reputable media outlets. Therefore, the subject meets the notability criteria for retention. Amadavadi (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? "Additional coverage" in the future equates to WP:TOOSOON. Yes, a film can be considered notable prior to the release but needs the sourcing to show it. The sourcing here is all your general announcements associated with an upcoming film. What about the production is notable as that is what needs to be seen to meet WP:NFF. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deleting the page even after the teaser?

It seems the movie fanwars reached wikipedia too. 2409:40F4:24:7D54:A0A0:E393:F3B6:5FC3 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The teaser was released today ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. —Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not see anything in WP:NFILM that says notability is based on a teaser. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is doing typical fanwar on wikipedia page. 2409:40F4:24:7D54:A0A0:E393:F3B6:5FC3 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Keep” Notable movie with reliable sources. Teaser just dropped. It could be improved with references. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up

Sounds familiar. Please see WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a telugu from Andhra, I can see that all the mainstream Telugu newspapers have carried articles about the film apart from some notable national media outlets like the HIndu, India Today, Times of India etc. I believe it passes GNG. Davidindia (talk)

Which sources again? No one has been able to provide those as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but I assume they are referring to print media. Ike Lek (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then hopefully they are able to answer about the sources claimed "apart from some notable national media outlets like the HIndu, India Today, Times of India etc." Which notable national media outlets and were are the links? Which ones are not NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, or promotional churnalism? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The shooting set is confirmed to be the biggest for a horror movie in India. The makers claim it is the largest indoor movie set in the world, but I have not looked into how true that is. I think a case can be made that, even in the unlikely situation The RajaSaab never sees the light of the day, it would be notable as an unreleased film. 2001:8F8:172B:3F78:2D8E:A230:148B:5E00 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. And at least someone is providing references with their contention so thank you for that. If the claim is true, it may "possibly" be notable but it is just a claim with churnalised sources at the moment.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is well sourced and on track to release this December. It does meet WP:NFILM as it is a tentpole and not an indie or art film. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on the sourcing from someone. Can you point to the significant coverage showing WP:GNG as it definiately does not meet WP:NFF as an unreleased film. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article has good sources along with one of the top Indian star in cast Prabhas, so why it should stay in draft? Also it's beyond my understanding that an article with 50+ sources, Top notch indian actors and sequel to 2019 blockbuster film is still in the draft section Draft:War 2 (2025). The production of film is huge it was shot in various overseas countries, article is well sourced, production is YRF, release date in August, teaser already released! Then what's the issue! MNWiki845 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2025 (IST)

It should stay in draft because it does not meet WP:NFF. Nothing in notability guidelines that says it receives inherent notability for having good sources or top Indian stars. If you are comparing to War 2, that draft has way better sourcing and at this point could be argued that meets WP:GNG. So the question is why should that stay in draft if this one is live? Also, still waiting on the source assessment which no one has yet to provided. The IP vote above is the only one that has made a claim of notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Principal photography is complete, so the film doesn't fall under the NFF's restriction on covering projects that haven't begun filming. There are 35 sources in the article. GNG is established. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth request for sourcing. 35 sources, all of which are promotional, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't non-RS. Indian sources are going to cover Indian entertainment; using NEWSORGINDIA to treat them like they're inherently suspect will leave our film articles empty. WP:SATISFY. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were all NEWSORGINDIA and no, you are not obligated to WP:SATISFY. The vote just leans more towards WP:ATA. Sources do not need to be non-Indian sources, but they do need to be something more than your typical press announcements, churnalism, promotional material, or unreliable sourcing. That is why [[WP:NFF] exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Here are a few references regarding the production of the film. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. I hope these references will be good enough for the article to satisfy WP:NFILM as well WP:GNG.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the considerable number of keep !votes, this is an odd discussion with at least one sockpuppet weighing in. We need to hear from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The film meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:NFILM and WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Charliehdb (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Which sources add up to WP:GNG? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST as sources do not talk about the stations as a whole. Most of the stations do not have Wikipedia pages and some that do should be sent to AfD as well (including some that have no sources at all). CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom + WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possibly Merge summary/overview (not yet written) into TV5 Network Inc. Jdcooper (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TV5 Network Inc. does not provide any listing TV stations on their annual reports. Only on the NTC TV stations as of December 2024. Vineyard93 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the NTC list count as reliable? RandomMe98 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Telecommunications Commission is the authority in the Philippines when it comes to TV and radio stations (among other things). Now, if their publications qualify for WP:RS that depends... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources. IP range blocked for tiresome pinging. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ohnoitsjamie: it's the same compulsive over-tagger we were discussing recently. Jdcooper (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What is tough about this list is that we have to deal with infrequent NTC list updates exfiltrated through Freedom of Information Act requests. They can confirm existence at least. And then we have many many stations where there is insufficient material to pass GNG because of poor source availability, even sometimes when a station has been on for decades. This is a useful redirect target at AfD, and while I understand if people have qualms over sourcing, this page resolves lots of thorny problems. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete, Redirect and Merger into TV5 Network. Trishie042512 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 (formerly ABC-5) is the only major television network and the sole free-to-air television network in the Philippines that are possibly Delete and/or Redirect, and Merge summary/overview into TV5 Network as most of the stations does not have Wikipedia pages and even the sources do not talk the TV stations as a whole that WP:NLIST fails, per CNMall41. Since 2016, resulting in all stations have a full-power relay/translator of DWET after 3 decades of duplicative. Only on the National Telecommunications Commission TV stations and frequencies as of December 2024. Trishie042512 (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more thoughts on Sammi's WP:IAR argument, This is a useful redirect target at AfD, and while I understand if people have qualms over sourcing, this page resolves lots of thorny problems., and if there is any reasonable place for a redirect/merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

My concerns about this person's notability still hasn't eased since the previous AFD discussion, which resulted in "kept". Re-reading the discussion, the "keep" votes aren't without caution if not suspicion.

One promised to improve the article or something (to further verify this person's notability), but I still don't see logs of edits made by that voter. Another is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Another cited WP:NACTOR, which is what I was unwilling to challenge then due to lack of votes favoring either deletion or redirection.

I re-raised my concerns recently not too long ago:

Transcluding from Talk:Ben Driebergen

I'm concerned again about this person's notability. The following I cannot use to verify because they are just interviews, i.e. primary sources, which neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBASIC would allow such sources to be counted: Ent Weekly (another), Pajiba. Screen Rant (source) is discouraged per WP:RSP#Screen Rant. Reality Tea displays just his brief profile. I was able to listen to the Idaho Statesman article; it just previews his then-upcoming The Challenge appearance. Maybe I'm doubtful again about this person, but the reliable sources verifying his general/basic notability have become scarce. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since then, I've yet to see my concerns readdressed. To challenge the past assumption that WP:NACTORS suffices, this person must also comply with WP:NBASIC per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I've still yet to see reliable independent sources verify his notability in Survivor: Winners at War and/or The Challenge and/or any other non-television field even as a war veteran.

To make either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E applicable (or WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN if neither), this article should be preferably redirected to Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers, his winning season at his Survivor debut. George Ho (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and lack of WP:RS. Reviewers may want to refer to this version for more content/references before I reviewed citations, removing those that did not verify the claims being cited and paid media placements. Article author seems to have acknowledged a COI, but is removing the WP:NBIO template, making discussion challenging Vegantics (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

*:Thank you for the feedback. I understand the notability concerns and acknowledge the conflict of interest guidelines. I’m refraining from editing the article directly moving forward and will instead suggest improvements or sources through discussion. I would like to highlight that the subject has been featured in multiple independent and reliable sources anda reputable news outlets in the Philippines, including: - Escuadro, Kiko (November 5, 2024). "Award-winning filmmaker Emille Joson expresses heartfelt gratitude to ABS-CBN". ABS CBN News. Escuadro, Kiko (May 4, 2025). "Behind the Spell: Emille Joson's bold casting in 'Adivino'". Philippine Daily Tribune. "Emille Joson turns style into social storytelling". Manila Standard. December 2, 2024. "Emille Joson talks about filmmaking, success and 'Adivino'". LionhearTV. April 20, 2024. These sources offer significant, independent coverage on the subject’s work in filmmaking and public recognition. I am open to any improvements needed for neutrality and formatting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please give this article a chance for improvement. Iwannarightelle (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the feedback. I understand the notability concerns and acknowledge the conflict of interest guidelines. I’m refraining from editing the article directly moving forward and will instead suggest improvements or sources through discussion. I would like to highlight that the subject has been featured in multiple independent and reliable sources anda reputable news outlets in the Philippines, including: - Escuadro, Kiko (November 5, 2024). "Award-winning filmmaker Emille Joson expresses heartfelt gratitude to ABS-CBN". ABS CBN News. Escuadro, Kiko (May 4, 2025). "Behind the Spell: Emille Joson's bold casting in 'Adivino'". Philippine Daily Tribune. "Emille Joson turns style into social storytelling". Manila Standard. December 2, 2024. "Emille Joson talks about filmmaking, success and 'Adivino'". LionhearTV. April 20, 2024. These sources offer significant, independent coverage on the subject’s work in filmmaking and public recognition. I am open to any improvements needed for neutrality and formatting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please give this article a chance for improvement. I'm open for dicussion. Iwannarightelle (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, Vegantics, for raising the concerns. As an independent editor reviewing this case, I wanted to note that there are several reliable, non-trivial sources that cover Emille Joson and her filmmaking work: ABS-CBN News (Escuadro, 2024): Profile and gratitude interview with Joson Philippine Daily Tribune (Escuadro, 2025): In-depth article on casting choices in Adivino Manila Standard (2024): Feature on Joson’s fusion of style and social storytelling LionhearTV (2024): Direct interview about Adivino and her career These are not press releases or paid-only coverage — they are from established media outlets, with original reporting on the subject. Additionally, the article could benefit from citation cleanup and a clearer alignment with WP:NPOV and WP:FILMMAKER. While I acknowledge earlier issues raised regarding COI, I believe the article can be improved rather than deleted, as it appears to meet notability standards with the presence of multiple reliable sources. I’m happy to assist with any needed restructuring. CineBantay (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete. I am sure she is an excellent filmmaker, but the current article is promotional. I am not familiar with the sources provided, they appear to be all local news sources in the Philippines, are they considered reliable? Multiple maintenance templates added by others have been removed without justification by one or more of the article creators. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

*:DO NOT DELETE- As an independent editor, I’d like to clarify that the sources used in the article including ABS-CBN News, Philippine Daily Tribune, Manila Bulletin, Malaya Business Insight, and LionhearTV, are among the major national media outlets in the Philippines, with established reputations for news reporting, cultural coverage, and public interest stories. ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs is one of the country’s largest multimedia networks, known for credible journalism and regularly cited across Wikipedia articles covering prominent Filipino figures. Manila Bulletin, founded in 1900, is the Philippines’ oldest English-language newspaper still in circulation, and is widely considered a paper of record. Daily Tribune (Philippines) is a respected broadsheet providing current affairs, politics, and media coverage with a focus on national relevance. Malaya Business Insight is a long-running publication known for its political, economic, and societal reporting. It often covers public advocacy, governance, and community initiatives, making it a relevant source for socially-driven topics. LionhearTV, while focused on entertainment, is widely referenced for film, media, and celebrity coverage in the Philippine context. It is also used in other Wikipedia articles involving Filipino creatives and media figures. These sources are considered reliable by Philippine journalistic standards and are frequently used in existing Wikipedia entries about Filipino public figures. While they may not all be widely recognized by international editors, they fulfill notability and verifiability requirements within their national context. The article has also been revised to better adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality and citation standards. CineBantay (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes 100% agree, these are considered reliable sources. Good one you tagged their own Wikipedia articles. I grew up watching Filipino films, and there’s a platform called TFC abroad which is owned by ABS-CBN. I also heard Dolly De Leon who is now a Hollywood Actress Filipina has done film under the network too called Star Cinema, they are the largest and most trusted networks in the Philippines they have everything from news, production everything. Meanwhile, Publications like Manila Bulletin and Philippine Daily Tribune are long-established national newspapers they are everywhere in Manila. So yeah! These media outlets are widely read and respected in the Philippines! BrianStanleyFilmGeek (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] RETAIN- Hi, I’m a relatively new editor and just happened to come across this article about Emille Joson while reading about Southeast Asian filmmakers. I’m Filipino-British, so I was naturally interested to see if any local talents were being recognized on Wikipedia! Hmm! I understand and respect the need for strict notability and sourcing guidelines, but I wanted to share my perspective. The sources cited like ABS-CBN News, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Tribune, Malaya Business Insight, and LionhearTV are actually among the most respected and widely circulated media outlets in the Philippines. They’re commonly used as references in other articles about public figures in our country. Just because they’re unfamiliar internationally doesn’t mean they lack reliability in their local context. From what I’ve read, Emille Joson seems to have made a strong impact in the independent film scene and has even been part of a Metro Manila Film Festival entry, which is one of the most prominent platforms for Filipino filmmakers. Her advocacy for women’s issues and humanitarian work is also covered with cited sources, and the article doesn’t strike me as promotional, it’s just telling her story. I hope this doesn’t come across the wrong way, but I do wonder if unfamiliarity with FILIPINO MEDIA or culture is affecting how this article is being evaluated. Hopefully not as anyone can speak about the website for it especially LGBT Filipino, but I felt it was worth saying. Thanks to all the editors working to keep standards high while also allowing space for global voices. For me I think this article should not be deleted. It was cited properly. BrianStanleyFilmGeek (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on merits. As per WP:LIONHEARTV, Lionheartv is generally unreliable as a self-published source, should not be used as a reference on articles, and should be removed on sight on other articles. Other references cited by CineBantay are generally reliable, but may fail WP:INTERVIEW, as the case may be. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by Kiko Escuadro should be counted as just WP:ONESOURCE even if published by different publishers (ABS-CBN and Manila Standard). His Manila Standard is basic WP:INTERVIEW. Another Manila Standard article has no byline and is basically a praise release. Propnents should read and understand WP:GNG and WP:INTERVIEW. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

:::As an uninvolved and a fellow Filipino and a law student, independent editor with no personal connection to the subject, I’d like to respectfully address the concerns raised. On LionhearTV: The concern regarding LionhearTV’s reliability is valid and consistent with WP:LIONHEARTV. That source has since been removed from the article, and it is no longer cited. On the Use of Kiko Escuadro’s Work: While Kiko Escuadro is a recurring byline, the publications in which his work appears ABS-CBN News, Philippine Daily Tribune, or Standard (which are not a similar report) are well-established and editorially independent. These are recognized national-level news outlets in the Philippines, with rigorous journalistic standards. The fact that a reporter appears across outlets does not inherently invalidate the independence of each publisher. On WP:ONESOURCE and WP:INTERVIEW: The current article relies on multiple sources, from different editorial boards, including Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard, Daily Tribune, and ABS-CBN. These demonstrate significant coverage from reliable, independent, and not self-published sources. While some citations include interviews or profiles, they are not promotional in tone and are treated with due editorial care. Furthermore, WP:GNG does not require lengthy articles, awards, or academic citations—just substantial, reliable coverage, which this subject meets. On Article Length: A short biographical article does not equate to a lack of notability. Many articles, especially for filmmakers or cultural workers from non-Western contexts, begin as stubs and expand over time through community collaboration. Wikipedia’s mission includes global representation, and cutting short coverage of figures from outside Western media ecosystems risks systemic BIAS. Cultural and Regional Context: Filipino outlets such as ABS-CBN, GMA Network, Manila Bulletin, and Malaya Business Insight are considered highly credible in their home country. ABS-CBN, for instance, is cited in thousands of Wikipedia articles and is comparable in standing to national broadcasters like PBS (U.S.) or CBC (Canada). Evaluating these sources through a U.S.-centric lens may unintentionally discount non-Western notability. In conclusion, the article, while modest in length, satisfies notability through multiple, independent, reliable sources, has undergone recent improvements to tone and structure, and now avoids previously flagged references. Continued editing and collaboration are welcome, but deletion may not be warranted at this time. It can still improve since Joson is still actively doing films. BrianStanleyFilmGeek (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONESOURCE ignores multiple publishers; if it's written by one person, it falls under this.

WP:INTERVIEW ignores how "good quality" a reference is. A hypothetical interview to Joson by the The Times of London falls under this. Any pronouncements by Joson is WP:PRIMARY.

Again, I encourage proponents to read these. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: - all the proponents are blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iwannarightelle - the editors advocating for keeping this article so far have all been blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She received significant independent coverage in reliable sources in the Daily Tribune (https://tribune.net.ph/2025/05/03/behind-the-spell-emille-josons-bold-casting-in-adivino); the Manila Standard(https://manilastandard.net/lifestyle/314531092/emille-joson-turns-style-into-social-storytelling.html) and in other media outlets (https://journalnews.com.ph/direk-emille-joson-indie-queen-to-global-screen/#gsc.tab=0 ; https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/03/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-filmmaker-emille-joson/ ; https://malaya.com.ph/entertainment/emille-joson-shakes-up-hollywood-streams/). I think she meets the requirements for the notability of people and that the page about her can be retained. The other user arguing for retention was blocked but their !vote(s) make sense and I happen to agree with what (they) say.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can someone WP:CHECK on this guy?

  Also, this was previously explained above on why does references won't be accepted, most especially WP:LIONHEARTV. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Account age and past participation in other AfD discussions suggests that this user is legitimate, although I agree that reiterating the same faulty logic of banned users is a bad look. One could speculate that it's a case of meatpuppetry, but I doubt it. Vegantics (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be using CheckUser on Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon as they aren't recently created, and they have participated in AfDs before as Vegantics says. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT: sock puppetry, unreliable sources, interviews as sources, undisclosed conflicts of interests, and other issues make this problematic. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian. Even if the subject is notable (and 'if' is the operative word there), this article has too many issues to decontaminate it. Blow it up and start again. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability or No Notability that is sperate issue but the creator has Unclosed Conflict of Interest with the subject. --Unclethepoter (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks indepth WP:RS to establish notability. Sources are lists and routine database-like coverage in Lloyds. If sources are found and the article is kept, it should probably be renamed (it was only the "Empire Taff" for two completely unremarkable years, it was longer known as either the Apollo or the Alhama, so no idea why this title was chosen). Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Transportation, Germany, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Have you searched for sources yourself and found none? if not otherwise i believe that it should be kept but be given the lack of reliable sources tag and any others that fit. no opinion on the the renaming tho.

AssanEcho (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Doesn't mean no better sources exist, my search isn't universal or infallible of course. And I first tagged it for notability, but that was quickly removed. Fram (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

understood, thanks for the clear response! AssanEcho (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Empire ships (Ta–Te). I believe that there is a German book on the history of DG "Neptun", though it is not cited in the deWP article, but I cannot find the details at the moment. - Davidships (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I do not see Fram on the list of WP:SHIPS participants. Fram, what do you know about which historic merchant ships are notable, and why? You slapped a "notability" template on the article less than an hour and a half after I created it. You would have been welcome to discuss the article with me first, but you lacked the manners to do so. You went straight on the attack. That is gratuitous.

So I deleted the template that you applied, and when doing so, I provided good reasons why. So now you have retaliated with a nomination for deletion. If you want additional sources, fair comment. But nominating the Empire Taff article to be deleted, rather than augmented, is gratuitously destructive. People contribute thousands of hours of intelligent, meticulous work to this website for free. If you want a formula to drive able and willing contributors away, congratulations; you have found it.

Gustav Bauer and Hans Wach at Joh. C. Tecklenborg patented their exhaust steam turbine system in 1926, just months before Tecklenborg became one of the founder partners in Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau (DeSchiMAG). AG „Weser“ was another of the founder partners in DeSchiMAG, and as such, got access to the Bauer-Wach patented system. The next year, AG „Weser“ built a class of four cargo ships for Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft „Neptun“.

As pioneering examples of cargo ships with Bauer-Wach exhaust turbines, the Ajax class is notable. I could have written an article about the class as a whole, but that is not something that I have experience of doing. So I wrote about one member of the class, with a section outlining the class as a whole, to set her in context. I could have written the article about Ajax, because she was the lead ship of the class. Instead I chose Apollo, because she was the only member of the class that became an Empire ship. WP:SHIPS members have striven for decades to increase this site's coverage of Empire ships. User:Mjroots, for example, has done sterling work on them. I therefore thought that Empire Taff would be of more interest to British and other English-speaking readers.

Most of the people who write about steamships on Wikipedia seem either unaware of what the Bauer-Wach system is, or unaware of how important it was. Exhaust steam turbines on steamships were introduced in 1908, on Otaki and Laurentic. This "combination machinery" achieved better bunker economy than steam turbine ships with direct drive. However, also in 1908, the Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company used Vespasian to pioneer reduction gearing for steam turbines. This also increased bunker economy; but was simpler, lighter, and more compact than "combination machinery". By the mid-1920s, barely 40 ships had been built with "combination machinery", whereas hundreds had been built with steam turbines plus reduction gearing. "Combination machinery" was dying out.

All that changed when Bauer and Wach invented a simpler and more cost-effective way to combine exhaust turbines with reciprocating engines, via a Föttinger fluid coupling. As a result, between the late 1920s and the early 1960s, at least 1,250 steamships were fitted with an exhaust steam turbine, coupled to the same drive shaft as the reciprocating main engine, whose low-pressure cylinder(s) provided the exhaust steam. Exhaust steam turbines were widely used by UK, German, and some other shipbuilders. I think the last shipbuilder to use them may have been the Gdańsk Shipyard in Poland, which was sitll installing them in 1961.

In the vast majority of cases, the Bauer-Wach system was used. However, Bauer and Wach's success stimulated competition, for example from Brown, Boveri & Cie in Switzerland, who circumvented the Bauer-Wach patent with a different type of coupling; and White's Marine Engineering Company in England, who were more innovative, but commercially less successful. Empire Taff is thus notable as a very early example of a trend in marine engineering that remained significant throughout the second quarter of the 20th century.

The Ajax class is notable also as the precursor to DG „Neptun“'s Helios class, which was built in 1929. These also had Bauer-Wach turbines, but the new feature of the Helios class was that they had a Maierform bow. Fritz Maier founded Maierform GmbH in Bremen in 1927, and three fishing vessels with Maierform bows were built in 1928. Then AG „Weser“ built the Helios class in 1929, making them very early examples of cargo ships with Maier's new bow. English Wikipedia has an article about one member of the Helios class, Kirovograd, which was built as Hercules.

DG „Neptun“ were early adopters of both the Bauer-Wach system, and the Maierform bow, and there is a direct relationship between the two classes of ship in which DG „Neptun“ first used these concepts. The Empire Taff article provides background to the Kirovograd article. The two articles complement each other.

Fram's claim that "Sources are lists and routine database-like coverage in Lloyds" is inaccurate. It ignores the fact that I cite Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships, which is the standard work on the topic. And it is facile to dismiss Lloyd's Register and the Mercantile Navy List. They are authoritative commercial and government records. We do not need other sources to prove that Empire Taff existed. And the fact that she was a very early Bauer-Wach ship, and therefore notable, is self-evident from the fact that she was built as early as 1927.

I have searched in vain for books about exhaust steam turbines, and especially about the Bauer-Wach system, which was commercially the most successful. All I found was a booklet in German about Bauer-Wach turbines and couplings, which DeSchiMAG published in 1934. I bought a copy of it, but it is purely a pocket handbook for marine engineers, and seems to offer nothing suitable to contribute to individual Wikipedia articles.

There are two books in German about DG „Neptun“. One was published by the company itself in 1939. The other was written by Reinhold Thiel, and published in 1998. Both are out of print. Online, second hand, their prices start at $55 and $71 respectively. Please do not expect a pensioner to spend that much on a book to support one small article, just because you denigrate the authoritative Lloyd's Register and Mercantile Navy List. If you think the article should have additional sources, you are welcome buy those books in German, and expand the article yourself.

I disagree also with Davidships' proposal to merge the text of the article into List of Empire ships (Ta–Te). Each entry in that list should be brief; and in as many cases as possible, it should link to an article about the individual ship. Empire Taff's entry on that list now does.

The only "argument" that Fram has cobbled together is that the article could be renamed. I named it Empire Taff because this is English Wikipedia, and some people on here have a particular interest in Empire ships. It conforms with the principle of "least surprise", so that if someone reading the "List of Empire ships (Ta–Te)" article clicks on the "Empire Taff" link, they find an article called "Empire Taff". If you want to rename it Hercules or Alhama, you are free to do so. But there is no cogent case for deleting the article. Motacilla (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no better sources, just a lot of WP:OR amidst some irrelevant personal remarks? Not meeting WP:GNG is a quite cogent reason for deletion or redirection actually. Fram (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, you may need to work on your spelling. :-))

Motacilla, you've been around Wikipedia long enough that you should know the requirements laid out at GNG. Currently, the article does not meet those. The most salient of your points above is the paragraph beginning "There are two books in German ...". Unfortunately, we would need info from them to confirm whether or not they would count as significant coverage for this specific ship. Have you tried to get access via WP:RX? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mobile editing sucks, I have corrected the numerous typos. The 1939 book mentioned above is published by the original company of the book, so doesn´t help for notability (would be good for reliable information of course). Fram (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the main argument in the deletion nom seems to be the quality of sources. As we all know, needing improvement is never a reason to delete. She has an entry in Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships, which can be used to reference some of the facts. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Mjroots, but I fear you've misinterpreted or overlooked the nom's first sentence. The argument is that there is no indication in the given sources, which are nearly all non SIGCOV-meeting entries from Lloyd's, that this ship has independent notability and meets GNG. See WP:N##cite_note-1. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Davidships. The stuff provided by Motacilla is notable for a list (as for what that ship is notable for), but the ship itself is not inherently notable because it used a specific type of machinery. This is similar to all the specific production models of cars that do not get individual pages but have weird engine formats. In this case a class page might be notable, as much like production cars, there might be enough coverage on all the ships of the mentioned class. I understand this is not a policy page, but going forward I would suggest creating a class/type page and from there, one can see if there is enough notability to create an individual page for the ship, or if a redirect would be enough. Llammakey (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As'ad Abu Shari'a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There is no significant coverage of him expect for his assasination. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep He is a leader of a very underrated group in the war in Gaza, his death and his leadership of the Mujahideen Brigades are important. Farcazo (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: First of all the article is not about just an ordinary Palestine Militant. He is the Leader of both Palestinian Mujahideen Movement and its armed wing Mujahideen Brigades since 2007, so saying someone who had led a major militant group in Gaza for more than a decade is unjustifiable. He is a high value target according to Israel and have participation and leadership role in the Nir'oz attack and kidnapping of Shiri bibas and family both of the event have its own wikipedia article and As'ad Abu Shari'a and his group have been mentioned many times in these articles andsnews reports.

It is true he received widespread recognition only after his assassination but reports of him have been in the internet since 2007 and many reports only came after Assassination is due to the secrecy of the group protecting its leader.

The article was made after his assassination but it does not his notability and participation in the Gaza War. Similarly, articles like

Mohammad Kazemi, Mehdi Rabbani, Hassan Mohaqeq, Gholamreza Mehrabi have been made in the ongoing Israel –Iran war only after their Assassination.

So I hope both the both deletion claimed editor and other editors understand the need in keeping the page. Golem469 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the leader of an important group of an important war. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E the figure is relatively unknown except for being killed. The article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD EC-protected per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he was implicated in a felony murder - the Kidnapping and killing of the Bibas family - that got months-long, wall-to-wall coverage in Israel and New York City. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason this shouldn't be redirected there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem to be notable. Kinkly looks like a healthline-like site, i.e. unreliable. The Guardian article doesn't mention this and isn't even about it. A search on google scholar shows only passing mentions and unreliable sources. A search on google news does not bring up significant reliable coverage either. KnowDeath (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion on this contains no convincing arguments in favour of keeping. KnowDeath (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not merely mentioning that this practice exists. This is a mini-instruction guideline with explicit instructions and images of how to do this. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic of the article is important and noteworthy from a sexual, medical and perhaps historical point of view. Although the article basically does not refer to this content well, a Google Books search can list many sources. However, unsourced content and unhelpful images should be removed.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article is important and noteworthy from a sexual, medical and perhaps historical point of view

How? I couldn't find anything that corroborates this and you haven't provided anything either.

a Google Books search can list many sources

All the books I can see are erotica or written by somebody who isn't an academic expert. KnowDeath (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a fairly minor topic within BDSM and kink. Most of this short article is unsourced and the sources available look poor, giving little likelihood of improvement in the future. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had thought deletion was the answer, but my own searches convinced me otherwise.^[1][2][3][4]

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are about a different topic, they are not about the BDSM activity. KnowDeath (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The topic of this article ("forced orgasms" as a kink or unconventional consensual sexual practice) appears to be unrelated to what Goldsztajn's sources say, which are about orgasms that are "forced" in the context of conventional (not kinky) sex, or in the context of nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape). I can't see anything in the article that could be substantiated by these sources, at least judging by their abstracts. The article needs deletion as unverifiable or at least not notable on the basis of currently produced sources. Goldsztajn's sources could be used in the article about orgasm instead. Sandstein 18:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different topics that are covered by this subject - coerced, non-consenual sexual activity which produces an orgasm and consensual, play sexual activity that mimics coercion and produces an orgasm. I've already provided sourcing on the former, there is sourcing on the latter.^[1][2][3][4]

FWIW, I disagree with the characterisation "nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape)", nonconsensual sex is synonymous with sexual assault, rather than rape. Rape is a relic of criminal law that for far too long lawfully excused sexual assault where penetration could not be proven. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (ostensibly) about the second topic, not the first. The sources cited above do not persuade me - to the extent I can access them, they merely mention "forced orgasms" among several other sexual practices, rather than describe what they are. This is not the sort of in-depth coverage we need to write a reliable article and to make the topic notable. Sandstein 18:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (Weak) Merge if there are no reliable sources for this are as thin as what @KnowDeath says, then I would say merge it with Bdsm or any other related articles, but if what @Goldsztajn said is true, and there is actually more reliable sources then please just entirely ignore my post, because then that gets into whether or not its a notable subject and i have no idea or interest in particiapting in that discussion.

AssanEcho (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable clothing maker. The WP:BEFORE did not show this company to be notable for an entry. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Tennis, and Brazil. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:NCORP. It's not a notable brand. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wcquidditch. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 00:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really notable, too soon. I checked the sources according to WPbefore, but nothing there. --J. P. Fridrich (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it has some followers and customers, but the lack of engagement (3 to 5 comments per Instagram posting) and no reliable sources, leads me to suspect b0ts have been purchased. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis West State League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Was moved from AfC after being rejected twice, without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Some mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent source found agree with nom--Unclethepoter (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a munshi, like a cantor or chancellor in other Abrahamic religions, is not automatically notable, and there's a lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Again, this is just a very poorly refenced WP:ALLPLOT, this time there is even no list of apperances to match it. Fails WP:NLIST. WP:ATD-R, if we want to be generous, would be the main Aubrey–Maturin series, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with cleanup template and move to a new title like List of characters in Aubrey-Maturin and use WP:RS, this isn't a dynamic list; also, wasn't the source material famously frozen in time? Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• — Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is essentially a fan article consisting almost wholly of unsourced plot elements, contrary to WP:ALLPLOT. Even if much can be sourced to reliable primary sources (the novels themselves), that would still not avoid the requirements of WP:ALLPLOT. There is little critical analyis, but what there is amounts to WP:OR, with no attempt to provide secondary reliable sources to support any character analysis. Very little here is salvageable, and no purpose would be served by keeping it and merely adding a tag calling for reliable sources to be added. I note that several of the characters already have their own articles, but there's no sourced material here worth merging. If anyone knows of independent sources that critically discuss any of the other major characters, they could consider creating new character-specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Changed vote - see below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this article helpful because it is a long series of novels about a set of characters with connected stories. It is helpful to a person who reads the series, and it provides a series view of these characters. At the time most text was written, the sources used were the novels themselves. If the lack of other sources is the true objection, perhaps there should be a request for more references both to the novels and any reviews or other sources. Per the revision history, I wrote more text than any other editor, which I had not realized. I listened to audio books so was not providing page numbers, but book and chapter at best. I see this as an extension or companion article to the Aubrey–Maturin series article. The period of history in which the novels are set was long and complex and the story twining through 21 novels is also long and complex. Perhaps another edit to this article would be links from the article on each novel to this article under debate, to specific characters. The descriptions here are series descriptions, not appropriate for any one novel’s article. I can slightly understand someone confusing it with fan text — for this series, there are links to the fan-type articles and tables. This article is descriptions of characters as they developed through the many years of the setting. I do hope the article is not deleted. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSHELPFUL is not a good article for deletion discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is worth noting that the “fan web pages” for this series list every single minor or major character in the novel series, a very long list, where this article includes the major characters and those characters who “turn the plot” meaning they move the story in a new direction. Those characters are generally real historical people, moving the plot in tune with history of that era. I find these novels and these characters worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because of the high quality of the writing by O’Brien and the exposition of an important era of history, both the major lenghthy war and the age of scientific discovery. I think this is the only time I have disagreed with editor @MichaelMaggs:, yet I do respect the points he makes and want to respect the changes he feels will improve the article. I think that some of the better reviews of specific novels might provide reliable sources to add to this article that focusses on characters rather than on each novel. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are no sources present in the article that covers the subject of recurring characters in the book series, and none have been presented in this AFD. Searches are also not yielding any significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The primary characters both have independent articles, and the main article on the series has a "Characters" section that can be expanded if sourced information is found, but there is nothing justifying a separate, largely unsourced collection of minor characters. Neither WP:ITSHELPFUL or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are valid arguments for keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma. When we focus on policy-based reasons, we just don't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I also don't really see evidence that sources could exist. I'm open to an WP:ATD if someone wants to build that case. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am sympathetic to the points Prairieplant makes above, and I would like to apologise to for being overly quick to dismiss this as merely a 'fan article'. I have changed my vote and have struck my initial comments. Although "being a useful article" is not in itself a valid argument to keep, per WP:ITSHELPFUL, it may encourage editors to put in that bit of extra effort to avoid losing valuable content. In order to overcome WP:ALLPLOT, we'll need external sources. I'm aware of the following, which I hope should be enough:

1. At least eight of the characters are based on real people: reliable sources include Tolstoy and King (biographies) and Brown (currently listed as a general source at the end of the article)
2. Around 12 characters appear in the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, and real world links can be added to the film, and to the respective actors
3. Many more appear in the various BBC radio adaptations of Master and Commander, The Mauritius Command, Desolation Island, HMS Surprise and The Fortune of War. Again, real world links can be added.
4. Almost all the characters have separate entries in Brown; these generally summarise the characters' actions throughout the series, but without additional critical analysis. The presence of these recurring characters in this scholarly companion volume (which is by no means an in-universe catalogue) should be enough to pass WP:LISTN. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that in this type of list, not all entries need third party sources, and it's fine for them to be sourced to the primary work itself. Compare List of Dilbert characters which in spite of citing no external sources whatsoever is specifically noted in the guideline WP:CSC as being a valid example of a stand-alone list.

I will commit to adding the sources I've mentoned if others feel that would be a worthwhile thing to do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even after three weeks of AfD, the article cites no third-party sources and contains not a word that is not plot summary. WP:NOTPLOT mandates deletion. Sandstein 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein, you didn't address the suggestions I made in my comment directly above yours. I’m willing to add the specific sources I listed, but I’d appreciate an indication as to whether they have potential to help. I’d prefer not to invest several hours compiling and formatting them only to find, after the fact, that editors always felt that such sources could never, even in principle, save the article. I’d welcome your thoughts. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That the characters appear in adaptations (which are primary sources and not independent) does not make them (as fictional characters) notable. Nor does the fact that some are also historical figures. In that case, it is the historical figures themselves who are (often) notable, not their literary portrayals. For those, we would need multiple independent reliable sources covering this particular set of fictional(ized) characters. So far we have only "The Patrick O'Brian Muster Book" by one Mr. Brown, which I don't know whether it is independent from the author or editor of the books it covers, and which at any rate is only one source. Which means that I'm not convinced of the article topic's notability. Even if the topic were notable, the current content is all plot summary and must therefore be deleted. Sandstein 18:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not rely grasp this reliance on NotPlot as an objection. Yes, I read the text to which it links. @Sandstein:, will you be happy only if we find masters and PhD theses about these characters in this series of novels? The Muster book by Brown mentioned above is independent of the author of the novels, by the way. If @MichaelMaggs: is willing to put in the effort to enrich commentary in a form to fit this article, I say encourage him. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC) my[reply]

  No plot is simple: plot summaries are not sufficient to merit encyclopedia entries. We need to go beyond. And no, adding a list of appearances in media is not enough, that's catalogue stuff. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Besides for the fact that this is probably not the primary topic of the word emunah, it doesn't look like there are any sources which meet the notability criteria. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Judaism. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article should be a disambiguation page for the topic. The magazine should move to a section of a separate article on Emunah, including the organization Emunah of America (founded 1948), and maybe the worldwide Emunah (founded 1925)[31]. Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jahaza a disambiguation page links to already existent notable articles, are you saying the magazine article should be kept and moved to a new name? And the primary topic I meant was Jewish principles of faith, which Emuna redirects to. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm saying that the article should be moved to Emunah (organization) with a hatnote. Probably Faith#Judaism is a better redirect target than Jewish principles of faith since the former is more about the quality or virtue of faith per se and the later more about creedal beliefs. Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 24 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 15:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant a WP article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as the parent organization that publishes the magazine, which seems to get most of the coverage. Has some sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what is this organization's relationship with Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America? I've heard of Hadassah, but not Emunah. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that Hadassah is a feminist zionist organization with members across the denominational spectrum, but leaning more reform/conservative. Emunah on the other hand is affiliated explicitly with religious Zionism and therefore is more aligned with the Orthodox community in the U.S. Jahaza (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article was previously moved to draft space due to concerns about notability and insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. I reviewed the draft and declined it for lacking significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). However, the creator has since moved it back to mainspace without addressing the sourcing concerns. While the subject has received an award, I believe it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability without substantial independent coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD so that other editors can review the article and share their opinions on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Afstromen (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – Nisar Rahmath received the Kerala State Film Award for Best Costume Designer, an official and notable recognition by a government cultural body. The article is supported by coverage in reliable and independent sources, including a feature profile in Deccan Chronicle and an interview in Manorama Online, both of which discuss his background, career, and achievements in detail. Shakheeb (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shakheeb, I've removed what appears to have been an accidental duplicate !Vote of yours. Just making a note of it here for clarity sake. Netherzone (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 16 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 15:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SCHOOLCRUFT There is no indication as to why this school choir qualifies as notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal College, Colombo. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal College, Colombo article. QEnigma (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed to keep from merge. New content and sources/references added ([32], [33]) QEnigma (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objection in principle to the merger suggestion but the article unsourced and I'm not sure it's appropriate to add this unsourced content to Royal College, Colombo which already contains vast chunks of unsourced content added over many years by an editor suffering from acute WP:SCHOOLCRUFT.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Obi2canibe: I have removed unsourced content, performed a copy edit and added new information supported by sources/references that directly address the inception and history of the society. I trust these improvements are sufficient to justify retaining the article as a standalone entry. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. The DFT and Sunday Times sources certainly provide significant coverage but I'm not sure there's enough content to justify a separate article. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't this be better as a disambiguation page? There are multiple different royal colleges and choirs. Like RMC London, [34], Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 16 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 15:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST, is contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There are lists for most nations; I'm not seeing how this one is necessarily different from the rest. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd point to WP:OTHER if anyone has similar thoughts. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you wish to propose this as a test case for deleting the lot (which I wouldn't oppose), but otherwise I think an explanation how this one is going to be worse than the others is in order. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deleting this article would have to set a precedent for other "List of hospitals in (country)" articles, the bulk of which likely have very wide differences in their sourcing and structure. Compare Kenya and Japan in this instance. I don't think deleting the article is the best solution, so if I was voting, I would say keep the article. But I think there would need to be a larger discussion surrounding these lists to determine whether a bulk deletion is needed if the request passes. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of these should probably be deleted. There are worse sourced ones like List of hospitals in Ivory Coast. Most of these could be handled by categories. Metallurgist (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates. killer bee  15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a merge seems, strange, how would that work? And do note that all hospitals that are on that list which have an article will still exist in Category:Hospitals in the United Arab Emirates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging should work because some of these hospitals are notable and have their own articles. Mentioning them on Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates would be fine. killer bee  17:08, 22 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 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable website. The lead lists the definition of a term like a disambiguation page but then all headings list possible meanings. Is this meant to be a page about elgoog.im or Google mirrors? Delete for lack of notability (the added template suggests that the page is about elgoog.im). thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's definitely history for this Google mirror. I know that's an argument to avoid but for something more than 20 years ago with 2 previous AfDs, let's see if any substance holds for today. I don't agree with the weird disambiguation because it's explaining the same website. For instance, a random look into the past edits shows that: Special:Permalink/199047655. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is very little information to expand upon compared to the average Wikipedia article. Other sites with similar names were probably added over time and appear to be different sites from the original. Vacosea (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe this website's usage for bypassing Internet censorship in China makes it noteworthy.

2001:8003:1C02:E900:64EC:6E8C:5887:A475 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficient coverage and notability for a standalone article though? Vacosea (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. 2001:8003:1C02:E900:2D39:9F43:F796:1073 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: what sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is a not non notable website? The ElgooG is a notable website that's have a easter egg by Google or not. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sources independent of the subject. Not notable Tito Omburo (talk) 00:59, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the spirit of WP:NMEDIA, this group is widely cited in Swiss media on the issue of queer asylum seekers [35][36][37]. My newspaper database has 169 results for "Queeramnesty"; on account of the unique name none should be false positives. I haven't looked through all of them yet, but most are quotes from the organization alongside a short description of what they do. Will try to prepare WP:THREE. Toadspike [Talk] 14:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: I can't find any sigcov about this organization despite the many times it has been quoted or cited in reliable sources. If we had an article on Amnesty International Switzerland, I would suggest a merge there, but we do not. So I'm sticking with a "keep" for now but recognize that reasonable people may disagree with my argument. Toadspike [Talk] 15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The parent organization (Amnesty International Switzerland) should be notable, a quick web search turned up [38][39][40]. If someone can spin up a short stub, I'd support a merge. Toadspike [Talk] 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The connection between them may be the human conscious, but the independence from each other is distinct in nature. Inclusive or emphasis on the differences, both have their pros and cons. Quinhonk (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Quinhonk I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. However, if you'd like to turn this redirect into an article in the next few days, then we can merge this content there. Toadspike [Talk] 15:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree! How Amnesty International got associated with the LGBTQIA+ movements was also what I had been pondering about when I got to know QueerAmnesty. It's like the history of the queer movement is entangled with the Second Wave Feminism, and the latter to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Quinhonk (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This source is quite good: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/act790012004en.pdf

  It started at the beginning of anti-dehumanizing LGBTQIA+ people. It is also associated with the issue of infrahumanization. Quinhonk (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. As discussed above, the movement is a significant revelation and step taken by Amnesty International, and it ought to be put into the historic context, unless and until the main article is too long to be kept both informative and brief, then we can add the distinct section that is not about national section or not.

--Quinhonk (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if merge, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As the nominator, it seems that there is consensus to redirect to some other article. There is not consensus as to which article (one that exists, and one that does not). Please assess accordingly. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gusti Irwan Wibowo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN, At first glance it looks like a news site, it is not formulated as an article. Lobogamio (talk) 23:51, 15 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lobogamio did you create an account just to tag this? @Liz: this seems odd? Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --pro-anti-air (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. The mere act of releasing an album is not a guarantee of notability, and I see nothing otherwise that would do so. As written, the article fails all 12 of the NMUSICIAN criteria. As far as GNG, of the three sources that are there, the first is a blogspot link, which fails RS. The second source only established year of birth and where he went to school, neither of which establish notability. The third source appears to be some sort of celebrity digital media site, and whether it's reliable is probably up for debate. The fact that this article is getting filled with sources that aren't establishing anything other than basic data, and was started by an editor who otherwise does nothing but make large numbers of small formatting edits (like removing middle initials from wikilinks), and has a number of edits that are causing the user to get talkpage notices tells me there's a potential WP:CIR issue here. 146.115.58.160 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I don't doubt the primary claims about sourcing, I don't think your claims about the editor who created are necessarily accurate or relveant.

  For example the claim about "otherwise does nothing but make large numbers of small formatting edits" seems not only an unnecessary attack, as AfD should be considering primarily the article. But it also appears inaccurate, as they are informed (on their talk page) that an article they have created is "in the news", which means I am unsure as to why you have decided this may be a WP:CIR issue (as the comments on their talk page suggest some level of comptency in creating articles). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to get pedantic, the "in the news" was for an article the user updated (not created), and that update consisted solely of changing the infobox template used (for some unknown reason) and adding a reference to a Fox News article for date of death, which was subsequently removed by another editor. The user neither created nor substantially contributed to that article, and the rest of the talk page is full of warnings about infobox editing, contentious topics editing, lack of RS, etc. I would also note the user generally has no edits over 200 bytes in length (most of which are mobile edits), and when the user created Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, the actual listbox in the article says "space policy" (which I fixed). So I would say that yes, it's relevant because the user has problems with basic editing and proofing. 146.115.58.160 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh? I created the article, I have over 1,200 page creations to my name, are you getting me mixed up with one of the other editors? I have never made random edits like the ones you are claiming? ....also I did not create Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, I have been able to find some sources with English translations (of dubious quality but at least the gist can be understood) that provide some sort of analysis of his work (such as this one), although not being particularly involved in music specific articles and policy I am unsure if this would simply count as routine coverage or might impart at least some notability. The same news agency discusses what was intended to be his attendance to a festival and collaboration with other artists here, although this one I'm far doubtful of meaningfully contributing. As such, having excluded use of obituaries, I think that someone more dedicated (and who can read Indonesian) may be able to find further sourcing for notability, and thus draftification such that more work can be done may be suitable although I can also understand the reasons for deletion and hold no fundemental opposition to it.. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the new information added by @Thedisponible. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article as it currently stands is considerably different to when this was tagged, User:Thedisponible has improved the article. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess changes later in the AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Many of the sources cited are WP:PRIMARY and the ones that seem halfway decent (such as CNN Indonesia and the IDN Times) are WP:ROUTINE. There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are now enough reliable sources showing significant coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barthold Rudolf Hast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources are not reliable and with required depth of the biography coverage; not notable. Maladano (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Maladano (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first and third sources appear to be biographical dictionaries of some kind. I can't find a way to access them, but assuming he legitimately has entries in those that's probably enough to establish notability. There are also plenty of hits on Google Books - I'm relying on machine translation and can only access snippets, but these books and others appear to contain SIGCOV or potential SIGCOV: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Someone who speaks the language would have a much easier time properly searching for sources, but there's enough there that I think he's quite easily notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is included in the National Biography of Finland under the name Rudolf Hast: [49]. Biografisk lexikon för Finland includes a Swedish translation of the same article: [50]. There's also a short entry in Uppslagsverket Finland: [51] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The existing and newly found sources (as noted above by MCE89 and Jähmefyysikko) give solid, non-trivial coverage of Hast’s work and historical role. Being the first Finn to earn a Doctor of Medicine in Sweden and a pioneer of smallpox vaccination in Finland clearly passes GNG. I’ll also add those additional references to make this even stronger.Uni44hossiq (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strongly disagree with the source assessment. I don't understand what's wrong with the listed sources at the time, and would like the nominator to explain their reasoning. /Julle (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The National Biography of Finland is enough for ANYBIO 3, also appears to pass GNG through sources listed above. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion and assuming the foreign language sources are correctly translated. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable, failing WP GNG, not sourced with reliable third party links Maladano (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Maladano (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: All these sources I used, are reliable third party sources. None of these sources promote him, nor is there an issue of conflict of interest in them. (The German-language sources can be translated via Google Translate.) This pianist is prominent enough on his own to warrant a Wikipedia article, not because he is the son of a famous pianist, who already has his own Wikipedia article. That is why, I created this article. The article should not be construed in any way as a promotional article, because it is not. It is a biographical article and I made sure that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Oratas (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not true that all of the sources in the article are third party sources, but this review of a performance and the paragraph he gets in this entry about his family are, and together they just about satisfy WP:GNG. There's also other coverage of his work, including this review in American Record Guide (which describes one of his early releases as "without a doubt one of the worst Schumann recordings I have heard in a long time"), this piece in The Washington Post, and these additional reviews [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. I think there's enough to pass WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we've seen that in science fiction, in off-Broadway, and in classical music, that sometimes scathing criticism is the best evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second nomination, but it's been 10 years and the previous one was no consensus on the erroneous assertion that founding companies makes a subject inherently notable. Related nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Steelberg but I'm writing this one separately because it is a second nomination, even though the articles are substantially identical.

No evidence of notability. Search through Proquest, Google News, and other internet searches yield no apparent coverage other than in connection with his job. While frequently quoted in interviews, there is little to no notability-establishing 3rd party coverage in reliable sources treating him personally. Award lists do not contribute to notability. Relevant information here is already included in articles about the companies he's founded, and founding companies does not confer personal notability in and of itself (not in WP:BIO). The article is congratulatory in tone and it has not been possible to improve it using WP:RS since 2015 due to a lack of relevant sources. The NYTimes article referenced in the article treats the company Brand Affinity and not Chad [57]. FalconK (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and California. FalconK (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability is not inheritable downwards; even if his companies are notable, as stated in the previous AfD, that does not mean he is. Coeusin (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable and significant coverage to show that this streamer is notable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The page has a history of people removing the redirect to FaZe Clan. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FaZe Clan. Does not meet WP:BIO; the Times of India article is authored by "TOI Sports Desk" which does not meet RS criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough secondary coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Richold Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

{{{text}}} Rhinocrat (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC) This page doesn't seem to meet WP:N, relies on a single source, a booklet. Other refs seem to be news sources. All refs don't have page numbers and are all unlinked except two, one a biography second some kind of video. Checked sections, and they don't seem to be correctly written (someone more experienced can double check)[reply]

• Keep. I've added Newspapers.com clippings to the article for all of the sources that were available. Someone with access to the British Newspaper Archive should be able to verify the rest of the newspaper sources. There is plenty more about the collection on Newspapers.com as well, e.g. [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] plus about 100 more search hits. MCE89 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still overreliant on one source, so best case it gets stubified Rhinocrat (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure I really understand your concern. Is there something wrong with that source that makes you think it needs to be removed? Relying largely on one comprehensive source and then filling in details with news coverage is quite common and is generally fine. The booklet is not the perfect source, but it seems fine to me as a source for basic details. MCE89 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should be stubified anyway because while the collection itself may be notable, the booklet could be biased anyway, and I don't think it is significant independent coverage. Some of the history could be moved to a biography, and the rest should be truncuated to a summary (needing individual detail for each section seems a bit excessive detail e.g. "Made to a scale of 1:50. The model contained over 4,000 pieces and took over four years to make. It is made of sycamore with window bows of cotton wood." from the article is so much unneccessary detail. (Or maybe merge it into Richard Old since it's a stub) Rhinocrat (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually maybe merge it into Richard Old my stance is now merge into Richard Old Rhinocrat (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable per the sources presented by MCE89. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy ahh blud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and both of the 2 sources used in the article are questionable at best. Also largely duplicates Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, though I'm not sure if this phrase is widely used enough to warrant a redirect. ApexParagon (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC, all coverage found in WP:BEFORE was either WP:ROUTINE or from primary sources. I am also bundling the singer's albums, all of which have been unreferenced since creation more than 15 years ago:

Something to Say (Joey Pearson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Novel (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Authentic (Joey Pearson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Coeusin (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and California Coeusin (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable singer. No sourcing found outside of social media. Doesn't appear to have had a charted single, or any other MUSIC requirements to show notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - He had a couple of minor TV appearances as a budding child star in the early 2000s and got a record deal, but he never achieved any reliable media coverage of his singing career and I can find no pro reviews for any of his teenage albums. Then he faded back into normal life. The musician article and album articles have been sitting here with no references since that era and could have been deleted 17 years ago. Better late than never. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm less willing to assume that "sources must exist" for child stars. The current unreliable links include one to MySpace. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan van Emmerloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Gets the odd mention here and there in RS, but as far as I can tell there's nothing direct and in detail (WP:SIGCOV) to the point that we would be able to substantially base an article off independent, secondary sources. The closest thing I could find is an interview in Interface.nl (which has also been republished in a couple of other places apparently), but the independent parts of that are very minimal. Unfortunately unlikely we would be able to have an article on this person meeting sourcing requirements. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of the Valencian Country – Revolutionary Marxist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Either a duplicate of Communist Party of the Valencian Country or not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Spain. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the party of which it merged in real life. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

6 professional appearances before retiring in 2024. All sources on Japanese wikipedia are press release, apart from one that I couldn't open. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:51, 24 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) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Electoral Front (Marxist–Leninist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently Portuguese Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization is its alternate name and we already have an article for them Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Portuguese Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization, of which it's part. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Support to the Reconstruction of the Party (Marxist–Leninist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have fixed the link to the Portuguese article but that only has one cite whereas to show notability multiple cites are normally required Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Popular Democratic Union (Portugal), or Left Bloc (Portugal), of which they are constituent groups. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tertulia de Creadores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find sources that address the topic directly and exhaustively, either in English or in Spanish. The Spanish article on Wikipedia has the same issue; no indication of notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Spain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely opposed to the deletion. The article is relevant, these literary gatherings are a fundamental part of Spanish literature and —I would add— of universal literature in Spanish. A simple internet search yields numerous sources that discuss the topic. I would also like to point out that the user who initiated this AfD also opened a CdB on eswiki, similarly claiming that "the article didn't seem relevant and that they couldn't find references on the subject" — references which, quite clearly, do exist. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't say that I couldn't find references. I said that I couldn't find references that "address the topic directly and exhaustively". All I can find is passing mentions. JohnMizuki (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE - I found quite few sources on Google books under "Tertulia de Creadores" -wikipedia. Whether that's significant enough coverage is open to debate. Maybe I should join MoMA again to be able to read the book about them. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that tertulias are a Thing in the Anglophone World. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Eric Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Assistant professors are seldom notable under NPROF, and I see no evidence of NPROF notability here. The subject has one published book, but I did not find reviews of it. (If reviews could be found, then redirection to a stub on the book could be a sensible alternative to deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Missouri. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The page's creator, Approved2025, has been sockblocked as part of an undisclosed paid editing group here. G5 was not used as another user had made significant contributions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He seems to pass GNG. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not seem to pass GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Additionally the subject does not seem to meet any of the eight criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, nor any of the four criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed, not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and I couldn't find any reviews of his novel, so doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As an assistant professor, he's not tenured, and we normally don't consider that notable. Is there significant coverage of his other work? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All the refs in the article are unreliable (1-4 and 6-7 are wikis, 5 is a forum). A Google search shows up no reliable sources about the topic. This is probably a remnant from when Wikipedia was less strict about articles. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 10:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 10:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Came across this article more than a decade ago, when it contained a ton of BoC fandom forum narrative. Remove that, combined the four Old Tunes-related articles, and trimmed it down, but yeah I couldn't find anything better. These are tapes that became kind of legendary for their scarcity in the early days of the web, with lots of fakes, rumors they don't actually exist, etc. but if there were one or two decent web-based sources they're gone to link rot by now. It would be nice to retain the history, though, and the albums are still mentioned over at Boards of Canada discography, so Redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Holy Eucharist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to have any really independent sources, indicating a lack of notability.

• First source: "The Knights paid a modest amount for the writing and promotion of this article"
• Second source", journalist: "In addition to working with the Knights of the Holy Eucharist (knights.org)[...]"
• Third source is informing that the bishop (head of the diocese) is working with the Knight

and so on, a mixture of seemingly unreliable partisan sources (Catholic Online), non-independent sources (EWTN), contact information, ...

This seems to be a local organisation of just 12 people in 2016[63], not some large organization spread across the US or multiple countries. Fram (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Most of the Catholic media would of course have an association with the org discussed here, but I'd still consider them independent, as they have editorial control over what they publish. Otherwise, I didn't find anything (sourcing seems to be only in religious/Catholic media). Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But even within the Catholic media, which ones do you consider to have reliable, notable, independent coverage of this group? First three sources at least don't qualify, which ones do? Most seem to be from the diocese of Lincoln, which is the diocese working together with the Knights (see source 3). Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable (only 12 members are in the order), but with the caveat that Roman Catholic media is actually fairly reliable. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Many of them are, e.g the Lincoln diocese one is reliable, just not independent in this case: but I only called out Catholic Online which seems to be some fringe outlet (feel free to correct me) Fram (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2033 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A single event which may well happen in a different year eventually. WP:CRYSTAL Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Lists, and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Per WP:Crystal and WP:TOOSOON Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, lists with one entry are completely pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One event, likely TOOSOON for it to be listed anyway. The list wouldn't be helpful as it stands. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Notaoffensivename (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete case of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [64]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This biographical article of a South American TV executive was created as a promo piece in 2008, and has become more and more promotional since then. Before I cleaned it up yesterday, it looked like this.

The existing sources are press releases. I am unable to find anything secondary that talks about Jurgensen – he is name-dropped a couple of times, but most search hits on his name in Spanish media are press releases. In English, it's all press releases.

It's worth mentioning that the corresponding article at es.wiki has been deleted five times for lack of notability and/or for being pure promotion. bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Bolivia, and Peru. bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Job titles don't tell us much. As is, he worked at a variety of television stations. The most recent one was in 2011. Only three sources, and not much there. Not enough details - possible that his positions could be gratuitous. A search pulls up obits of a television employee by this name. — Maile (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TV executives and producers are run of the mill and thus not normally notable as creative people, absent significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-girl of Krupina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very few sources, very likely a hoax. Should be redirected to Feral child. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Feral child. The German version seems to have more reliability. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: historic possible myth, but with sufficient sourcing for notability. Worth having an article to explain that her status. Article sourcing can probably be improved from the German article. PamD 08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only review I found is this one by Comics Bulletin: [65]. It alone is not enough for WP:GNG.

Note: I don't think redirection per WP:AtD is appropriate in this case. Instead, Dinowars should be a disambiguation page: 1 link to the comic and the other to video game DinoCity (Japanese title Dinowars). Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Philippines, and Texas. Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge contents to Rod Espinosa#Bibliography, or Draftify as it is lacks SIGCOV, in my searches, most that turns up is more from Publishers or sellers of the Comic series by the Artist for now.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Boxing Federation Muaythai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails to meet the guidelines for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. The existing sources do not discuss the subject in depth or in length, and they do not meet the verification requirements. Currently, the available sources are either not independent or not reliable. If anyone can provide independent, reliable sources in the Thai language, please do so, and we will review them to determine if they meet the necessary criteria. At this time, we are unable to locate the required sources. Please note that sources from social media, organizations, institutions, foundations, private companies, or any other entities connected to the subject, as well as interview articles, are considered unreliable and/or not independent and cannot be used to satisfy the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 08:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 08:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current and also other available online sources clearly state the subject is not notable and covered (Sigcov, not trivial occasional or dependent coverage).Uni44hossiq (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This film lacks significant coverage in indepedent secondary sources. References are republished agency feeds (e.g., ANI/PTI) syndicated across multiple outlets without original reporting. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Articles by a reputable news agency such as PTI are valid references. I think the references, taken as a whole, add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Essentially self-promotional and resume-like. Amigao (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Military, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there’s a big chance that reliable BLP-sources do exist. I initially reviewed the page. --Cinder painter (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  This is not a promotional piece. I wrote the article as a software developer with a personal interest in the high-tech industry.

  Every piece of information in the article is supported by a reliable source.

  In my view, the article is well written, if any improvements are needed, I’d be happy to receive specific feedback.רעיתו (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sounds like a perfectly OK bio. Not promotional sounding. Decently sourced.Simxaraba (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. The article is promotional, and the sources are not reliable Cinder painter (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose deletion. Helina Daimary is notable. Covered in reliable sources like TOI, Northeast Today, and News Mill. Please improve article, not delete. Others may fix citations if needed. Thanks. Akash Boro (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. The article has potential but is not yet ready for the main space. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for relisting. I still believe that Helina Daimary meets the notability criteria based on coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. I would appreciate it if editors can help improve citations rather than delete the article. Let's preserve notable voices from underrepresented regions like Northeast India. Akash Boro (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cannot find any sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NOTABLOG Nixleovel (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Nixleovel (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Person fails notability guidelines and article has no sources. A search reveals no articles about him, reliable or not. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE Not notable as there are no RS about him Dualpendel (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland women's national under-16 basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Simply a results listing. Almost all the sources are primary from FIBA. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. However, sources must be worked on a bit.. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There is enough extensive coverage on the web. (online newspapers) All you have to do is some research. BiggySmoov (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While, as with all other titles in the Category:Women's national under-16 basketball teams category, this title was primarily based on primary/NOTSTATS sources, my own WP:BEFORE identified (and I have added) a number of independent sources which deal with the subject in at least some depth. Not a "slam dunk" (no pun intended) but outright deletion doesn't seem an appropriate (or consistent) outcome here. (At the very least there should perhaps be some discussion on AtDs. Including redirection to Basketball Ireland or similar.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Chin Hwee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Feels insufficient that this individual meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG. The majority of substantial edits to this article have been made by one-off WP:SPA accounts, which are likely to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets with a personal connection to the subject. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is significant enough per WP:GNG. The article does have significant citation issues and is not written with a neutral tone, but nothing that can't be fixed. Draftify is also a good option. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't object moving to draftspace. Aleain (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has all of the same issues as with Shifra Cheese (see here:https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shifra_cheese), which was created by the same editor. Truthnope (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Israeli cheeses. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE The Haaretz link is incorrect. I cannot verify any of the other references. Dualpendel (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not merge, unless we have any sources that are verifiable. We do not seem to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for the Unity of the Communists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article topic fails WP:ORG. Tried to find reliable, English- and Portuguese-language sources online but did not. The organisation existing only in 2005 means there may be print sources I do not have access to, but given this splinter group existed for less than a month, I doubt that is the case. Yue🌙 02:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Brazil. Yue🌙 02:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:ORG and has only one somewhat questionable source. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Communist Party of Brazil, not to be confused with the Brazilian Communist Party or the Brazilian Liberation Front. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of this article is only talked about in terms of her husband and her late son (who is primarily mentioned because of his dad). As notability is not inherited this subject does not have any sources of her own. In my before search I couldn't find anything else. I would be okay with a redirect to Aidonia Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Internet, and Jamaica. Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aidonia. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Adonia: no independent notability, but some of the content re son might be worth adding. PamD 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are many problems with the references. For one, no page numbers are given. I cannot find the books "Cheese from the Land of Milk and Honey: A Guide to Israeli Cheese". I also can't find "Food in Israel: A Mediterranean Journey." or "The Secret Life of Cheese: The Complete Guide to Cheese and Cheese-Making in Israel", although the authors exist (Mayer-Chissick appears to be an Israeli author and is listed by the National Library of Israel (https://www.nli.org.il/en/a-topic/987007462694605171) but this particular book is not mentioned). The source by Gur exists (and can be found here https://archive.org/details/bookofnewisraeli0000gurj/page/220/mode/2up?q=feta) and has a section on cheese but does not mention Israeli feta. The same is true for the source by Nathan (https://archive.org/details/foodsofisraeltod0000nath/page/242/mode/2up) which is cited for a claim about bourekas, ziva, and borek, but does not mention any of these dishes, at least from a quick search. As such, it appears difficult to verify any of these claims, unless somebody can provide page numbers. ISBNs would also help.

The creator of this article also created the article Shifra cheese, which shares many of the same issues and which I also nominated for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=starlink&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shifra_cheese). Truthnope (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Israeli cheeses. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Israeli cheeses per WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to the list of cheeses seems fine. The product exists [66], but most coverage I find is cookbooks using the product. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Israeli cheeses Mike_Delis (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Israeli cheeses, as the topic is too specific for a separate page. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in Decadence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an essay and the topic does not appear to be itself notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:N. However, can still be preserved. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't really see any point in draftifying this when it seems so unlikely that this will ever be notable or encyclopedic. If the creators request that it be draftified and commit to working on it further then sure I guess. But given that they wrote this for a WikiEd course that's now finished I somehow doubt that anyone is going to continue working on this. Draftifying it would just mean deletion via G13 in 6 months anyway. MCE89 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above discussion. It's as pure as an essay written here as I've ever seen. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All seven references are used simultaneously for every section. Verifiability for these claims is questionable. No page numbers are given for any of these books. The two links given are dead and cannot be recovered from the wayback machine.

Furthermore, the citations for the books seem off. For example, there is a Daniel Rogov who writes guides on Israeli wine, and there was a version published in 2005, but the title The Ultimate Guide to Israeli Wines isn't used (there is a The Ultimate Rogov's Guide to Israeli Wines from 2011) and they seem to be published by Toby Press, not Gefen Publishing House. There is also a book called "The New Middle Eastern Vegetarian: Modern Recipes from Veggiestan", but the author is listed as Sally Butcher, not Gil Atlas. I cannot find the Schreiber or Lewin books anywhere. Only the Solomonov and Cook reference has no apparent flaw. If anybody can find a few of these sources (perhaps they're in Hebrew), I'll withdraw this nomination, but as is, the article appears to be built on almost nothing. Truthnope (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Israeli cheeses. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualpendel (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not merge, unless we have any sources that are verifiable. We do not seem to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Potentially UPE. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As stated above, lack of significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The group looks likely to meet WP:MUSIC with coverage from, e.g., The Guardian ([67]), NME ([68]), The Line of Best Fit ([69]), and Drowned in Sound ([70]). I doubt this exhausts their 2008-era coverage (going to paper probably necessary for much more). Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. No awards, charting, certified gold. The band hasn't posted on Myspace or Facebook in the last 7 years. Their website is down. I only found a couple of Youtube videos from 11 and 13 years ago. I also found a few more sources but from many years ago. Most likely they have disbanded. Either way notability is not met. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Aside from the SIGCOV identified by Chubbles, I found: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. We indeed don't know whether they didbanded or not, but there are enough coverage of their work to keep the article. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 03:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also found some of those sources. The 3 articles in the town newspaper (The Bolton News) and the NME blog doesn't seem important enough to me. The BBC News articles are also local. About Chubbles' sources, two are online music magazines which are difficult to asses as reliable. The Guardian and the NME article are the only sources I would consider useful, and perhaps the BBC ones.— Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of reliable sources coverage such as The Guardian, BBC, NME. Also coverage in Drowned in Sound and The Line of Best Fit which have already been assessed as reliable as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know those two sources were reliable. Thank you for pointing that out.

• Keep: I've changed my vote accordingly. The Guardian, Drowned in Sound and The Line of Best Fit are RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Municipal Incinerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an ordinary municipal incinerator. Sources are all run-of-the-mill local coverage or do not discuss this specific incinerator; I can't find any significant coverage outside the local paper. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. I'm sad for the people who got thymus cancer from exposure to the chemicals produced by such plants, but they were common in many smaller cities. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

8 professional league appearances. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:17, 24 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) 00:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – All references provided on Japanese Wikipedia are press release. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 06:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Origin NS-33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason Mike_Delis (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC) I nominated this article for deletion for lacking notability. Since when is a joyride of a few billionaires a notable event? They will not produce anything of scientific value. Also this flight is not covered by any reputable sources other than a few niche spaceflight websites. Are we going to create an article for every rich guys private trip to space now?[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only 5 Days away, and if it does get coverage, the article will be needed. If it does not, just nominate for deletion again. Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the guy who nominated Blue Origin NS-31 for deletion. It got closed as keep, and I personally think this will be closed as keep. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:8D1E:F656:36D7:5482 (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every manned suborbital flight by Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic had a page, there is always someone who has never seen a manned suborbital launch and wants to remove the page.. @Mikedelis Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to delete articles just because you dislike their subjects. Narnianknight (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as routine. Nothing new to see here that can't very easily be added to a larger article. Departure– (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a quick note on other replies. I do see how the nom could be seen as simply a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument but ultimately the underlying message of being routine is valid. Of the replies I see here, the first keep doesn't address the fact this article was created WP:TOOSOON and isn't needed as of now - and that it may not be needed in general. None of the other ones here present an argument besides WP:WAX and discrediting the nom. Nothing presented in this page so far appears to dispute the fact that this appears to be a routine event that the details of which could easily be merged into another page. Departure– (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It could be improved

AlienBlox the Great

17:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Routine spaceflight, nothing special about it, see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Same reason I nominated Blue Origin NS-31, but turns out every flight from 16-33 is notable. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:996C:3432:D292:1398 (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]