Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Zambia men's national under-16 basketball team

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

Fails WP:NTEAM. No third party coverage.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can you please stop nominating articles for deletion before doing research? There is enough coverage on the web. (online newspapers) All you have to do is research.BiggySmoov (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the women's team? LibStar (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop creating articles with no third party sources in the article? LibStar (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 10

AfDs for this article:

(Note that 28 was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episode 28, and 16 was previously soft deleted and recreated per WP:Articles for deletion/Episode 16)

These disambiguation pages are inherently unworkable. We cannot possibly maintain a listing of every television show covered on Wikipedia with a 10th, 11th, 12th ... or 29th episode as there are, by my unscientific count between 3,080 (for 10) and 1,277 (for 29) of them, which is far too large for a practical disambiguation page. It would probably still be too large even if you were to attempt to limit it to those series whose episodes don't have names. That leaves what is and isn't included here inherently arbitrary, and for each of these numbers there is at most one article titled "Episode XX (SERIESNAME)", which can't support a disambiguation page by itself; for episodes 1 through 9 there are at least two topics that aren't arbitrarily-chosen TV episodes to support a dab, albeit only barely in the case of 9.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(the ones with articles are Episode 10 (Tá no Ar), Episode 13 (Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu), Episode 14 (Twin Peaks), Episode 16 (Twin Peaks)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per comment above. I get confused just trying to make sense of it as a whole. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there is quite a few pages for episodes like these: Episode 14 (Twin Peaks), Episode 16 (Twin Peaks), Episode 29 (Twin Peaks), Episode 210, Episode 400, Episode 523, Episode 847, Episode 1094, Episode 1068, Episode 1101, Episode 2351, Episode 4429, Episode 4466, Episode 5276, Episode 5408, Episode 5569, Episode 5675, Episode 5820, Episode 5949, Episode 6188, Episode 6465, Episode 6550, Episode 6646, Episode 6867, Episode 6994, Episode 7037/7038, Episode 7202, Episode 7921, Episode 8000, Episode 8052, Episode 8055, Episode 8851, Episode 8904, Episode 11,145. Sahaib (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per Pppery, and, ironically, Sahaib. Just because something was created doesn't mean it should remain. Clearly, the articles/dabs should have been named "show title (episode N), per basic naming conventions. As is, they are completely unworkable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The are navigation pages disambiguating between articles and redirects. Delete the redirects first (or in conjunction with this), but if the ambiguous redirects exist, this navigation page needs to disambiguate them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support nom; little encyclopedic value and possibly boundless inclusion criteria WeWake (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Croatia

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

Just like the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surnames in Ukraine (2nd nomination), this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first reason cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surnames in Ukraine (2nd nomination) was "fully unsourced". The main source used in this article features absolutely every name listed, together with its population. That list is already cut off at a minimum population of 10 (passing WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and the population data can be used to adjust the cutoff if someone objects to the number included. None of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY criteria are violated by the article. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 01:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it among others violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY#1. Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Simple lists (such as a list of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" are prohibited. How many phone numbers have a dedicated article on Wikipedia? How many surnames? And, using the established criterion of 2 people with their own article per surname, how many surname pages could be created? Extrapolating from the first 10, it would be 60%, or the majority of surnames. Unless you find something concretely against the rules, I would prefer a discussion on trimming criteria over a deletion proposal. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A titanic list of Slavic surnames, mostly redlinks, possessed by a minimum of a whopping 10 Croatians serves no useful purpose. A random sampling of bluelinked entries shows they are mostly devoid of Croatians. For example, Adilović lists an Austrian and two people from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Andonov mostly Bulgarians and no Croatians. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would your cutoff population be? The article can always be trimmed. You started with A, which is rare for ethnic Croats. Ethnicity is not within the scope of the article, as it is not a "List of Croatian surnames" but a "List of surnames in Croatia". It would be inappropriate to assign a surname an ethnicity, as so many surnames span multiple ethnicities, and for many surnames there is no comprehensive list. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 11:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't List of common surnames in Croatia, created by the same editor nearly an hour before this one, be included here as well? Seems like a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Fram (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Also why, why, why stop at 498 entries rather than 500??? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated to include 500 entries. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not also include List of common Japanese surnames, List of Georgian surnames, Lists of most common surnames in North American countries, Lists of most common surnames in Oceanian countries, Lists of most common surnames in South American countries, List of the most common surnames in Germany, List of the most popular surnames of Kazakhs of Kazakhstan, List of Korean surnames, then? Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think List of common surnames in Croatia is interesting and the articles linked above that also provide context about popularity should be kept, but a huge context-free list like this is indiscriminate and should be avoided. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a 1 quote from the president of CASLI. Fails WP:ORG for lack of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Translators' Association of Canada

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

Declined prod. 1 added source is just its own website. The other source is rather routine coverage of awarding a prize. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The association is discussed in-depth in Writing Between the Lines: Portraits of Canadian Anglophone Translators (2006), and receives regular coverage in CBC News, Quill & Quire, and other national publications for the award it confers. The organization has been around for roughly 50 years and more coverage surely exists in the depths of Newspapers.com. If nothing else, this could simply be merged and redirected to Canadian literature as an alternative to deletion. MediaKyle (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Kubo

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

Previously deleted via PROD. 3 professional appearances. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:07, 25 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) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk)
Delete per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Energistics

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

There's not not much of anything out there on this organization. The article has been pretty thoroughly gutted since it's peak as a blatant ad. But there's little to nothing to replace the ad with unless we want to go back to just providing a summary of their website. GMG ^talk 20:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Valentino

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

Not meeting the notability. WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. - The9Man ^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, when the lead sentence mentions her talent agency... This [1] is about all I can find. Coverage now in the article is primary, or databases. I don't see that any musical notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not support the notability of this "up and coming" actress; an online source does not provide the kind of significant coverage to establish notability. Seems like WP:PROMO. Fails [[WP:NACTOR] and WP:NMUSICIAN. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Cantrell

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

I look upon this as a obvious failure of WP:SPORTCRIT, being that he only played competitive soccer in the fifth tier in Sweden and third tier in Finland. One can discuss whether The Daily Pennsylvanian contributes to GNG, but in my opinion, the article fails GNG overall. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edible Brooklyn

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

Magazine isn't notable. It's a local franchise of a media company Eric Schucht (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 4 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!} 08:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources used in the article demonstrate notability. Thriley (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: such as?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Destinyokhiria 💬

18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The sources only have passing mentions of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvinnen (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 18:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari (Poonchi)

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

Disputed drafification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know if I'm seeing enough here for an article. ~~The lone external link, presumably added to be a citation, does not contain the word "Pahari" at all after a~~ Ctrl+F. Problems with my in-browser PDF reader, thanks to IP for making me re-check. Yes, there are two instances of the word in the document.^[1] I also doubt the reliability of the publication Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society itself. If there is a citation that could back up something said in the article, it could be merged to Pahari language or Poonch District, India (depending on what can be said and sourced) but I'm not sure I'm seeing that right now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken in part and updated. Yes, it looks like the best merge/redirect target would be Pahari-Pothwari#Kashmir, Murree and the Galyat where it is already bolded. I'm not seeing much to merge that isn't already covered by the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poonchi Pahari is a dialect of Pahari, falling under the Western Pahari group. It is closely related to other dialects such as Chibhali Pahari, Mirpuri Pahari, and Kotli Pahari. It is only a dialect and does not require a separate article or classification as a distinct language. Only a few words are pronounced differently, but they are easily understood by speakers of Chibhali or Mirpuri Pahari or any Pahari. Mutual intelligibility is high across these dialects. HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HistoryofKashmir (talk), I am no expert in the History of Kashmir but did a bit of research and spoke to some scholars. Both Poonchi and Pothwari are closely related dialects, if not languages, but definitely are not identical or exactly the same. Pothwari is spoken in Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Mirpur, and surrounding areas in Pakistan, and by many in the UK, the Mirpuri immigrants.

Poonchi is spoken mainly in Poonch, Rajouri districts of Jammu and Kashmir (India) and only in parts of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan), what we call PoK in India.

Though similar linguistically, in a narrow sense there are vast variations in pronunciation, vocabulary and usage - basically influenced by the culture and histories on either side of the Line of Control and that makes it a major difference! My personal feeling... Davidindia (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entirety of what the link says is:
In the southern areas of Poonch and Rajouri, the primary language is Poonchi, also known as Pahari or Potohari. This language is part of the Lahnda/Punjabi family within the broader Indo-Aryan languages
I'm no expert with this stuff (and can't judge the reliability of the source either), but is this just the same thing as Pahari-Pothwari? There's certainly nothing in the source to justify a separate article at the very least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 35.139.154.158 (talk) I am also no expert, but I guess one is an Indo iranian language and the other, Indo Aryan. Related but not the same. Davidindia (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added info and refs. Please see if it helps -notability. I feel it is an imp. article that can be developed as sources exist. I found thru unreferenced drive. thanks and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 June 2025

References

^ Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidindia, If I'm reading correctly the "History" section you've added, would it be fair to say that the first paragraph with bullets points and the second paragraph (as of today) are general history not specific to "Pahari (Poonchi)" but rather the section on Pahari-Pothwari? If so, (but I'm happy to be corrected) I think merge would still be the best option. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn Yes, I think three articles on the same dialects may not augur well. But i did not get any consensus among my scholar friends in a language school. Please see my reply above. Basically they are different dialects spoken on either side of the Line of Control. I came across in random search during unref drive: #June25 I guess we should merge. thanks! Davidindia (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A complete overhaul of the page has been made alongside several sources that establish notability and verifiability and have an encyclopedic tone. Sazzrel (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doubling (psychodrama)

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

Seems to be the ideas of one academic (whose article, incidentally, was just deleted. No other significant coverage of this topic provided apart from Gessmann's papers. Further reading is in the field, rather than about this topic specifically. Jdcooper (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep‎. Rationales written by an LLM are unacceptable, the nominator advanced no arguments of their own as to why this should be deleted, and the previous nominations show this will have the same result of a keep. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 19:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst

AfDs for this article:

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

I am requesting a serious re-evaluation of "List of music considered the worst", as the article continues to raise fundamental concerns that have not been properly addressed in the multiple prior AfDs. While editors have repeatedly pointed to the presence of reliable sources, that argument has continually overlooked the key issue: the article violates core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NOR (No Original Research), WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View).

Key policy concerns

Synthesis and Original Research (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR)

The article compiles negative opinions from individual reliable sources and presents them as if they form a cohesive, broadly agreed-upon classification of certain songs or albums as “the worst.” However, no source makes this comprehensive claim. The list is a synthesis of disparate critical takes, which produces a conclusion not explicitly made by any cited source. This is a textbook case of original research, violating Wikipedia's core content policy.

Minimal, Subjective Sourcing (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE)

While the sources used are mostly reliable, many entries rely on only one or two subjective reviews, often rooted in personal taste or cultural context. This minimal sourcing does not support the wide-reaching claim implied by inclusion in a list of "the worst." Moreover, music criticism is inherently subjective and genre-sensitive. What may be negatively received in one context can be valued in another. The article gives undue weight to isolated critiques while ignoring broader audience reception, fanbases, or historical re-evaluations.

Lack of Defined Inclusion Criteria (WP:LISTN, WP:V)

The list does not adhere to any clearly defined or consistently applied criteria for what qualifies a work as one of "the worst." Some entries are based on critical reception, others on commercial failure or online memes. This arbitrary inclusion makes the list editorially driven rather than encyclopedic. Without explicit inclusion standards and consistent application, the article fails the basic standard expected of a list on Wikipedia.

Non-Neutral Framing and Presentation (WP:TONE, WP:TITLE)

The framing of the article, both in its title and its narrative lacks neutrality. Declaring works as “the worst” carries an implicit judgment that Wikipedia should not make. Even if retitled to something like “Music that received negative critical reception,” the article would still need to demonstrate balanced coverage and contextual depth, which it currently lacks.

Comparisons to Other Topics

I know that Wikipedia has many articles similar to this article. But there are differences. For the automobile review article, criticism is often based on scientific analysis or objective technical flaws, things like malfunctioning safety systems, poorly designed components, or subpar material quality. These criticisms are grounded in measurable performance, not just opinion. In the case of movies or video games, there are still clear points of evaluation, such as:

The budget versus revenue (a tangible indicator of reception and risk).
The professionalism or effectiveness of actors, developers, or artists in portraying characters or delivering a functional product.
The quality of visual effects, audio design, or storytelling, which while somewhat subjective are still discussed with technical and industry standards in mind.

But for music, what comparable objective criteria exist? Budget? Revenue? Lyrics? Even production quality is highly genre-specific. A lo-fi indie song and a hyper-polished pop single can both be artistically valid in different ways. Because millions of songs are released each year across wildly different styles and cultures, trying to categorize a handful of them as “the worst” without strong, consistent, and measurable standards turns the article into little more than a curated burn list based on taste, not fact.

Conclusion

This article has now gone through six AfDs, but none have adequately addressed these foundational policy issues. Repeated survival at AfD does not override persistent violations of Wikipedia's core content guidelines. The presence of a few reliable sources does not justify a synthesized, judgmental, and inconsistently sourced list. I respectfully urge deletion or, at minimum, a formal consensus to require a full rewrite in strict adherence to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LISTN standards. GogoLion (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. After 6 previous nominations, having the 7th nomination text generated by AI/LLM is not a good start. In fact, it's such a bad start that I file a motion to speedy keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has survived six separate AFDs now, as have similar articles related to film, video games, etc. There's a clear consensus and precedent for these articles existing. This nomination, while lengthy, does not actually add anything new that hasn't been discussed before. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and the nominator has made zero effort or attempts at that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rohaan Bhattacharjee

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

It's fail to show notability. I didn't found any articles which increases notability of the actor. All are paid and are from independent sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting but I'll !vote in the hope that it's valid. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the notability requirements for actors through significant roles in Aparajita Apu and Bagha Jatin (2023 film). He also has the lead role in Bramhaarjun but the same nominator has taken that film to AfD (also badly formatted) so that its notability is not certain.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mazumdar

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

I can't find any information about his biography in any sources. All are about the series. Fail to pass notability. As should be delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 lead roles in notable series, see WP:NACTOR.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All are promotional Times of india promotional articles. Significa_liberdade. Those are not reliable source to establish notable as actor. Couldn't find any other sources. DivitNation (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting @Liz for assistance on formatting and sorting problem. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bramhaarjun

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

As I didn't found no major critic review even this movie is release. And no reliable sources. Fail to meet WP:NFP Or WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bengali films of 2025 but there's one review in Bengali, so maybe more and a potential Keep.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The review is looks paid and very low quality source. The others times of india sources are purely promotional as per wikipedia TOI is promotional for film. Need more sources to established notability. DivitNation (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borfi (film)

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

This article has no major critic review after its release. As it fail to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM— Preceding unsigned comment added by DivitNation (talk • contribs)

Note: this nomination badly needs formatting and sorting. Please fix it if this is a serious nomination and @DivitNation: PLEASE stop nominating pages for deletion until you know how to do it properly.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bengali films of 2023.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nekkonda

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

Article is little more than a basic definition of the term. No history or anything. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PDCurses

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

Does not seem notable enough for its own article, BEFORE searches turned up only primary sources, such as the official PDCurses website and their Github. Could not find any secondary reliable sources ApexParagon (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge into Curses (programming library). Looking through Google I can find some third-party references to PDcurses, but only on Reddit threads and a handful of blog posts. Does seem like notability could be established if we were able to find any remotely reliable source, but very unlikely to be worth a full article. guninvalid (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kendall (filmmaker)

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

I am unconvinced that either WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO are met. The only remotely in-depth coverage in reliable sources I can find is in relation to his 2012 film La Camioneta, but nothing about any projects since then. Consequently I suggest we redirect to La Camioneta. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:FILMMAKER #3 is met. --YCTEBK8108 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baballoq

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

Fails WP:GNG. The results of searches for "Battle of Baballoq" (alb.), "Battle of Bazaljica" (sr.), and various similar permutations including search terms "Kosovo" and "KLA" are negligible. Created by a blocked sockpuppet account. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 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) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesoberstufenrealgymnasium Dreierschützengasse

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

Unremarkable school notable for one event (Graz school shooting). Apart from the shooting, it exhibits ordinary characteristics shared by most schools. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shooting would make it notable enough for its own article Jdn2004 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what notable for one event instructs: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." Celjski Grad (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting is notable, the school not so much. The Banner talk 20:32, 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) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the school shooting, the school seems utterly plain outside of that event. Nothing I see shows notabiliy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 South African rugby league season

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

Another rugby league season that fails WP:GNG. The sources in this article mostly consist of Facebook and Twitter posts. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources are non-independent/social media so fail to demonstrate notability. Most of the results are missing – for the Rhino Cup these could be completed with information from the separate article for that competition, but that is also sourced entirely from the SARL website. EdwardUK (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mn1548 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 South African Rugby League season

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

Rugby league season that fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any coverage about it. Also, all of the sources in this article lead to error 404 pages. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are archive copies of the sources available on web.archive.org, but as they are all from the governing body of the competition they do not demonstrate notability. EdwardUK (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mn1548 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Rathee

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

Her brother Ankur Rathee is notable but Notability is not inherited. The references used in the article are typically WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, United States of America, and California. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fully agree with nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had multiple significant roles in notable productions, including lead roles in Tara vs Bilal,Broken But Beautiful and roles in the main cast of Kapkapiii, and Decoupled, thus clearly meeting the notability requirements for actresses, see WP:NACTRESS.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. She fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go4thProsper, I’ve noticed that you’re frequently participating in active AFDs and voting too quickly. For example, you’ve cast four votes in just three minutes and eight votes within 14 minutes. This seems suspicious because it takes longer to properly evaluate the articles.

Are you familiar with the guidelines for participating in Afds? I want to inform you that if you’re randomly voting on Afds without any evaluation, it’s best to stop.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I enjoy setting aside time to read the dialogue and the articles under discussion, generally people. Sometimes I also edit those articles to try to improve them. I don’t vote on all of them, but try to weigh in on those that are most egregious or sometimes easy keeps. Once I see a few on which I see value in weighing in, I do. That’s the whole point of the AfD community discussion, no? Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your vote, you just said, ”Delete: per nomination. She fails GNG.”

Can you elaborate how you came to the conclusion that she fails GNG? If you carefully check the article, there is enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass Wp:GNG and by evaluating her filmography, she easily passes wp:NACTOR.

Zuck28 (talk) 12:15, 25 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) 14:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Alfa-Ruprecht

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Could become notable in the future. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. That is not a valid rationale for deletion. What did your WP:BEFORE give? I found two articles, one from Sport1 (Germany), one from Manchester Evening News, which look like WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I personally feel these articles should be in draft space. This is the problem when you removed the NFooty policy. Govvy (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Govvy:, @RossEvans19:, @Robby.is.on:, Has sources like [2], [3], and [4] among many more English and German sources. Young player with ongoing career at one of England's biggest teams and is Germany youth international with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. Svartner (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Asian Men's Volleyball Championship

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

This event simply never happened and will never happen, someone mistaken this with 2025 AVC Men's Volleyball Nations Cup and created a page mistakenly. I tried redirecting this but some careless user(s) reverted my redirect. so I think deletion is a better answer to avoid misunderstanding. The next Asian Championship will be held in 2026. Sports2021 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Volleyball, and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like G6:Error. Gjs238 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty Valley Highway

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

The article doesn't demonstrate the notability of this local suburban road. Some discussion on the talk page indicates that the road name is unknown even to locals. It seems to be only used internally by the government.

Most of the road covered by this article is already covered by the Plenty Road article - I don't think this internal name is notable enough for a separate article. – numbermaniac 08:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Concurrence in toto with User:Numbermaniac. In addition, no good sources for information seems to be available about this particular section of road. Even a relatively in-depth search for more information returns only a narrow variety of sources which themselves simply use the Wikipedia article text verbatim, either in full or in part, with no additional informative sources. Foxtrot620 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim to notability for this otherwise ordinary road. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nomination and previous discussion. Nayyn (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Petre Luscalov

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources; I searched Google News and ProQuest. However, he contributed a screenplay to the 1981 film "Fiul munților", which is potentially notable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Romania. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He had an article on rowiki, but it was deleted in 2012 by CSD A1. Fiul munților (the book version) and Iubire interzisă (another book by him) are both in the Library of Congress, but the links on the page don't seem to work for me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in hammer throw

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 in 60 metres (2nd nomination) ended in a 5-0 delete, this deletion should be uncontroversial. Geschichte (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sport of athletics. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per failing WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS. Let'srun (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jin Nengchou

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

This article doesn't clearly establish the subject's notability. Most of the positions listed are regional and there’s only one reference, which doesn't fully back up all the claims. Without stronger sources or a clearer reason why this person is notable on a broader scale, this is not strong enough for an article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Idoghor Melody (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial number of sources have been incorporated into this article, and this particular one has garnered sufficient attention. The Chinese Wikipedia contains a relevant article as well. This politician previously served as the mayor of Fuzhou City, the provincial capital of Fujian. The GDP of Fuzhou City is presently 180 billion USD in 2023, comparable to the yearly GDP of half of Nigeria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s one type of a comparison. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Agree with User:TinaLees-Jones in toto. Additionally; Jin Nengchou was the mayor of Fuzhou. Fuzhou has a Prefecture-level city population of 8,291,268. This would be like saying the governor of Virginia isn't inherently notable— its population exceeds 43 U.S. States and Territories, and 93 U.N. member states. I would argue that any leader of a population that size in the past fifty years is inherently notable. Yes, the page needs significant improvement and expansion, no that does not justify its deletion. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TinaLees-Jones and Foxtrot620. Not just notable: Jin Nengchou's a big deal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kossi Akoto

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source is a database and I couldn't find anything better to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. Let'srun (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1996 Summer Olympics where the athlete's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not 1992? I would've suggested a redirect, but considering that the subject participated in multiple Olympics, that feels somewhat awkward here. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since there isn't a clear redirect target. Svartner (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and there isn't a clear redirect target. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And expand with the information at the French Wikipedia article. FWIW, it also looks like he still (or recently) competed in (and won) seniors events, running for ENA Angers Athlétisme. Kingsif (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The french article is also only sourced to primary sources. Just because there is more prose there doesn't mean there is the needed WP:SIGCOV with which to build an article. Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. The French article doesn't point to notability for me. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FK Vysoké Tatry – Starý Smokovec

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

Amateur football team which played a single season in the amateur third level of Slovak football, and other seasons even lower. All sources in the Czech version of the page are databases, no significant coverage uncovered during WP:BEFORE. C 679 12:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. C 679 12:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Premier League on television

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

No need for this to be a separate article from Indian Premier League. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Premier League#Broadcasting largely per WP:NOPAGE. This topic is adequately covered at the redirect target. Frank Anchor 12:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off, this was intended as a place to reinstate some history regarding the history of its broadcast rights that had been unilaterally removed by another editor without explanation, while allowing the main article to have more of a streamlined summary. In addition, this article is modeled after several similar articles in American sports, including NFL on American television and Major League Soccer on television, with the possibly of including more details about things like the production, notable personnel, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vestrian24Bio 01:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Premier League#Broadcasting which covers the topic suitably. We don't need a separate page with this level of detail into the broadcasting, the summary already in IPL article is sufficient. The keep vote seems like WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It meets all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Milicz (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially even I thought that this article should be redirected, but when I looked at similar such articles of NFL and NHL, I realised that when the league will grow in years, broadcasters will change and there will be too much information to keep on the main IPL article. So we can put it all here and only summarise there. Also we can include various broadcasting/viewership records and stats here.

So I support in keeping this article here, as said above by other users aswell. Editking100 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editking100: see WP:OSE, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Vestrian24Bio 03:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:OSE as per you said, and my vote may not have followed the counterargument clause there, but my sole objective was to give information on the context (relevant here) wrt to other leagues doing the same and nothing else so I mentioned them here as a base example. I will not repeat it again, thanks for noting it to me. Editking100 (talk)

Your argument when the league will grow in years, broadcasters will change and there will be too much information to keep on the main IPL article is WP:CRYSTAL-based speculation. When and if the league grows and there becomes too much information to keep on the main IPL article, adding a spin-off article can be considered. But certainly not now. Frank Anchor 14:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify yourself, there is currently 4x or 5x more information on broadcasting here in this article as compared to the main IPL wikipage (broadcasting section). So this was my reason above when I said, I am in support for Keep here, considering we already have more information to fill a spinoff article currently citing 48 sources, which isn't included in the main page. Editking100 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I usually try to avoid WP:OSE, but in this case, it's clear this article was modeled after similar ones in American sports such as the aforementioned NFL on American television and Major League Soccer on television. According to WP:NOPAGE, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. With the size of this article, I think the unwieldy argument applies in this case. In addition, the article is well-sourced, so it passes WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSIS

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

Notability. The article seems an advertise. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO (with the large number of screenshots)... I've done a search, there is nothing about this "portal" (I'm not sure what it is) to be found Brief mention here [5] in a list of similar software. Gsearch brings up primary sources, then social media... Nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Agreed with User:Oaktree b in toto. Not only is this blatantly WP:PROMO, it's badly written promo without any attempt to hide that it's promo. Also seems to fail WP:NOTE even excluding the promo issues. The only sources I can find are two in the first several pages of results that aren't themselves clearly promotional in nature, and neither of those are particularly high quality, or aid in notability. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. When I read this promo page aloud, I hear Charlie Brown's teacher speaking. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to violate WP:NOTPROMO. Above comments and an inspection of the article indicates multiple issues: no references, not correctly structured, written like an advert. Unfortunately this article has no reasons for being kept. 11WB (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:AfD comment|1= Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concerns and will work to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s content and notability guidelines. The goal is to provide an informative, neutral, and well-sourced entry on openSIS. I’ll revise the content and add independent, reliable sources to address the issues raised.

Kindly allow me some time to make these changes. Appreciate your consideration. Sarika os4ed (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC) }}[reply]

If the article can be improved within the time this AfD is open, I would be happy to change my vote. I believe this article will be due for potential closure after July 2. 11WB (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isidor Bieri

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Switzerland. Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a Swiss newspaper archive of the person's name [6], most are in German which I can't understand. The few French ones there mention an electrician from Lucerne, not sure if it's this person or not. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about this person, no News or GScholar, Jstor or GBooks articles/publications. Delete unless we can find something at length about the athlete. If someone wants to look through the German newspapers I linked above, please do so. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Luis7M (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've gone through the newspaper archive results, there's no sigcov. The articles confirm that he went to the Olympics, and also that he was elected to the "honor guard" (I'm guessing this is like a Hall of Fame) of the Innerschweizer Schwingerverband and won a national championship in Greco-Roman wrestling in 1929. But there's nothing more than passing mentions and competition results. Toadspike [Talk] 08:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wrestling at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight: He's not mentioned at Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics or Wrestling at the 1928 Summer Olympics. If someone expands the section at Switzerland at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Wrestling, then it would make more sense to redirect there. However, in its current state, I don't think it makes sense. Nobody (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Biolabs

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

This article was seemingly created and subsequently updated by employees of the company. I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that would support the requirements of WP:CORP being met. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company exists, but I can't find any discussion of it in secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Very nearly notable, but I can only find PR items [7]. Many hits in Gscholar, but they're all primary/from the company or passing mentions (we used the company's product in thsi experiment). Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm affiliated with Creative Biolabs, and I've disclosed my affiliation on Talk Page and understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest (COI) and notability guidelines.

I’ve made suggestions on the Talk page, as recommended for COI editors. For example, I requested adding the company logo through proper channels, and another editor kindly assisted with formatting the file.

The article has been on Wikipedia for quite some time, and several parts of the content are now outdated or no longer accurate. Recently, we took the time to better understand Wikipedia's policies and recognize how sensitive COI editing can be. That's why we plan to improve the article gradually through the Talk page—updating information and ensuring that all content remains neutral and well-sourced.

We do hope the WP:CORP of the subject can be reassessed. If you're interested, please take a look at the Talk Page, where we've prepared new materials for review. We welcome your suggestions on whether the proposed references meet Wikipedia's standards and how the article can be improved accordingly.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

--Sherwinbrown1 (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really suggest you read WP:Notability in its entirety, especially the parts about what significant coverage in independent sources means. You list a bunch of sources, but they don't confer notability.

Publishing in scientific journals does not confer notability. If it did, almost every academic researcher would have a Wikipedia page.

All the other sources you list are either press releases from Creative Labs (which doesn't confer notability, because anyone can pay a few bucks to send out a press release).

What you would need is a few articles written by independent journalists that discuss Creative Biolabs as the main subject of the article. A passing mention doesn't count; Creative Biolabs needs to be the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishstick (Fortnite)

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

The character has gotten mostly trivial mentions in reliable sources and clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess as the creator of the article, I obviously think so. Characters meets WP:GNG, and does not "clearly" fail it. Fishstick has a good argument as the second-most popular original character in Fortnite, which can be seen from the amount Epic Games uses him in their promotional and collaborative material. Appearance in DC Comics + having literal Adidas shoes are pretty good examples of the latter. Worst case here would just be to re-convert it to the draft space I had it in previously (if that draft didn't exist, I'd probably advocate for a redirect to Fortnite), but a delete is a few touches too far imo. Soulbust (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to refute an AfD is giving direct links to the best possible sources on the character that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV rather than saying WP:SOURCESEXIST, WP:ITSPOPULAR and the like, which doesn't help your point that much. If I have missed really good sources then I might withdraw it or at least others would !vote keep. Right now, I am still not seeing it though. Also if something isn't notable then draftifying won't help it, per WP:OVERCOME... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERCOME isn't a guideline but if it was, it's worth noting that it make zero mentions of draft articles and then I could just easily point to WP:NDRAFT which is likewise an essay, but it actually does make explicit commentary on how to approach notability as it pertains to the draft space. I've had Fishstick in the regular draft space since October 2024, and in my own personal user draft space before that from December 2023 to October 2024. I think putting it back in as a draft should not be an issue for anybody.

Also "The best way to refute an AfD is giving direct links to the best possible sources on the character that demonstrate....." Yes, yes, trust me, I'm aware... I know... Part of me just feels like letting the article speak for itself here. But even more so, I just want to have both it and myself breathe a bit — as you nominated this for deletion less than a day after I moved it to the mainspace and aside from this article, I've been working on a lot of non-video game-related stuff lately.

I think this might be less of a clear-cut keep than those linked examples above (the Bastion one resulted in a merge, but hey, I guess WP:OVERCOME's "in a nutshell" comment that "the problem usually cannot be solved by more editing" might just be a bit flawed); regardless, I'll just let other editors chime in and if it leans toward a delete, I would at that point think I maybe moved it out of the draft space too early and would just ask the AfD closer to simply revert it back into a draft. As far as sources that mention Fishstick beyond a trivial mention (i.e. being SIGCOV), I would say: 1, 2, and 3. I might look for other sources later, but don't really want to bunker down and focus on this particular article at this moment. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are for notable article subjects that need more work. A non-notable subject is not suitable for a draft unless you are sure it will become notable soon. It's just an end run around deletion that will cause problems further down the line if resubmitted without cause.

Your argument that it was nominated so quickly after moving it to mainspace is another WP:OVERCOME insinuation. Specifically, that working on it more will save it from deletion and you did not have time. To be clear, an AfD is about general notability rather than an article's current state.

I'd characterize 2/3 of those sources as overtly trivial and the last one as sort-of-significant but clearly not serious (I mean, since when is a mascot character "killed off" for real?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the draftify dispute unnecessary anyway, just do user pages like I do. No restrictions there if you wanna work on a user subpage Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, using user pages for this purpose does also have similar restrictions. Per the Wikipedia guideline WP:SUB, #3 of disallowed usage is using userpages as a permanent location for content meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Therefore, all articles that are userfied are meant to be there only on a temporary basis rather than permanent "until it ever becomes notable, even if it takes forever" storage - just with less of a clearly defined cutoff than regular drafts.

So odds are, if an article could be userfied, it might as well be a draft. And conversely, if it shouldn't be a draft, it likely shouldn't be a userpage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"permanent" implies the intention is that the article will remain in a draft space, which is clearly, ideally, not Soulbust's goal. Further, if it was draftified or userfied, it would definitionally not belong on the encyclopedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully whoever closes this AfD agrees with me that the whole point of a draft is just to progressively work on them. This is what it looked like when I first even conceived of this page. At that time, about a third of the sources presently on the article weren't even published yet. Soulbust (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Appearances in media don't count towards notability, and there is next to nothing here. Sorry Soulbust, but there's no meat on this bone. EDIT: I'm going to add to this, but a WP:BEFORE showed nothing either. There could be potential for a possible Characters of Fortnite, but the issue would be keeping it straightforward and satisfying LISTN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contra Kung Fu Man, I have long argued here that a character appearing in a new media absolutely counts towards notability, as demonstrating real world impact. I find Soulbust's argument compelling. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I find the argument that collabs make a significant contribution to notability not compelling. It suggests that a character's notability could be bought, and if you wanted to argue that these media appearances make a significant difference, why don't we see any discussion about the significance of them? Why do we only have two sources discussing the skin's popularity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It suggests that a character's notability could be bought" And? If something is bought, maybe that just makes it notable in a way you (or I) don't like. But that doesn't matter if it ends up being notable as a result anyway. Also yes, Fortnite does in fact, through its ridiculous amount of collaborations, find a way to extend is relevance and double-down on its notability. Fishstick is, from what I can see (and I'd have to really dig into this to be sure, which would be against my desire), second to Peely as Epic's choice of sticking their own characters into the promotional and collaboration material they produce for Fortnite.

"Why do we only have two sources discussing the skin's popularity" Which skin are you talking about? I found plenty of sourcing on the character's skins but wanted to avoid using unreliable sources or creating a ref-bomb situation. Soulbust (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Fish stick character skin, why is there such a limited selection of evidence that the result of these media appearances is anything significant? It feels like we're assuming that these media appearances have contributed to Fish stick being notable, but the sourcing doesn't say so. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing says that he has appeared in both Marvel and DC Comics issues, and that Epic and Adidas picked him as an inspiration for one of their Fortnite x Ultraboost shoe collabs. (So bascially, the significance is implied here, as an example). I'm reading WP:SIGCOV as that coverage passes a threshold of significance for us as editors here, not that the sourcing needs to explicitly call whatever it is covering "significant" from their perspective. And honestly, from the source's perspective, ~~whatever they're covering is~~ [they are] overwhelmingly more likely than not to think of their subject as significant and notable which is why they're covering/writing about it in the first place. Then it's up to us to parse it as past that aforementioned threshold or not, for Wikipedia purposes. But in any case, I'm gonna head offline now and re-visit this AfD at some later point. Soulbust (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

note struck through a portion of this that made my reply have a confusing logical/grammatical structure. Added "they are" as well, to help with that. Soulbust (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we have WP:ROUTINE to cover that, there's nothing to suggest that coverage of Fishstick was anything more significant than any crossover. Notability is not inherited, and as a non-player, the article does not convey to me why Fishstick isn't more notable than a million different characters deemed non-notable for a lack of significant coverage Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear GNG failure. There's quite literally no SIGCOV I can see. A character being merchandised does not confer notability, just as a character existing does not confer notability. There is no significant real world impact I can see here. Willing to redirect if there's a good target but I see none for a character this obscure and non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, so obscure that when you Google the character, he pops up before the food that Epic derived his name from. So "obscure". I'm not using that Google Trends chart to argue anything in regards of WP:GNG or whatever, but to call this character "obscure" is hilariously erroneous. Soulbust (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that replying to everyone who !votes delete or redirect, when said with this tone, runs afoul of beratement. I don't mind discussing this, but this doesn't seem like a tone this will engender meaningful discussion. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easy to misread tone over text communication. Do I think it is flatly wrong to call the character obscure? Yes. Am I berating Pokelego999? No. They called this a "clear GNG failure"; and you stated that you "find the argument that collabs make a significant contribution to notability not compelling", so you saying you "don't mind discussing this" (presumably discussing this further) is confusing to me. What more is there to discuss? Pokelego999 thinks the article "clearly" fails GNG and doesn't see a good redirect target, though as mentioned above, I think a redirect to Fortnite (or as Kung Fu Man suggested, a potential Characters of Fortnite article, if it were to be made) would be apt. So with all that in mind already, I would just wanna move it back into the draft space if the AFD closer doesn't find this to be a keep. Soulbust (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "hilariously erroneous" is essentially an argument to the person; you're implying they are incompetent as an editor and thus their opinion should be ignored. Simply "erroneous" would suffice if you are just pointing out a mistake. Although I'd have to agree with Pokelego in that very few non-Fortnite players will have ever heard of this character. Googling "fish stick" solely gives me the food, so it's likely a case of small details, I never call the food a "fishstick" as that would be incorrect spelling. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings during Google searches happen all the time. The character's search history is on par with the food regardless, and my point in mentioning the Google search results in the first place was just to refute the statement that the character is "obscure".

I called it hilariously erroneous because it was a flatly incorrect statement. Note that I pointed to the word "obscure", and not "notable". Calling the character not notable is fair (more correctly, it's the appropriate word if you're asserting it isn't passing WP:GNG), but to call it obscure is incorrect. Maybe you think adding "hilariously" was much, but I wasn't implying incompetence on their part and claiming that I was is an overreaction to what I said. Also I wasn't planning to go on a long back-and-forth about it, because the character isn't obscure and I have no desire to argue that. Simple as. But it's confusing to me to act like it would be wrong to argue here when the whole AfD process is essentially putting an article on trial and arguing for or against its existence... WP:AFDFORMAT literally uses "argument" multiple times in its wording.

Also, the point that "very few non-Fortnite players will have ever heard of this character" doesn't really(?) matter. There is no policy or guideline I am aware of that makes articles have to pass some sort of (not) niche threshold to pass WP:GNG. Given the introduction on your user page ("with an emphasis on creating new, high-quality articles on obscure/quirky yet notable subjects that most people would not pick up on, such as little-known indie titles, niche games, game characters, levels and items"), I also find this point an odd knock on this article. Yes the word "notable" in that intro is not lost on me, but again, the article being about a niche/obscure topic vs. a notable topic are different conversations to me. Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of redirects, the Fortnite article does not mention this character at all, so a redirect there would be unhelpful. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the Fortnite article (or more specifically the Fortnite Battle Royale article) couldn't be expanded to include a small sub-section about its in-game elements (including its characters). Soulbust (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there's not really much to add. Fishstick has nothing really saying he's a very important part of the brand. He's just been promoted a bit. At least with something like the recently AfD'd Durrr Burger you can point to it being a major mascot or part of the branding, but Fishstick seems minor at best with the sourcing provided here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point to the collaborations Epic has done to have him feature in content, not just multiple times, but with very high-profile collaborators. When they go into the comic space, they're collabing with both DC and Marvel to stick Fishstick in those comics. They don't do this with every character. When they go into shoes, they're collabing with Adidas. They made four shoes. Only Peely and Fishstick were picked for these shoes (the other two were based on non-character in-game elements). This isn't "minor" branding, in my opinion. Soulbust (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much significant and uninherited coverage in spite of the character's prominent appearances, while I don't see a good target for redirection. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability about as weak as Peely, I would selectively merge both to a Fortnite characters section. IgelRM (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can't be "about" as weak as anything else, WP:GNG is pretty much a binary. Either it passes or doesn't, and the only real variance is if an AfD gets kept (or deleted) "weakly", normally, or in a snow sense. Peely is a clear keep by the way, given that character's central role in the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit and even greater presence in Epic's promotional marketing of Fortnite/collaborative material. Soulbust (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per all. I am not seeing nearly enough WP:SIGCOV. I am neutral on the redirect target, and the main Fortnite article would be a good default. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Merchandise does not make a character notable and that seems to be the only argument presented thus far. IzzySwag (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since today it will be a week since AfD was opened and this will potentially close -- if this was about raw votes, it obviously leans to delete (or perhaps redirect), but regardless I don't think it will end in keep, or even as no consensus (though would be pleasantly stunned if it did). In any case, I found more sourcing today, not the kind that I think would sway any stating to delete, though still useful for developing the article further. I do imagine the character will only continue to be present in Epic's promotional material and will continue to be written about in sourcing so I would ask the AfD closer to consider that I would be keen on this being re-draftified so I can continue working on it and so the prose as currently constructed can remain intact to either build on, restructure, or even have myself or another editor be able to do considerable overhauling of later on. This would be akin to previous experience with this sort of article being nominated (and closed as merge) and later revived. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no counterpoint to the concerns about notability, I do offer support that the notion of the character being "obscure" is rather misguided/incorrect, and I don't see any issue with draftifying. You also virtually wrote the entire article, so there's no real attribution issues if you just copy/paste a copy into a new user draft if you wish to keep working on it. It's not any sort of WP:NOT violation, so you're fine. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for assessing the sources added by Soulbust.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because something exists and is discussed doesn't mean it warrants a Wikipedia article. The subject doesn't receive enough coverage to warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new sources don't add anything and I still feel redirect is the best option (Draftify could also work). If anything they helped ensure if it does get revived there may be more to clean out, I hate to say it...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think I was pretty up front that I don't think the sources added post-AfD nomination were ones that would change anyone's mind here. Also didn't say I was hoping for a relisting to have them be assessed. I think they are just citing supplemental information (like the emote) and honestly wish this was reverted back into the draft space. I don't think a redirect is inherently a bad choice, but I think can be constructively worked on as a draft. Soulbust (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2038 in public domain

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

The year 2038 in public domain doesn't seem to have received the required attention to make this a notable topic, and we have no idea at all whether the current laws regulating what will be public domain in 2038 will be the same by then anyway, making this a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Fram (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This DOES NOT make them a WP:Crystal violation at all an is based on actual current state of copyright law in the US and other countries.

If that's true, then we woud have to remove all pages except for 2025 and before, please unnomiamte these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2030), weak keep (2031-2034) - for the same reasons as Foxtrot620. There's a very good case for keeping these lists five years in the future, and they are used (e.g. by wikisource and others for planning what to digitise). The case is less strong further out, and personally I wouldn't be bothering to work on something more than ten years out. If future articles seem incomplete, the answer is to do the work required to complete them (which will mostly be the +50 and US sections, since those bits are actually novel), rather than delete them. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with IdiotSavant. These pages are me and my friend Seths' hard work and just deleiting it is just stupid.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For the same reasons stated above. These will eventually be relevant and some clear work has gone into them. There is no WP:Crystal violation that I can see. We know there will be IP entering the public domain in 2038. Dflovett (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For basically the same reasons, I also nominated the following ones for deletion:

Weak Delete (2035-37), Weak Keep (2031-2034), Strong Keep (2030): So, my logic here is entirely built in time frame. 35-37 is too far in the future for any kind of certainty; as such is a clear issue of WP:CRYSTAL. For 31-34, and 30, my argument is essentially the same, though the level I am willing to die on the hill is different. Given 2030 is five years in the future, I think that is more than qualifies as both almost certain to happen, and notable, as per the WP:CRYSTAL exceptions; short of some major new international copyright treaty, or some major move for copyright law change in a major country; nothing will change between now and then. For 31-34, I would argue the same, though the time frame grants more uncertainty. 35-37 is ten or more years in the future, and I think it's outside of the realm of Wikipedia. Personally, ten years seems to be a good standard for me, but I would also support a five year policy for this sort of thing. Then again, the U.S. Senate could introduce Sonny Bono Act II tomorrow and next years list could suddenly require major changes, so, I think we have to be okay with a certain amount of uncertainty in these articles. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete these pages.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting the pages would be a good thing at all, and also i doubt any extentsion will ever happen, likely neer will. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pages for 2030–2034, draftify those for 2035–2037 to be restored to mainspace later, and speedy delete 2038's page, as well as the following year's page 2039 in public domain, outright. This project has just gone too far out of scope. – SethAllen623 (talk), 01:04, June 26, 2025 (UTC).

Can anyone indicate why e.g. 2032 in public domain is at the moment a notable subject? Which reliable sources have dealt with this specifically? Fram (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources is duke university and other websites.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be slightly more specific? I checked the 2038 and the 2030 page, and neither seems to use anything from Duke as a reference. The pages all have generic references about public domain and expiry, but nothing about these years. Fram (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability and reliable sources is no different with these articles than with the articles for 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029. Reliable sources may not exist now, but we know they will come in the future. Here is who we know will discuss these topics at the appropriate time: Duke University School of Law (which publishes articles for "Public Domain Day" on an annual basis) for general entrants to the U.S. public domain, The Daily Cartoonist (specifically for entrants relating to animation and comics), and at least one law library. Additionally, for years that will see very notable works enter the U.S. public domain, we may see one or two news articles discuss the entry of these works specifically. As for the international PD entrants, we have had no sourcing issues with them in the past in any of our "public domain by year" articles – neither those for the 2020s, nor 2019's page, nor those for the years before the moratorium on U.S. public domain entrants imposed by the Copyright Term Extension Act expired. If we did, then you would be nominating the entire category and all the pages in it for deletion. – SethAllen623 (talk), 17:32, June 26, 2025 (UTC).
We don´t create articles where the sources will be available in 5, 10, 15 years. If it isn´t of interest to reliable sources now or before now, we shouldn´t have an article on them. That´s a principle throughout enwiki, why would we make an exception for these? Fram (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, please do not delete the pages. We worked so hard on them and they are allowed and do not violate WP: Crystal.

so please unnominate these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the prominent personalities who has been in the major national and international news recently.Almandavi (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there's coverage (such as in the Globe), please link it for other editors to review, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail has since put a disclaimer on their article that it is third party content not verified by them, and upon second look it does indeed seem unreliable. In addition the the sources listed in the original request, I will link a few other potential sources below, although I cannot guarantee their independence from political interests. I suspect a speaker of Urdu, Kannada, Hindi, Punjabi, or Balochi may be able to better identify credible sources.

Ike Lek (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To get a fuller discussion, I'm pinging some of the users who participated in AfD discussions for two related articles last month. @MSLQr, MarioGom, GrabUp, Cerium4B, JayFT047, GarethBaloney, Yue, and Wikibear47: Would you say this article should be deleted as well, or do you think enough non-Godi sources exist for you to favor keeping it this time? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Republic of Balcohistan article is deleted but I think Baloch warrants an article (albeit a stub) given how he leads one faction of a Baloch separatist group (or perhaps a state soon?). GarethBaloney 17:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I will try to assume genuine intent, this seems to be pushing against Wikietiquette, specifically: "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines."

I say this not because you pinged users who participated in AfDs on similar topics, which is totally fine, but because you only pinged those who agreed with your stance in those discussions, which can appear like an attempt at votestacking. Ike Lek (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair i said (speedy delete for the AfD for the Republic of Balochistan so idk GarethBaloney 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't want to be overly accusatory, nor do I want to imply that y'all won't take an unbiased independent approach to this discussion. It just felt off that no one who was saying keep in those discussions was pinged. Ike Lek (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A case of WP:TOOSOON and has serious notability issues. Just because someone says that a province is independent from the federation doesn't make the claim true. Also declaring himself the President is a joke. As far as the sources are concerned we need independent sources which are not biased in their reporting towards the issue which in this case are clearly lacking. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue of the legitimacy of his claims (I agree they are somewhat flimsy), but his notability as a figure. Since his joining MEMRI, more articles are being published that are heavily critical of him. I linked one earlier. There is no such thing as perfectly unbiased reporting, but some of these sources are seen as relatively credible. The existence of sources independent of him reporting on what he did and who he is makes him notable. Ike Lek (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make things fair, I shall ping @Logichulk, 7uzyfa, M1rrorCr0ss, BlinxTheKitty, TabahiKaBhagwan, and WikiEditPS: even though I didn't believe that their arguments for keeping the Republic of Balochistan article were as sound as everyone else's arguments for deleting it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say I respect you doing that. Ike Lek (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon and maybe never. Speedy delete under A7 was correctly closed. I tried checking Pakistani newspapers like Dawn (newspaper) which had no mention of this individual. I tried searching Urdu papers for میر یار بلوچ (please tell me if that is correct) like Nawa-i-waqt [8] and Daily Jang where I found articles that didn't inspire confidence or didn't find anything at all.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Wilderness Committee

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

I believe the topic fails to meet GNG. While I'm not the greatest at looking for sources, the only coverage I found was mentions of the organization in relation to protecting an owl species, but nothing that covered it at length. Also, while I realize that the present quality of the article doesn't determine its suitability, the condition right now is a big problem. The entirety of the current content was written by an employee of the organization named Stephanie Gribble, and is entirely sourced to the org's own website (yes, there's one other citation, but it only verifies when a law was passed and says nothing about the article subject). -- Fyrael (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Education, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it's in need of a total rewrite, which I'm happy to help with once this AfD is over, because it is currently written as though it were the organization's website and has a large WP:COI problem. There are a very large number of sources in Proquest going back over 30 years; this group has done a lot. You can get proquest access through The Wikipedia Library; highly recommended. FalconK (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great recommendation. I had never heard of The Wikipedia Library before this, and I was recently trying quite hard to get access to JSTOR. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are encouraged to remove any COI or unsourced material while the AfD is still open, reducing it to a stub if necessary, which would make it easier to adjudicate this case based on the notability of its subject rather than the quality of the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hetero Awesome Fest

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

WP:NOTNEWS. An event with "dozens" of attendees which gets some news coverage, but no indication that or reason why this will have any WP:SUSTAINED coverage as required. Fram (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, and Idaho. Fram (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off small local event for bigots, no indication of lasting notability. Not sure why content couldn't have just been put at Straight pride#Hetero Awesome Fest, United States (2025) like the other events there rather than a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. This should not be merged into Straight pride because this event alone has about as many citations, deeper coverage, from higher profile sources than the other listed events put together. The reason this one got more coverage is because of the recent United States increase in Nazi / fascist / hate-based organization activity due, so it makes sense that this one would be different from and get more attention than the others which are more run-of-the-mill small time bigot operations. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly what WP:ONEEVENT was written for. It's for news stories that pop up for a week and then disappear. If by some miracle this non-notable event gets more attention, the article can be recreated. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT is about notability for people and doesn't apply.Naraht (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Straight pride. Unlikely to be a recurring event. Should this prove to be WP:SUSTAINED, the article can be revived, but this ain't the Fyre Festival. Doesn't see likely to get ongoing attention except as small mentions of the ineffectiveness of the straight pride efforts, which means it would be better covered in that article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News coverage I find is about the planned event, the event happening and people saying things at the event. Nothing sustained, nor particularly notable about what appears to be a local event. Typical news about a festival happening and people doing things at the event to cause controversy. Festival is over and people appear to have moved on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This event is no more notable than any other single event with a handful of attendees and a rich benefactor. I wouldn't make a page for the Scream like Goku event I went to in College, and it had more attendees than this and got more media coverage. Just because the context is spicy doesn't make it notable. Essentially agreement in toto with every other delete vote. Foxtrot620 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Like U

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

No third party reliable sources that grant this article its existence MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R&G (Rhythm & Gangsta): The Masterpiece#Track listing Ordinary song which charted in the 100s. Nathannah • 📮 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect is too generous for this not notable song Nayyn (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy

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

Declined prod. Provided sources are not independent like philosophy publications or the university connected with it. Nothing in google books, 1 hit in google scholar, limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, United States of America, and Illinois. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV, all of the mentions in news articles seem to be trivial/passing mentions Psychastes (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually get a number of hits in Google Books for this organization describing its role in the Continental reception and Continental/Analytic debates in the US. Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in an interlibrary loan request for The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America (2019), ed. Michela Beatrice Ferri ISBN 9783319991832, which has a chapter "The Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" (pp. 267-282) by Anthony Steinbock. Jahaza (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a journal article doi:10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0102. Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: Appears to be plenty of sources showing up on Google Scholar - some examples where the coverage is definitely in depth: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_16, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226821580-011, The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. There are also some papers in this issue of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy but I'm not sure if that is actually independent coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 12:26, 12 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!} 05:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This seems like a strong source [9], its got 5-6 pages about it. The NY Times article is not in depth but it is definitely reliable and secondary. this blog post has lots of subject matter experts commenting on SPEP which might give further searching hints. This isn't a very rigorous source either but [10] shows USC viewing SPEP on a similar level to the APA. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy has numerous articles about SPEP but I can't tell if that is what you thought was non-independent of the organization. Moritoriko (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Buñuel Memorial Awards

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (Cult Critic is founded by the same person behind these award. The Times of India piece is obvious PR, WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Notability is not inherited from people they are named after or who they give awards to. Another from the Shailik Bhaumik/Cult Critic stable of award farms, with Cult Critic Movie Awards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards), World Film Carnival Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Film Carnival Singapore), Tagore International Film Festival (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagore International Film Festival), Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Renting a theater and playing a bunch of films which paid to be on the schedule without any expectation of audience attendance but with the 'promise' of 'exposure' like they're on Instagram is not a film festival. Pay-for-play, and I highly doubt the Buñuel estate would endorse a random film festival in India based in an crowded apartment complex. Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a notable award. Sufficient significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Meets WP:GNG.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what would those sources be? As CNMall has pointed out, you've just contributed this boilerplate and nothing more to prove the sources. Why is a random thing in Kolkata promoting a film festival named after a man whose estate certainly would not approve of their namesake being part of an 'exposure only' film festival, again ran out of an overcrowded apartment complex? Nathannah • 📮 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of many throw away boilerplate !votes from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not add comments (WP:VAGUEWAVE) at afd without any analysis.. These areferences are significant and provide indepth coverage: [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order, 1, The Times of India piece is obvious PR, WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 2, Primary from the org themselves. 3, An interview with the curator, primary. 4, iMDb, not reliable. 5, Press release. None are any good for GNG. Your voting history is raising serious WP:COMPETENCE questions. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of passenger trains of Indian Railway with Proper Name

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

Redundant list. Fails WP:NLIST. Wareon (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I seen this list in the article Sampoorna Kranti Express. I thought someone has planned to make the list but not have time. So, I yesterday started making the list. I think a page is needed as these trains have a big history and need a list and yes, The list will be long but not useless. People of India need this kind of list. I also travelled in some of this trains and have seen a big influence of these trains in there places where they stops or starts or ends.
Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 11:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where is another list of this kind Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates List of trains run by Indian RailwaysRegentsPark (comment) 14:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How, Plese tell me in that list all trains are mentioned while this list only mentions trains with proper names like Sampoorna Kranti Express, Black Diamond Express, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a redirect, unlikely search term. Weird list criteria that wouldn't meet NLIST if we are presuming the title to be a qualifyer, violation of NOTDB otherwise. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mambila Beverages Nigeria Limited

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

Doesn't look like this company meets WP:NCORP. The sources are all just business listing sites and no in-depth or significant coverage from independent, reliable media. Junbeesh (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Junbeesh (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nominator. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Chizoba Vincent

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NPOET as some of the sources cited are his own writing and the bunch of other are non WP:RS. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KOSPINT

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Searching in google news and books for "Kolej Sains Pendidikan Islam Negeri Terengganu" yielded insufficient coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination (of the three it has had) was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kospint; the article was renamed during that 2009 nomination (which ended as "keep" under that era's lower standards). (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Oyeniyi

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS as sources cited are not WP:RS. While some are primary, the rest are covertly sponsored pieces. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am currently working to improve the article by adding reliable, independent third-party sources, including reports from *The Guardian Nigeria*, *The Nation*, *Punch*, *Voice of America*, *Vanguard*, and coverage of the National Student Entrepreneur Awards. I also plan to add inline citations and expand the article’s coverage to better meet WP:GNG and WP:N. I respectfully request that the nomination be kept open to allow for these additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnamdi93 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Abdul Samad, Petaling Jaya

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

Last AfD was in 2007, we are now a lot stricter on high schools. Could not find SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL. 3 of the sources merely confirm students winning in a competition and not actual coverage of the school. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swineherd

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

bare dicdef plus trivia --Altenmann >talk 05:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a prose article could be created out of this. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of this" you cannot. Rehashing trivia leaves them trivia. But to expand,... --Altenmann >talk 01:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Biblical sourcing, that's new for AfD... This is a DICDEF with a bunch of examples thrown in... I can only find mentions of a movie with this name or articles about pig herders. I suppose with proper etymological sourcing, you could have an article about the word... This isn't that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a synonym for Pig farmer, which to save you time, that's just a disamb page. Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete – this is a common enough term, we should surely have a page of some kind at this title. Probably best to redirect to Herder – unless a better target can be found? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with possibilities) per User:Justlettersandnumbers. Swineherding was related to but distinct from pig farming, and was important historically. Herding, though it could do with expansion, is a better target than pig farming, which doesn't really have any history section. Swineherding is almost certainly a topic someone could write an article about, but what's currently there is basically a dicdef plus trivia, and that's not an article. Which is a shame. I wish we had better coverage of historic occupations and other topics about historical everyday life. -- Avocado (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryushin Handa

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

So, this article was previously deleted under G11 and A7. I'm not tagging it for speedy again since it kind of makes a claim of importance but honestly, it still doesn't look like it meets the bar for notability. Most of the references are either not reliable, not independent, or not secondary. The few reliable sources that are included only mention the subject briefly, without any substantial focus or in-depth coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic Fever from Exile Tribe. Almost everything in this article is about activities as part of the group. Definitely clears the low bar of A7 though! Moritoriko (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Boldižár

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. Joeykai (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Etete

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS as sources are trivial mentions of the subject. Only one source from a WP:RS is in the article, the rest are primary sources and trivial mentions as CEO of a company. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ThisDay profiled him in an interview, praising Century Group’s “capacity building” and Local Content impactprnewswire.com+15thisdaylive.com+15kenetete.com+15.
- Nigeria NewsDirect ran a feature titled “Ken Etete: The dependable Oil and Gas CEO”, detailing his acquisition of an FPSO and his leadership of one of Nigeria’s largest indigenous oil‑service firmsthisdaylive.com+2nigeriannewsdirect.com+2businessworld.africa+2.
- Business World Africa covered Century Group’s $15 million acquisition of the FPSO Sendje Berge, noting that Etete’s firm is “one of Nigeria’s biggest oil servicing company” and “the first domestic energy infrastructure provider to fully own and manage two FPSOs” kenetete.com+15businessworld.africa+15nigeriannewsdirect.com+15.
- BusinessDay interviewed him on how Century Group champions local content in Nigeria’s energy sectorsowshea.org+11businessday.ng+11thisdaylive.com+11.
- Africa Oil & Gas Report spotlighted his organic expansion over 20 years, highlighting his problem-solving leadershipafricaoilgasreport.com+1sowshea.org+1.
- Africa Intelligence examined his strategic handling of Erin Energy's OML 120 fallout, showcasing his negotiation skills in complex deals africaintelligence.com These are feature-level coverage from independent outlets
Aris1601 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are just PR releases disguised as legit sources. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Highway

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

Unsourced since 2019. Normally I'll just quietly redirect this to its main article Natalio Bacalso Avenue but I can't find sources that have "Acacia Highway" as a prominent or notable section of this particular Avenue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources cited, no sources seem to be readily available, and even if they were, this seems grossly not notable. The fact that it's lined with trees is cool, but isn't particularly special, and certainly doesn't make it notable. I don't think improvement would make this better, I think at the end of the day it would still just be a page about a fairly insignificant highway. Foxtrot620 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ba. (band)

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

Still unsourced after 7 years. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't qualify for WP:MUSIC as the only readily available sources discussing this band are from the band. RandFreeman (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep: A small search yielded at least one source not from the band confirming their signing with Sony Music Entertainment Finland. I'm imagining that, an in depth search would probably give more results that aren't directly sourced by the subjects, given the recent albums, and signing and releases with a major music producer, there will probably be increased notability in the coming months, and likely more sources. I would say give it a few months and revisit this to see if there are any changes. If it's been there for seven years, an additional six months doesn't seem like a big deal for me. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuanian Wikipedia article has seven references. Have those been considered and examined? Left guide (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trybooking

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

The sources are terrible with not independent reliable and broad topic coverage. This is not a notable company, at least for Wikipedia. Let zoom to some particular sources: [16] this one is a routine announcement on the not very reliable and quite niche website; [17] the same with this - it's not a reliable coverage, nor a reliable website and we need multiple sources (not a series of news from 1 website). [18] this one is almost good, aside from the fact it's slightly overfocused on the citations from the company members, but it could be okay. [19] this one is a reliable but not providing significant coverage, some interview citations and general information focused on the 10 anniversary date. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Kobayashi

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

all of these links are mostly dead links, except for the link to Yutaka_Kobayashi_(actor). for a disambiguation page, this is bad User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the politician is mentioned in the constituency article, the actor has an article, the fictional character is discussed in the plotline, and there is some value in the kind of article which disentangles people likely to be confused - though the announcer and businessman should really be removed if no-one can find a sourced mention to include them in their target articles. PamD 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty sure that the politician passes WP:NPOL for being elected to the Japanese Diet. For now I added a redirect to the constituency article while I look for enough sources to fill out an article about him, there is a jp article about him but those sources are iffy. Now that there are 3 articles with the same name I think the disambig should stay. Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Someone-123-321 is this WP:HEY enough for you? Moritoriko (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Nath Mahto

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC; never won an election and there is no non-routine coverage outside of his political candidacy. I didn't PROD because the creator has contested draftification of a different article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jharkhand. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't done a before, but redirecting to Ranchi Lok Sabha constituency#2024 should be an acceptable ATD. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic theology on the body

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

This article is original research/synthesis through-and-through and has not substantially changed from its original form in 2008, which was previously nominated for deletion and kept on dubious grounds—WP:ILIKEIT, the original author of the article declaring his topic to be kept, and another who unfortunately simply did not understand that the content of the article is original research.

Speaking from my professional qualifications as a Catholic theologian: The term "theology of the body" (not "theology on the body", which appears to be a name a user made up moving the page in 2020 and sounds like bad English at best) refers properly to a series of addresses made by Pope John Paul II. The article identifies a grab bag of Patristic and medieval sources as proponents of a discrete "theology of the body" which they were collectively developing as opposed to being various sources—some of whom were close collaborators, such as Ambrose and Augustine, and some of whom were at odds—who at times spoke of issues that today may be called theological anthropology. The verifiability of the references has been unclear for years as the Talk page reveals.

It may be possible to invoke WP:TNT here—I think it is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the history of Christian views of the human body—but as it is, this is original research, not a history of Christian anthropology. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this title is malformed, and further that I would expect JPII's writings to be the PRIMARYTOPIC here. So, maybe a redirection is in order? Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a separate article for JPII's writings. And of course, the difference is that the JPII article isn't original research and is about a notable topic with a body of secondary literature associated with it whereas the article I have nominated is a case of original research. Deleting and making a redirect to that article or even Christian anthropology may be appropriate. M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be some sort of SYNTH at work... The Church has various positions on the human body, but this doesn't seem to be related to that. Most of the opening paragraphs are unsourced, then go on quoting primary texts with sourcing. There's something here, as the Church has discussed the human body and how it should be viewed, but this doesn't seem to cover it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting with the lead, the first sentence is straight up wrong (no one outside of this article says "theology on the body") and furthermore the second sentence "The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined in Pope Pius XII's 1950 apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, is one of the most recent developments in the Catholic theology of the body" is simply nonsense (even if it were sourced!)—a doctrine happening to involve bodies does not make it "theology of the body." So the article taking a bunch of random sources and insisting they represent a consistent development of a particular doctrine is 100% a WP:SYNTH issue. M.A.Spinn (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic SYNTH: throwing together a few isolated sources into an essay. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theology of the Body: as a plausible search sequence for the proposed target. Eliminates the WP:OR and WP:NOESSAY problems in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 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!} 04:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kolej Vokasional Ipoh

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

Previously considered at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sekolah Menengah Teknik Ipoh Persiaran Brash , however we are now much stricter on notability as per WP:NSCHOOL. This is an unreferenced article. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no references, almost no information about the school (number of students/faculty, what does it teach etc so the article is not useful either. Finally, no indication of any notability at all. --hroest 15:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of regional news websites of Jharkhand

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP; only one of the list entries, Prabhat Khabar, is a notable news website specifically based in Jharkhand. The article creator also made The Real Khabar which is up for deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Jharkhand. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to nominator's reasons, I'd note that this was also shot through with WP:ELNO-violating offsite links, both in an "URL" column and the references column, for each publication in the list — I've stripped those, but they clearly show that the intent here was to help drive traffic to their websites. As well, this just isn't a thing that would ordinarily be the topic of a standalone Wikipedia list anyway; we can do "Media in place" articles that cover print and broadcast media in that place within the same article, but we do not create a "list of news websites" that's standing alone as its own thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (This was created by a COI editor to get the Real Khabar name out there.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine jade culture

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be some combination of WP:OR and pure fabrication, and I'm not sure where the balance lies. Three sources ("Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and the northern Philippines: the evidence of jade mining and exchange"; "Maritime Jade Road: The Neolithic long-distance exchange of nephrite in Southeast Asia"; and "The Archaeology of the Philippines: The Past of the Other Filipinos") appear to be completely made up or perhaps hallucinated by an LLM. They do not come up in any search results and the one with a link goes to a different source. The actual sources do not describe a jade culture specific to the Philippines but rather focus broadly on the jade trade across SE Asia ([20], [21]), make a passing mention ([22] or do not discuss jade at all ([23]). My WP:BEFORE search does not indicate this is a notable topic deserving a standalone page. An AfD discussion earlier this year resulted in a "delete" on WP:TNT grounds, and I'd argue that applies here. (This recreation has survived G4 deletion and is likely just over the line of additional users' substantial edits to survive a G5, which would otherwise apply since its creator is a sockpuppet.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Toadspike, @Bearian, @Lenticel, @143.44.193.226 and @Chipmunkdavis, who participated in the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think the logic behind the previous consensus still holds... None of the new material addresses the significant concerns raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: previous consensus still applies here in my view, and the article reads like LLM output. hallucinated sources are a bad sign. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also: the article uses the term "culture" incorrectly (see archaeological culture), which is further indication that this is not a real archaeological topic defined in scholarship. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that G5 still applies, no additional substantial edits have been made. It's an interesting rub that WP:G4 was declined because an llm rewrote the page. CMD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Let's just say I've had G5s declined before for "additional substantial edits" on this scale, so I'm wary of nominating anything unless the other users' edits are pure gnoming. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's best that we don't use material that might have been hallucinated by AI --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is the same fabrication as last time. Since this appears to be a target for nationalist POV-pushing, I strongly suggest SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. I visited the Palawan museum in Puerto Princesa on March 10 of this year. While the museum shows evidence of trade between mainland and (at least) Palawan, I didn't see a lot of jade; almost entirely it was basic material objects like giant turtles, baskets, earthenware jars, metal fishing hooks, bones, and shells. Lost, but presumed inside those, were foods like salted pork and fish, and turtles/meat. The instant article vastly overplays the "Jade trade" as if it was integral, with a hidden agenda, but it was peripheral at best: a rare luxury item that might have been packed in with other goods. When I get a chance, I'll upload some photos. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I am also supportive of SALTing given the recreation and the fabricated sources. SALTing will force any recreation through AFC where sources can be properly evaluated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not notable and uses fake sources, I don't see any harm in salting a non-notable subject for a page that's already been recreated once. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fullarton Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Insufficient sourcing with government map layers, google maps and street directory. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Unnotable road which goes for a whole 6.9 km. TarnishedPath^talk 07:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, concurrence with User:TarnishedPath in toto. Additionally, even if additional reliable sources could be found, it's still just a short road without any notability except to locals. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurance Academy

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

I don't see any sources by which to judge the school to be notable, with WP:NCORP being applicable to this private business institution. The sole reference in the article seems to be lost, but based on its title ("NIA: 100% placement with highest package of Rs 10.5 lakh per annum") and what had been referenced to it, it seems to have been a PR-push. (I don't think independent media are going out on their own to examine insurance academy placement rates and report on them.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and India. Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIASOM, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The prior deletion is sufficiently old; I believe it now qualifies under WP:NORG. It is a governmental unit of India created in 1980. It presently necessitates further citations to enhance its notability. Promotional content is an issue that can be reduced.CresiaBilli (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not finding such sources to cite. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of many throw away boilerplate !votes from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to gather more thorough input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not add comments (WP:VAGUEWAVE) at afd without any analysis.. As I mentioned in my vote for "Weak Keep," there are not a lot of resources available on the web. On the other hand, I have made an effort to locate references that might offer more waitage in order to satisfy Notability Standards.. [24], [25], and [26].. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't tell from the language and subject matter that these are PR placements, not business journalism? As I noted in my nomination, actual news writers aren't tracking and then marveling at the annual job placement rates of new graduates from individual trade schools. And the first of these is attributed to Mediawire, a press release distribution agency. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach quorum
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing in-depth, independent coverage here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's a very long article based on just three sources, which also run into WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Svartner (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC St. Louis

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

Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League as I am unable to find much of any coverage of this team after searches on Google and Newspapers.com, let alone enough to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found a huge article about them on ProQuest, searching for "FC St. Louis" and then "soccer". (Log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library first and link should work.) Don't have time right now but looks like there is more. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 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) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Old Oyo

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

The sources cited in this article don't support the idea that the sack of the city was a battle at all. In fact, after the Battle of Ilorin the inhabitants evacuated the city to avoid a brutal sack, and Ilorin forces "sacked" an entirely empty town. This content belongs on Oyo-Ile rather than in a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nigeria. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this was marked for deletion? This fall wasThe history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate - https://archive.org/details/historyofyorubas00john/page/266/mode/2up?q=katunga (archived so anyone can read) page266 & 267. clearly narrates why oyo, or katunga fell. There was a resistance, and it was a battle-esque that led to the fall. Though it fell for other reasons, mostly because of ilroin, and people deserting it. And all the towns "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged" - Page 260. So again can you explain why this is going on deletion? The same book is one of, if not the most documented histories of the Yoruba People, and is also on Google books, you can find this everywhere > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR19&printsec=frontcover . I put great work, and a lot of hours, of research, and reading for my wikipedia pages, why are they consistently being nominated to get taken down? I have a smear campaign against me. And i would liek to appeal this, Please! Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't mean to discredit the work that you're doing, and I'm certainly not trying to smear you. I just think that the content that you've put on Sack of Old Oyo would be better placed on Oyo-Ile rather than on a standalone page. Samuel Johnson is pretty clear that Old Oyo was cleared out of almost all of its inhabitants and their belongings before the Ilorin troops showed up. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Stephen Akintoye agree. So it wasn't a battle, and whether or not it was a sack is debatable IMO since there was little or no population in the town at the time. But just because there isn't a standalone page doesn't mean the content doesn't matter. It should just be on Oyo-Ile, where it'll be easier to find anyway.

As for your other articles that have been nominated for deletion, I'd be happy to help you get Battle of Pamo, Mugbamugba War and Battle of Aboh up to Wikipedia standards if you'd like. I just finished reading Ogundiran's Yoruba: A New History and Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People, and they both could be useful. Catjacket (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tihnk you're trying to discredit my work, but when you're splitting hairs over things that are miniscule, and saying a wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist, I believe so. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile. Your argument would be fine, if you say maybe change it from "Sack of Katunga" to abandoment, or desertification. But again, that shouldn't remove the fact, that this is more than credible to be a wikipedia page. And the fact i cited multiple times arguably the most detailed pre-colonial history about Yorubas, should show this is is a legitimate page, with a historical goal.

As for helping me get the battle of pamo, mugbamugba war, and aboh, up to wikipedia's standards, please let me know. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page covers the general overview of the sacking of the capital, this event basically marks the point at which the very decisive collapse of the empire's political center in the 1830s fell. But the page might need a little rephrasing since calling it a battle might oversimplify the event, since it was less of a single battle and more a series of invasions, etc, and eventual abandonment of the city around 1835–1837. But it's important to note that the term "sack" in historical contexts does not require the presence of a battle or active defense, since the sacking of a city refers to the looting and destroying, or even razing of a city at times, often after it has been abandoned or conquered.[27] Considering the symbolic and political importance of the town, even if the citizens of the town fled or didn't flee, there would still be valuable resources, possessions, and also infrastructure left behind. The invading army could still seize these assets and leave the city stripped of its wealth and resources. Whether there was an actual pitched battle in the area is secondary to the fact that its fall marked the end of the Oyo Empire itself. Also, sources in the article support the term “sack,” evidenced in Samuel Johnson’s History of the Yorubas "Oyo at length capitulated and the Ilorin troops entered and sacked the city. Oyo was plundered of nearly everything, but no captives were made excepting some Oyo beauties who were carried away with the spoils." [28] Also, Wikipedia hosts many pages about historical events that involved little fighting but had a massive political impact so the Sack of Old Oyo, as the final act of a once-dominant West African empire, clearly meets this precedent. The page needs a simple reframing since sack seems to be a problem, maybe fall or siege would be better.Bernadine okoro (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I think your proposal to reframe the page to clarify that there was not an active defense or population present is a possible compromise. Perhaps renaming it to 'Evacuation of Old Oyo' would be more accurate than 'sack', since it was the fleeing inhabitants who stripped the town of valuables more than the invaders. But even in that instance, I think it fails the WP:NOTE test and would be better as a section on the Oyo-Ile page. After all, Johnson only dedicated 2 sentences to the whole event: "The citizen's fearing that he would receive re-inforcement from Ilorin did not wait to try any further conclusions ; the great metropolis was deserted, some fled to Kihisi, some to Igboho, and some even to Ilorin. As it was not a flight from an enemy in pursuit many who reached Kihisi and Igboho safely with their family returned again and again for their household goods and chattels till one Agandangban went and told Lanloke that Oyo had been deserted, and the latter proceeded immediately to plunder, and carry away what was left by the citizens."

One of your examples, in fact, illustrates my point nicely. The sack that Johnson is referring to on page 217 is not the final fall of the city, but rather one that took place earlier, during the initial rise of Ilorin. A page called 'Sack of Old-Oyo' should probably be about this first sacking rather than the later abandonment, but we don't have enough information about either 'sacking' to merit a standalone page, as far as a I know. Catjacket (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging in this discussion with care and good faith. I see your point regarding the earlier reference to a “sack” on page 217 of The History of the Yorubas, and I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the various phases of Old Oyo’s decline—particularly the initial incursion during the rise of Ilorin and the final abandonment of the capital. However, I would argue that the cumulative process—including military action, desertion, and political collapse—forms a historically significant event that is often collectively referred to (in both academic and public discourse) as the "fall" or "sack" of Old Oyo. To clarify, the article I created focuses not just on a single "battle" or isolated event, but on the entire chain of events—including the Ilorin campaigns, the resistance described in Johnson (pp. 260, 266–267), and the subsequent loss of hegemony over subordinate towns like Gbodo. In this context, the term “sack” may be interpreted as a figurative description of collapse due to sustained conflict and internal disintegration, not necessarily a single moment of conquest like a classic battlefield engagement. I also believe the topic merits a standalone article for several reasons: Academic treatment: Authors like Akinwumi Ogundiran (Yoruba: A New History) and Stephen Akintoye treat the fall of Old Oyo as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history—even if it's complex and unfolds over time. Public interest and educational value: Many readers search for the fall of Old Oyo as a standalone subject, not just as a subsection of a broader article. Having a dedicated page improves accessibility, clarity, and depth. Title flexibility: If the term "Sack of Old Oyo" causes confusion or implies a narrow focus, I am more than open to renaming the article to something more neutral and descriptive, such as “Fall of Old Oyo”, “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”, or “Decline of the Oyo Empire’s Capital”. Incompleteness ≠ Non-notability: While the primary sources may not offer precise dates or a blow-by-blow account of either “sack,” that doesn't diminish the notability or historical impact of the event. Wikipedia hosts many articles about gradual collapses or unclear sequences of events, particularly when multiple reputable sources discuss them in depth. I welcome collaboration to clarify the scope and strengthen the sourcing. But I believe that merging this content into Oyo-Ile would oversimplify a pivotal transformation in Yoruba history. A separate article—properly framed, titled, and sourced—allows space for nuance and invites further expansion. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sack of Old Oyo page right now only has a 'Background' and 'Aftermath' section. In other words, none of the page's content is about the actual fall of the city of Old Oyo - it's just about the events going on around it. So either we change the title to match the content, or we delete it.

I think I understand better where you're coming from now. Sounds like you think of the Sack of Old Oyo page as the place where you can read about the entire war, or entire series of conflicts that included the ultimate fall of Oyo-Ile. If I'm understanding your position correctly, then the page should be renamed something like 'Collapse of the Oyo Empire'. I don't hate that option, but I still don't see how that page would make life easier for readers. If you're looking for a history of the empire and its fall, the first place you would look would be Oyo Empire or Yoruba Wars, maybe Battle of Ilorin. If you wanted a history of the city specifically, obviously Oyo-Ile is the place to go. Creating new articles when there are existing articles that need this content just makes it harder to keep Wikipedia at the high level of quality and reliability that we all want.

Johnson, Ogundiran, and Akintoye all treat the fall of the Oyo Empire as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history. But none of them treat the fall of the city of Oyo-Ile as such. In fact, in their books the fall of the city only stands out because it is such a non-event - after the Battle of Ilorin, people just evacuate the city on their own. You're right that the evacuation is a watershed moment and shouldn't be oversimplified, but it is the sources themselves who are doing the oversimplifying. As I pointed out before, Johnson only dedicates two sentences to the sack. And we have to follow the sources: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Catjacket (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Johnson, Ogundiran, and Akintoye may not spend dozens of pages detailing the fall of the city itself, all three frame the event as a major historical turning point—the symbolic and functional end of centralized Oyo power. That’s not a "non-event"; it’s a transitional moment between eras in Yoruba political history.

Just because the population evacuated prior to Ilorin's arrival doesn’t mean there wasn’t an act of defeat or collapse. Johnson explicitly states that after the desertion, the Ilorin forces arrived, seized the ruins, and extinguished any residual authority—that is a sack by broader historical standards. In many world histories, a “sack” often includes symbolic occupation, looting, or razing after a city is abandoned—especially if that abandonment was driven by war, fear, or defeat. Again if you make the argument that the wiki can be titled as abandoment, i can see an argument of that. I hope the wikipedia moderators, can see this is just a ludacrus smear attack at best. None of this counts as "original resesarch", as it is arguably the most documented pre-colonial book on Yorubas. And i don't know how imply's a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source, when the source pretty much argues exactly for what is here.

Wikipedia hosts standalone articles on similar moments in global history—even when no major “battle” took place; like fall of Saigon at the tip of my head. I'm not using that as an excuse, but again I hope from the details of this argument the wiki moderators can see, this is just arguing about semantics. And at best; a wiki name change to abandon, or evacuation. In several of these, evacuation, symbolic defeat, and loss of control define the event more than violent conflict itself. The same logic applies here. Again i'm more than willing to change the title to evacuation or abandonment. I even have more sources for it, i mostly relied on one, because Johnson's book is the oldest, (over a century old), and seen as the most credible as its closest to the time period.

Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion of the article titled "Sack of Old Oyo". While I appreciate and understand the concerns raised, I believe the topic merits its own dedicated page based on historical significance, available sources, and the guidelines for notability outlined by Wikipedia. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile.The Johnson text is a foundational source on Yoruba history, widely recognized and cited by scholars and available publicly through Archive.org and Google Books. Other sources, including Akinwumi Ogundiran’s Yoruba: A New History and Stephen Akintoye’s A History of the Yoruba People, further contextualize this event. While interpretations may vary slightly between scholars, the event is consistently recognized and discussed in scholarly literature, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia regularly hosts dedicated articles for pivotal historical events, even when closely related to larger subjects (e.g., individual battles, uprisings, or sackings). Keeping the Sack of Old Oyo as a standalone article allows for more comprehensive treatment, sourcing, and debate around its nature, without overburdening the main Oyo-Ile page. Furthermore, this enables clearer navigation and improves reader access to deeper historical information.As the article’s creator, I invested considerable time in reading, interpreting, and referencing multiple scholarly sources to develop content that meets Wikipedia’s standards. I welcome collaborative editing and criticism in good faith and am happy to revise or restructure the article where needed. However, outright deletion risks disregarding both historical nuance and the labor involved in preserving underrepresented African historical narratives.

If the primary concern is scope overlap with the Oyo-Ile article or concerns about whether "sack" is the most accurate term, I am open to renaming the article (e.g., “Fall of Old Oyo” or “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”) and improving source attribution and language clarity. But deletion is not the ideal solution for a historically attested and sourced subject.

The event commonly referred to as the “Sack of Old Oyo” represents a complex, consequential episode in Yoruba and West African history. It is sufficiently covered in reliable sources and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I respectfully request that the page not be deleted but instead improved collaboratively. Thank you for your time and consideration. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Oluwafemi1726[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) IgelRM (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process? I missread the thread. --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [29] [30] [31] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision#Studios, that one Gamesindustry.biz article cited by nominator seems to be the only piece of significant coverage. Interviews and press releases are considered primary sources. GameRant article is by WP:VALNET so it shouldn't be used for notability but it's also fairly standard coverage of personnel hiring, trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. --Mika1h (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to document the studio's notability, though it needs some updating. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give an example or is a source review table necessary? IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a consensus to Keep but the nominator suggested having a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:IgelRM
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/meet-the-best-places-to-work-in-canadas-games-industry?page=2		Interview with the studio head for being nominated for "Best Places To Work" by the publication	✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/beenox-to-open-new-studio-in-montreal			✘ No
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-beenox-to-create-more-original-titles			✔ Yes
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activisions-reputation-probably-unfair-says-spider-man-developer		Interview with the studio head about Activision	✘ No
https://gamerant.com/activision-beenox-call-of-duty-support/	~	"According to a report by Benzinga", which means a press release per linked "Source: Benzinga" at the end of the article.	✘ No
https://www.polygon.com/2012/12/14/3767352/beenox-founder-leaves		According to press release, 3 sentences article.	✘ No
https://www.macworld.com/article/166245/beenox-2.html			✔ Yes
https://www.macworld.com/article/174622/beenox-4.html		Few sentences on announcements with Mac focus.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the table?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found another SIGCOV here in a print magazine. While I would have !voted delete with the current sources and have no clue what people are seeing there, this new source proves to me that CORPDEPTH is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I have also reconsider that the La Presse article probably gives notability to the founder and company. I would like to withdraw this AfD. IgelRM (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and added a ref. I don't see WP:THREE instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, and don't think the school meets WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Private schools is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least Weak Keep. Ideally, I'd like to see more in depth coverage from sources from further away, but there's a lot of documentation and enough I could find from other newspapers in the state.
- "Trinity, St. Francis Schools Expand in Morgantown" (Feb 2006)[32] State Journal, Charleston
- "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[33] Dominion Post
- Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[34] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[35] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[36] Dominion Post
- "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [37], Dominion Post
- "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [38], Charleston Gazette
- "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [39] Dominion Post
- "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [40]" Charleston Daily Mail
- More[41][42][43][44][45][46]

There are also hundreds of more routine sports articles, which actually makes it difficult to find the more in depth ones Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as private school it will have to pass WP:NORG and I dont see any substantial in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. There is some coverage from a single newspaper but a lot is run of the mill and not in-depth, one single source is not multiple and trivial coverage of sports events does not constitute SIGCOV. --hroest
Weak keep - compared with most independent schools, this seems to get a lot of (at least local) media coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Weak arguments on both sides of the fence here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In situations like this, I would normally go to Newspapers.com for sources. However, content from that state is surprisingly scarce. Sources in old newspapers likely exist, but they are hard to find. BeanieFan11, you are much better at navigating the Newspaper Archive than me. Is there anything you can do? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toshie the Nihilist

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Showing at festivals is not notability. No sign of any independent reviews. Sockfarm creation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of independent articles about the film in Japanese. It also has some notability in English, having been mentioned in Variety, on smaller independent sites like Boston Hassle, and on festival websites where it received awards. Given its coverage especially in Japanese media, I believe it’s valuable to make this information available in English. Wata78 (talk) 18:56, 13 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!} 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matthew Chozick, contingent on its AfD. ~~Delete~~ The Variety article only discusses the film for two sentences and the Boston Hassle discusses it for three, neither of which constitutes significant coverage. (The Boston Hassle is probably unreliable anyway since many of its articles are written by volunteers.) The Cinefil article is an interview with the director. I'd consider Nikkan Sports the strongest source, but that's mostly quotes from the cast and crew. I don't see enough here to meet WP:GNG. Wata78, if you're referring to coverage in Japanese media that's not already in this article (or the version on Japanese Wikipedia), it'd be helpful to have that. hinnk (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my recommendation, @Hinnk. For Nikkan Sports, there are not one but two articles covering the film, one of which offers more information about the movie itself. The same goes for Cinefil, which has an additional piece not mentioned above: here. There’s also coverage in print in the Tokyo cultural newspaper コミュかる, issue 69, and the film was featured on Natalie (website) here.

While the Variety article may not be a full review, it contains more than two lines since the director's comments are related.

The cast also merits some attention for their own notability. Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize winner Taro Yabe deserves a page here, as does Hideo Furukawa, recipient of the Mishima Yukio Prize. Wata78 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the other Nikkan Sports article? hinnk (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk, one Nikkan Sports article is here and one is here. Same photo but different content. Wata78 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looking at those sources, the Cinefil article appears to be using promotional copy written by the director himself. The newspaper article is an interview with the director, plus a description of an exhibition that doesn't cover the film. To me, the three strongest sources are the Natalie article and the two Nikkan Sports articles. Of those, the Natalie article reads like a routine event announcement, and of the Nikkan Sports articles, this one is the only one that contains a little bit of analysis from the author instead of quoting the cast and crew. IMO, taken together these don't meet WP:GNG, and the fact that, a few years after release, we can't find reviews in reliable sources is a bit of a red flag to me. I've struck out my original recommendation since the title would still be a reasonable search term. hinnk (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @hinnk. Do you happen to read Japanese? Some of your interpretations seem a little off. For instance, the Cinefil article says it is written by the editorial team. And the newspaper piece doesn’t mention an exhibition.

About "reliable reviews," the reason you can't find them is because they don't exist in Japan like you're accustomed to in English. See this discussion. There is a cultural difference that prevents reviews from being much more than summary in Japan.

For establishing notoriety, the existence of international coverage, physical (not just online) media about the movie, and various awards also carries weight to me. Wata78 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very little, I'm working with machine translation so please correct me if I'm misreading the source. The Cinefil article is labeled as being written by the editorial department, but it opens with a first-person introduction by Matthew Chozick. The newspaper isn't a translation issue though; I'm referring to the section labeled "Under24 Creator Exhibition" (in English) on page 4. hinnk (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hinnk. Yes, it definitely looks like a machine translation issue with the Cinefil article—there’s no first-person introduction in the original. I also searched through both Nikkan Sports articles across all four pages and didn’t find any mention of the “Under24 Creator Exhibition.” Perhaps you saw that reference elsewhere? Wata78 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to page 4 of the newspaper you mentioned (コミュかる), not Nikkan Sports. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but "Amerikahito tarento to shite Nihonte ゙ katsudō suru watashi, mashū chojikku…" reads as a first-person statement by Chozick.

Either way, we're optimistically looking at a second routine event description which like the Natalie article is based on the announcement of the domestic premiere, and still next to no WP:SIRS-type coverage discussing the film (a bit in the second Nikkan Sports article if you squint). As duffbeerforme touched on, we do need secondary sources to be able to make a proper article, and it's hard to get there using event descriptions, the award listings of some minor festivals, and statements by the cast and crew. hinnk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unlike the second Cinefil or Natalie article, the コミュかる one includes an interview with the director, but it still is another independent source that is asking about the movie because of its notability. Again, if the concern is an absence of English-style reviews in Japanese media, they generally don’t exist for anything. That style of writing goes against Japanese cultural norms, so notability is better established through other means.

Anyway, thanks @Hinnk. Wata78 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two additional independent English-language articles that mention the film without including interviews and offer some minor critical commentary.

One, from a Boston arts magazine, briefly notes its award win and comments on its excellence but lack of puppets: The Arts Fuse. The other, from a magazine in Tokyo, is positive about the film and its screening format: Metropolis. Wata78 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am gathering all of the sources talked about in the conversation above so that I can make a judgement.

Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "“Toshie the Nihilist” made an outstanding premier at the Academy Award and BAFTA, winning the Best Comedy Award at the New York International Short Film Festival." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

2. "ended up winning Best Short at BUFF; well earned, but not nearly enough puppets for me (none actually)." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

3. Heavily interview/Chozick quote based but there are some parts that could be described as commentary it could possibly be good enough for 1 source.

4. More quote based than the above source, fewer parts that can be described as commentary.

5. "The film, which has won numerous awards since premiering at the 2021 L.A. Shorts Intl. Film Festival, was developed and produced in Japan" the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

6. Entirely an interview, not very focused on Toshie. Doesn't do much for notability for me.

7. Standard press release material that is already found in the Nikkan sources.

8. This is a local city newsletter and a direct interview. I don't think this grants notability.

I don't think this collection of sources is enough and I don't think any of the awards that it won are prestigious enough to grant notability themselves. Moritoriko (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko thank you for listing the articles and analyzing them. You were thorough but missed at least a couple. Here's the other above linked Cinefil piece and here is English from Boston Hassle. I wonder if you read Japanese?

Regardless, that makes more than 10 pieces linked. I believe we should KEEP this since "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

The movie is mentioned on a lot of other Japanese websites and also in English in places like Letterboxd Wata78 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops you are right, I don't think that other Cinefil article is crazy better than the first one and the Hassle one follows the pattern of the other Boston source and barely mentions it. See below for my WP:ATD Moritoriko (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Matthew Chozick: After the discussion here and at WP:Articles for deletion/Matthew Chozick I think the proper solution is to move this content to that page as all of the sources with actual content about the movie see it in relation to him. Moritoriko (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective, but I’d like to share why I don't think merging the article works better than keeping it:

1. Merging all of this information into the director’s page would create unnecessary clutter there. That, in itself, supports keeping it as a standalone entry. As noted in WP:NFILM: “[a page can be created if the information] would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.”

2. Another issue with a merger is that the entry does contain information that is notable pertaining to individuals other than the director (such as awards and screenings of varying significance at Academy Award-qualifying festivals with cast). This information would only somewhat be appropriate for the director's page but it provides details for improving outdated English Wikipedia pages of some cast mentioned on it and also for translating new pages from Japanese. If you read Japanese, rather than destroying content here, I believe it'd be more productive if you could help translate pages for cast like Hideo Furukawa (Yomiuri Prize winner notable also for Inuo and more), comedian Taro Yabe (winner of Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize), and composer Hiroyuki Onogawa. They all easily meet notability guidelines.

3. I also overall disagree with your assessment of the sourcing. To respond to your most recent criticism, although you're right that the Boston Hassle article is not a huge expose, it does include multiple lines of critical observation, a photo, and concludes with “Just delightful!” This kind of coverage meets a minimum noted requirement of film festival reporting that can be used as evidence for notability since it contains a critical opinion Note 1. Cumulatively all this writing about the movie, the interviews, and the prizes do support its significance in my opinion. Another criteria for notability will soon be met since the film continues to show at festivals and cinemas for almost five years now.

To summarize, while this entry can be improved, I believe there are strong cases for retaining it in its standalone form. Thanks. Wata78 (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hafez El-Sayed

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging our Egyptian Olympians expert, @Canadian Paul:. Is there anything to find here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner alignment

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

The article does not currently cite reliable sources. Current citations include the forums "LessWrong" and "AI Alignment Forum", and blog articles on "AISafety.info", Medium, and LinkedIn. A web search turned up the following primary source articles:

I am recommending this article for deletion since I could find no references to this concept in reliable secondary sources. Elestrophe (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep: This concept seems to exist and be a confounding factor in artificial intelligence spaces, and therefore has some value to the overall encyclopedia. Because AI is advancing at such a rate, and because such advancements raise challenges faster than scientific study of those challenges can be adequately conducted, I would argue that there is some limited room for article creation before full adequate sourcing exists. There is a fine line between what I am talking about and a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOR; but I would raise that it is better to have an article in this case than not have an article. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article "before full adequate sourcing exists" is a violation of the No Original Research policy, full stop. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable concept. I just added a reference to the article from Scientific Reports. A Google Scholar search for "inner alignment" artificial intelligence turns up 300+ results. Many are preprints but there remain many peer-reviewed papers and books. Books, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific Reports is not a good journal. It's the cash-grab of the Nature company. The majority of Wikipedia's own article about it is the "Controversies" section, for goodness sake. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The version has been improved and the concept itself is notable and increasingly discussed in the academic literature. The notion of “inner alignment” is widely cited in alignment research and has been already formalized. While the original discussions emerged on platforms like the AI Alignment Forum and LessWrong, the term has since migrated into peer-reviewed academic publications. Southernhemisphere (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of actual serious literature, i.e., multiple reliably-published articles that cover the topic in depth, this is just an advertisement for an ideology. The current sourcing is dreadful, running the gamut from LessWrong to LinkedIn, and a search for better options did not turn up nearly enough to indicate that this needs an article rather than, at most, a sentence somewhere else. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LessWrong and LinkedIn referenced texts were deleted. While the article requires further refinement, the topic remains highly relevant. Southernhemisphere (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now remove "aisafety.info" (a primary, non-independent source with no editorial standards that can be discerned). And "Bluedot Impact" (likewise). And the blog post about a podcast episode on Medium, which fails every test one could want for a source good enough to build an encyclopedia article upon. What's left? Not much. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting by what is in the article today vs what is out there is not how it works. Poorly or incompletely written is not grounds to delete. Google this: "Inner alignment" artificial intelligence. Lots of stuff if we but look: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Exists and is notable, and newer sciences, so you have to dig more. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is to the arXiv preprint version of a conference proceedings paper in a conference with unknown standards. The lead author was at OpenAI, which means that the paper has to be judged for the possibility of criti-hype, and in any event, should be regarded as primary and not independent. The second is a page of search results from a search engine that does not screen for peer review and even includes a self-published book. The third is in Scientific Reports, which via this essay I learned has published crackpot physics. The fifth is a thesis, which is generally not a good kind of source to use. In short, there is much less here than meets the eye. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that a doctoral thesis is an allowable reliable source. However hinging an article like this on a single source is not appropriate. This is why I proposed draftification. This topic could very well be one that generates reliable sources but it's clearly not there yet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source that looks halfway like credible computer science is a wildly speculative pre-print from 2024 sponsored by Google and Microsoft. The article looks like covert advertising for AIsafety.info. Jujodon (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. If reliable academic sources come forward then this article then that's fine but preprints and blogs are not reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Is there a single RS for this? Perhaps we could move the article to arXiv too, or maybe viXra - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inner alignment is a notable and emerging concept in AI safety, now cited in peer-reviewed sources such as Scientific Reports (Melo et al., 2025) and PRAI 2024 (Li et al.). While the article began with less formal sources, newer academic literature confirms its relevance. Per WP:GNG, the topic has significant coverage in reliable sources. Improvements are ongoing, and deletion would be premature for a concept gaining scholarly traction. Sebasargent (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Sebasargent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "emerging concept" places it squarely as WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Inner alignment is an urgent topic because it addresses a core safety challenge in the development of powerful AI systems, especially those based on LLMs or other ML techniques. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the many paragraphs cited solely to blog posts, arXiv preprints, Medium posts, some guy's website, or nothing at all. This is now a three-paragraph article with two cites. Is that really all there is to this? Nothing else in a solid RS? - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be fixed and enhanced, not deleted. Inner alignment is crucial to preventing both existential risks and suffering risks. Misaligned AI systems may pursue unintended goals, leading to human extinction or vast suffering. Ensuring AI internal goals match human values is key to avoiding catastrophic outcomes as AI systems become more capable and autonomous. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously claim that LLMs will lead to the end of humanity, then this sounds like the topic is squarely within the purview of WP:FRINGE. This puts upon it strong RS requirements. Right now it has two RSes, one of those the topic is merely a passing mention in a footnote. Given this, you really, really need more solid sourcing. I just posted a call on WP:FTN asking for good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn’t assert that LLMs will end humanity, but notes that some researchers view inner alignment as a potential contributor to AI risk. I agree that stronger secondary sources are needed and will work on adding more reliable references to reflect the seriousness of the topic neutrally. Southernhemisphere (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To speak to your point, User:David Gerard, As an expert in Emergency Management, and someone who has spent a great deal of time studying global catastrophic risk, the idea that AI could lead to the end of humanity is far from fringe science. The fact that essentially every AI company working towards AGI has a team working on Catostrophic Risk is more than enough evidence that AI poses a possible existential threat. Essentially no one on either side of the AI debate disagrees that AI poses a general catastrophic risk. They may disagree on the level of risk and everything else, but the risk is universally acknowledged to be there. - Foxtrot620 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every "AI" company having a team working on catastrophic risk is not significant evidence, because they would still have those teams just for hype under the null hypothesis of lack of belief in catastrophic risk. It would almost certainly fail to reject the null with p < .05, and the Bayes factor would be so small that it shouldn't convince you of anything that you don't already have very high priors for. (Which, sure, might be reasonable for some narrow statements, like companies believing actual AGI "possibly" posing existential risks. Companies believing the current marginal dollar spent on this providing more benefit to them on the "actual risk" side compared to the "attract investment and other hype" is going to be a nah from me) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a brief notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- LWG ^talk 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tumbling

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

Little to no evidence that this person was real or did any of the things this article describes. Might be a hoax based on the movie. Even if the movie is based on a real person, no indication that the information in this article is about the real person and not the character from the movie. Most/all of the sources cited aren't real sources. No useful results on Google. -- LWG ^talk 01:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime. -- LWG ^talk 01:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in lieu of a further explanation as to why this would be a hoax? Most of the sources are reliable news outlets from Google News Archive which is not falsifiable. There doesn't seem to be any proof that this is made up and the way the news articles are written it doesn't seem that way at all... just that there was a movie doesn't make it not real, and plenty of the sources are about the man, not the movie. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are either non-reliable and/or only relate to the movie. On closer examination of the Phillipine Inquirer sources I see that you are correct that this person definitely existed. At first glance they looked like tabloid coverage that was only tangentially related. On closer examination it is true that they are only tangentially related, but the issues seem resolvable by stubification instead of deletion. -- LWG ^talk 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sora Tanaka

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

Not meet WP:NBOX HumanRight 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBOX doesn’t have any prescriptive criteria for boxers; it defers to WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this isn’t a vote and I haven’t even looked at the sourcing—absolutely no position on deletion. Just pointing out that NBOX lays out exactly zero criteria for boxers. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Boxing, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be reasonably fixed, and sources exist, WP:NBOX defers to WP:SIGCOV, which exists per reference section.

Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NBOX clearly states that a boxer is notable if they have ranked in the world top 10, making Tanaka fail NBOX. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 00:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly not ranked in world top 10 so WP:NBOX is not met. I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage the keep voters see, so I'm hoping they can explain it to me. All pro boxers get their fights covered, but not all boxers are WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks IRS SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Legrand

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only fewer sources added. Absolutiva (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and France. Absolutiva (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masala coffee recipe

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG, not adequately supported by independent sources Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. The external links feature a book that doesn't exist (The Spice Route). The article creator has repeatedly added links to an AI-generated cooking blog [52] [53] [54] and needs a stern talking-to. Astaire (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Astaire. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreement with User:Astaire in part, but not in toto. The citing of a non-existent book and AI gen'd cooking blogs are clearly inappropriate, but if reliable sources are somewhere available, and it truly has become popular and widespread during the Monsoon season, than it could be worth keeping. That being said, I couldn't find any, and it seems to be just another common sense recipe variation (albeit one that experienced a brief popularity in several semi-noteable, questionable accuracy publications such as Woman's World around 2021). Just because I own a seaside coffee shop and add Old Bay seasoning to coffee doesn't justify an Old Bay Seasoning Coffee page on Wikipedia. (FWIW, I don't and that sounds disgusting, but the comparison is sound) Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's room in the wiki for an article about Masala coffee (at a title without "recipe" in it), if adequate references can be found. These are not that article, not that title, and not those references. -- Avocado (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [55][56] (Reuters), [57][58] (Bloomberg), [59][60][61][62](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

LLM text collapsed

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Khabar

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

Unclear notability. No significant coverage of this Jharkhand-based news platform. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Jharkhand. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has a presence but lacks significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 00:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a news medium in itself so why would any other news medium write about this Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of news media, books, scholarly papers, etc. that write about other news media. Look at the sources for any article about a major newspaper, such as The Times of India. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News article as reference added Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles were both published just today? Paid news isn't independent or reliable; don't waste your money trying to get sources for Wikipedia. Please address the paid-editing query on your talk page before editing further. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:PROMOTIONAL article with WP:COI issues. Jumpytoo Talk 04:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has a clear COI (UPE) and should never have created this in the main space. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Georgekacchap left the following message on my talk page: "Notable page keep". They also incorrectly modified the template on Talk:The Real Khabar. Potential sock? Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3DI - Data-Driven Development Initiative

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

Does not meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And the user (User:Hamdaan Abid) who created the article claims to be the son of one of the founders. Clearly conflict of interest. Masterhatch (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. vanity piece, advertisement masquerading as an article. Could likely have been draftified and a warning given to the user due to the COI, could also have likely been speedied, but just as well to determine the notability here. Fails NCORP. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator now thinks that it is ok for this article to be in draftspace, and has moved it there themselves. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable - fails WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.

[1]