Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 19 (Mon)      May 18 (Sun)      May 17 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The list has no indepedent, reliable, or third party sources, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. I could not find anything online that was independent to establish that this should be a standalone list. Although everything is cited, it uses only primary sources. A possible merger target might be List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams, but non-primary sources would be required. Flibirigit (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The best I could find was [[1]] but without more coverage this is probably a delete for me. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... doesn't seem really that notable.. as it didnt get much independent coverage.. also the list is kinda dated now. Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams. Don't see this as a notable list on its own. But in the main article I linked does have a section on it with a link. No need to create an article recreating what the link says. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails LISTN as the subject has no evidence of being notable, and I can't find any secondary sources on it. However, there may be interest in expanding Minor_League_Baseball#Top_100_teams into a paragraph rather than a single line. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not notable per guidelines as it has not attracted sustained public interest at any time. I support deletion. Helikophis (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this page. Celica tom (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason The page is essentially promotionnal. It consists in copy/pasting several similar lists that can be found online, for instance here and there.

Babylone444 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE —Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Lists, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources in the first paragraph describe his honors in aggregate, just like List of awards and honours received by Winston Churchill, and thus this meets WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree this reads as promotional/in the style of a CV rather than an article of encyclopedic value. However, it does seem to technically pass WP:NLIST. I think maybe a discussion on the practice of separate awards list pages for individuals should be held in an appropriate forum. I would think it much more valuable to only list the most notable awards an individual has earned. Certainly huge lists that include honorary doctorates/professorships/citizenships etc. don't seem valuable considering something like an honorary degree is handed out for a 20 minute commencement speech. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Include he most notable, and with a link to the full page. But the effort to remove this altogether isnot meant as an improvement to Wikipedia, or even to the Daisaku Ikeda entry; it is an attack on the subject. As you can see, here, an editor has appealed to an anti0Ikeda sub Reddit for help, and in the comments Ikeda is referred to as "Icky", and they celebrate the idea of denigrating his reputation. Daveler16 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: He clearly has a lot of awards and these are given SIGCOV in both sources covering individual awards and the awards he has received as a whole. Because of this, I am concerned that this nom is a defamation attack against the subject and has no actual rationale. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Only provided sources are databases and results listings which are not sufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 14 May 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. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing shows up on search, even for his name in Arabic. The article on the German wiki isn't any better.— Moriwen (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics where the person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should significant coverage eventually be found. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no (additional) coverage in Arabic FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Men because he fails WP:SPORTCRIT, but is mentioned on that page in that section. All other athletes wikilinked in that section seem to be somewhat more notable so he is an odd-one out. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Mauritania at the Olympics article, where one could add his Arabic name in a note (which would help anyone trying to look for sources on him in the future) and perhaps that his time was a personal best. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second-tier footballer with no significant coverage; one article which mentions his name in a single sentence, and one database entry. Nothing better turns up on search, either for his name in Bulgarian or the transliteration. — Moriwen (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. — Moriwen (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Creek, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

What shows on the topos is a long passing siding on a now abandoned Wabash line. But there's no name, and this was added from the state highway map which has been the source of a number of other spurious places. I don't doubt that there was a station here, but there's no sign there was any town. Searching tended to produce hit on the township or the watershed. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE, no sign of a town. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJW Hotels & Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Aona1212, who requested deletion at WT:AfD and the article talk page due to it being unsourced and promotional. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Travel and tourism. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not sourced.Aona1212 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is true that there are no independent reliable sources applied to this page. It's likely worse than that; the page (and the Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber bio associated) appear to have been created and farmed almost entirely by undisclosed paid editors. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Passing mentions and routine announcements is all I can find in a quick search. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mohamed bin Issa Al Jaber (with the history preserved under the redirect), per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No real coverage for this biography. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo.UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nomination, but also per WP:GNG, I don't see what he's actually accomplished. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional UPE article which does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Young Freemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE). Current citations are almost entirely routine or minor mentions, many of them in publications by related institutions. Paul W (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – Keep

  I oppose deletion. The Guild of Young Freemen article meets both the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and WP:ORGCRITE for organizational notability.

  1. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources

  The Guild has been featured in respected publications beyond trivial mention, including:

  Financial Times, referring to it as a “popular association” among City Freemen.

  The Times, which has photographed and referenced Guild members during livery events.

  BBC, which includes the Guild in Lord Mayor’s Show coverage.

  City Matters, the City of London’s newspaper of record, with multiple pieces highlighting the Guild’s involvement in civic life (Sheep Drive, Pancake Race, inter-livery charity work).

  The Field magazine — one of the oldest hobby and sporting publications in the UK — has mentioned the Guild alongside other historic Livery Companies in its coverage of City traditions.

  2. Public civic role

  The Guild plays a formal part in the annual Lord Mayor’s Show, where its members escort the traditional figures of Gog and Magog. It was founded in 1976 by the City of London Corporation to engage younger Freemen. Recently, it entered a long-term partnership with the St John Eye Hospital Group, reflecting its charitable mission and continuing relevance.

  3. Notable alumni and impact

  The Guild has served as a launchpad for individuals who have gone on to serve the City, such as:

  William Hunt, founding member and later Windsor Herald of Arms.

  Alastair King, current Alderman and Lord Mayor of London (2024–25), who serves as the Guild’s patron.

  Several Common Councilmen and civic figures who identify as alumni or close affiliates.

  The Guild also works with livery companies on public events and charitable activities, reinforcing its embedded role in City life.

  4. On par with comparable articles

  There are other Wikipedia articles on City institutions like the City Livery Club and Guild of Freemen, some of which have less sourcing or less civic visibility. The Guild of Young Freemen is no less notable than these examples. Deletion would be inconsistent with how other comparable pages are treated.

  5. Good-faith editing and room for improvement

  The article was drafted by me (under the username ReclaimEC1) as part of a journalistic initiative to improve coverage of overlooked but historically relevant civic bodies in the City of London. I acknowledge there may be tone issues, but these can easily be corrected through collaborative editing. I intend to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors across Wikipedia.

  Conclusion

  The Guild of Young Freemen is notable, historically rooted, publicly active, and covered by multiple independent, high-quality sources. It deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Improvements should be made through editing—not deletion. ReclaimEC1 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources", please cite them.

1. I did a Google search for news items, and found nothing significant.
2. The BBC Lord Mayor's Show coverage is passing mentions. It does not focus on the Guild. Participation in a big event does not make the Guild notable
3. The 'launchpad' argument is spurious - per WP:INHERIT.
4. 'Comparable articles' argument is irrelevant and unconvincing - per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
5. Sorry, but WP:HARDWORK is no reason to retain a subject that fails GNG.

I note a draft article on the same subject also exists - Draft:Guild of Young Freemen - maybe focus on improving that to the point that it is acceptable.

I also note your intention "to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors". This would be welcomed, so long as the subjects meet GNG, ORGCRITE and NPOL - several of the recently created Common Councillor articles do not meet the latter criteria and have been nominated for deletion.

Paul W (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul W, for your thoughtful engagement. I appreciate the scrutiny, and I agree we should hold all content to GNG and related standards.

Re: your question on significant coverage — here are some independent, reliable sources that reference the Guild of Young Freemen in more than a passing way:

The Times (18 May 2015): Announcement of the appointment of a new Master of the Guild. This was printed in the announcements section — a public record of officer appointments in civic institutions.

BBC: While BBC coverage of the Lord Mayor’s Show often highlights the overall event, the Guild appears in broadcast footage as escorts of Gog and Magog (e.g. BBC London News, 13 Nov 2021). Though mentioned briefly, the Guild’s official role is confirmed independently on the Lord Mayor’s Show website, which states:

“The giant willow figures… are escorted by the Guild of Young Freemen, founded by the Corporation to encourage participation of young Liverymen in the affairs and traditions of the City.”

The Feltmaker (Worshipful Company of Feltmakers): A 2022 issue notes the Guild led participants across London Bridge during the Sheep Drive, confirming their ceremonial role beyond internal mentions.

Range Magazine (15 May 2025): The latest issue includes a feature on the Guild, discussing its history, civic involvement, and charitable work, including partnerships with Livery Companies and the St John Eye Hospital Group.

These references collectively meet GNG by showing significant, independent, and non-trivial coverage. They demonstrate the Guild’s consistent involvement in high-profile civic traditions and charity, backed by third-party sources.

As for the draft — yes, I only noticed it afterward. But since the live page already exists (not created by me), it makes sense to improve it rather than duplicate work. I’m happy to help merge, edit, or polish content as needed.

Lastly, thank you again for taking an interest. I genuinely hope you’ll consider helping improve these articles with me rather than proposing deletions — we’re all here to expand access to accurate, verifiable information, especially about historic institutions that are often overlooked. Constructive collaboration always makes the project stronger.

Referenced Links

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/article/2015-05-18/12/0.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59266028

https://lordmayorsshow.london/2023/procession

https://www.feltmakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Feltmaker-2022.pdf

Range Magazine (15 May 2025 – print only; article available upon request or via City libraries) ReclaimEC1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment in detail on the Times mention (paywalled) or Range Magazine (though both sound to be the result of Guild PR/marketing, which may render the coverage unreliable). The Lord Mayor's Show mention is not really independent (there is a clear connection between the Show and the Guild). The Feltmakers link is broken, but I intuited it might be the 2022 magazine - there is a passing mention (but not significant coverage). If you see fit, please edit the article (there may be additional sources in the Draft article) so that other editors can take a view. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you interesting conversation, I appreciate the help and tips and have begun making changes. I thank all who are working on this together. Miceofbankstation (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (yet I will cycle back to see if better sources have been found). I have not found any independent sources that are substantially about this guild. Most of the sources here are announcements of events that merely name the guild but say nothing about it. That is not sufficient for notability. I'm not sure how to assess the sources from other guilds, but none are substantial (mainly name-checks or single sentences) so it doesn't really matter. A few of the sources here do not mention the guild at all -- such as the St John one. I did searches in The Guardian but found no mention, in spite of a (dead) link here. Lamona (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There's a little weak sourcing, e.g. [2][3], but no great need for a separate article when this is covered in Tregaron Estate#History. A redirect there is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge new information into Tregaron Estate. I do not think a separate article is warranted, given with the overlap of this topic and its parent topic of the estate. Also, much of this article is a history of the estate it seems. I think a #conservancy section in the Estate article is warranted, along with merging the new information added here into the #history section of that same article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tregaron Estate is described as a "country house and estate," but the two the two were split with very practical consequences. It used to be one unified residence, now the land contains a school and a legally distinct park. Indeed, this bifurcation is noted in the introductory paragraph to the article on the estate ("Today the estate is occupied by a campus of the Washington International School and the Tregaron Conservancy.")

  Tregaron Estate was originally part of Twin Oaks, but it would be inappropriate to merge because after the property was partitioned, the new parcel gained a new owner who put it to a new use. The same is true here where Tregaron Estate was partitioned into the buildings of the Washington International School and the parkland of the Conservancy.

  This bifurcation has been similarly used where an estate with historical significance (Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial) is treated separately than undeveloped space severed from the estate for a new purpose (Arlington National Cemetery), other examples include (Stoneleigh Park partitioned from Stoneleigh Abbey), (Knowsley Safari Park partitioned from Knowsley Hall), (Moor Park Golf Club distinct from Moor Park (house)), (Tredegar House Country Park distinct from Tredegar House).

  Conversely, one article is appropriate where the buildings and grounds were never split and remain under joint use for one purpose (an apt example is Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens the estate Post bought after moving out of Tregaron when she and Davies split).

  As a practical matter, it's important to distinguish the conservancy, which is a park open to the public, from the estate as a whole which includes substantial areas of private property owned by the Washington International School to which visitors are expressly not welcome.

  The articles should remain distinct because Tregaron's story since 1980 has been one of bifurcation for distinct uses by different owners. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm developing material on the post Davies era of Tregaron, covering the contentious inheritance and sale, development efforts, community response, and eventual protection. Please delay deletion. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the recent edits make the case, though I need to clean them up since I wanted to get something up here quickly. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While once a portion of the estate, the parcel has been a separate entity (the other a part of the school which has it's own article), since 1980. The history section conveys how the conservancy came to be. Sourcing is satisfactory.Djflem (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The conservancy is distinct from the estate or school. The history section is now more robust than the estate article, but specifically relates to the conservancy, not the school or estate. The sourcing is now substantially better than the estate article, which has merely one source, a National Register of Historic Places document that predates the conservancy. Randomnumbername (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. No standalone notability outside band. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other reasons why my article was nominated for deletion? How can I make it better? Emmoluch (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Absolutely fails WP:MUSICBIO. Charlie (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - we've frequently redirected articles about band members to the band's article. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:NTEAM, a sports team's notability is assessed under WP:GNG, which this subject does not meet. Among the three current citations, two are merely to the team's stats. The Ovacion article is solely interview statements from players hoping the team succeeds, rather than substantive commentary on the team's history. If uncited portions of the body are believed, this year the team was promoted to the newly created Peruvian Tercera División, the third level of the Peruvian football league system, in a rapid ascent from its 2022 founding at the bottom level. This ESPN article confirms the team's participation in the Peruvian Tercera División but lacks significant coverage on the team to establish notability. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – As WP:ATD. It is common in Peruvian football for new teams to emerge due to the league system, more sources may be added in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peruvian Tercera División as possible search term. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Works with me as long as we adjust the target as the team is promoted/relegated to other tiers of the Peruvian football league system over time, at least until coverage of the team becomes significant enough to support an independent article. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have been looking for sources to designate and identify this phrase as a standalone encyclopedic subject, and I'm not finding anything. Any subject this phrase could refer to is mentioned at Break, but the inclusion of the word "short" in the title disqualifies this title from being redirected there per WP:PTM. Also, Wiktionary:short break exists. Either way, as an encyclopedic subject, there seems to be a lack of information to define it in such a notable fashion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1#Short break for how this article ended up being restored after its 18-year-old WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with nom - vague term - could mean any break... Asteramellus (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTESSAY. This was a new editor's first and last effort at creating an article. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY jolielover♥talk 15:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Edgar, David A. (2003). "Strategies for Optimising Revenues from Short Breaks: Lessons from the Scottish hotel markets". In Laws, Eric; Faulkner, Bill; Moscardo, Gianna (eds.). Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International Case Studies. London: Routledge. p. 385. ISBN 978-1-134-72167-2. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Despite the fact that the short break phenomenon is not new, and not restricted to the UK (Loverseed 1992, Cockerell 1989, Potier and Cockerell 1992), there is still no standardised definition for short break, short holiday, short holiday break, short break holiday or bargain break. A short break is essentially characterised by the duration of stay (Lohmann 1991), and the form of accommodation used (BTA 1989). Since the 1940s short holidays have been described as 'trips of up to three nights away from home, primarily for holiday purposes' (Beioley 1991). While this duration of stay is the most commonly accepted for defining short break holidays (BTA 1989, UKTS 1991, Law 1990, 1991, Beioley 1991, Bailey 1989, Davies 1990), a more current stream of thinking is that short breaks are actually characterised by a duration of stay of one to four or five nights (Schidhauser 1992, MEW Research 1994)."

  2. Pike, Steven (2021). Destination Marketing: Essentials (3 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-46953-5. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "One of the best market segment opportunities for repeat visitation and relationship marketing is short break holidays. The term short break is firmly entrenched in the travel industry vernacular and has regularly been the topic of articles in trade publications and in the popular press. In the tourism literature, Fache (1990, p. 5) referred to short breaks as a "new form of recreation". . Short breaks emerged relatively recently as a significant holiday trend in Europe (Euromonitor, 1987; Fache, 1990), Australasia (Pike, 2002, 2007), North America (Plog, 2000), and the UK (see, for example, Edgar, 1997; Edgar et al., 1994). Domestic weekend-break packages, by UK hotels, was one of a range of initiatives to counter static domestic and international visitor growth during the late 1970s. By the 1990s commercial short breaks in the UK had evolved from an off-season contribution towards fixed costs, to an all-year growth market (Edgar et al., 1994)."

  3. Sharma, R. D. (2011). "The short-break holiday: assessing its understanding in the Northern Territory, Australia". In Brebbia, Carlos (ed.). The Sustainable World. Vol. 1. Southampton: WIT Press. pp. 771–778. doi:10.2495/SW100691. ISBN 978-1-84564-504-5. ISSN 1743-3541. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "‘Short break’ has emerged as a significant holiday activity in various global market segments. In Australia ‘destination marketing organisations’ (DMO) aggressively promote key destinations for short break holidays. Many industry stakeholders including accommodation and transport providers have used short break holidays in their promotional campaigns. Murphy et al. [1] argue that ‘short-break holidays’ are an expanding global phenomenon, attributed to more complex and stressful lifestyles within affluent societies. It is pertinent to note that most short-break holidays are undertaken in addition to the traditional annual family holiday. This therefore represents additional demand and opportunities for new tourism products. Short break holidays are motivated by consumers’ desire to get away for a few days, away from home in a nearby regional or national destination for relaxation and fun." Striking as this is not a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Packer, Jan (May 2021). "Taking a break: Exploring the restorative benefits of short breaks and vacations". Annals of Tourism Research Empirical. 2 (1). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.annale.2020.100006.

     The abstract notes: "This paper applies Attention Restoration Theory to explore the restorative benefits of short breaks and vacations among Australian university staff (N = 156). Three groups (Vacation, Short Break and No Break) were compared using both objective (physiological and cognitive) and subjective (self-report) measures. ... Short breaks have an advantage over longer vacations on some measures, and this may be explained by attributes of the environment and activities in which vacationers engaged."

     The article notes: "The restorative benefits of short breaks (defined as 3–4 days away from home and work) and vacations (defined as 1–5 weeks away from home and work) were investigated using a causal-comparative research design to compare the effects of three conditions (taking a vacation; taking a short break; and taking no break) on measures of restorative outcomes (i.e. changes over time in physiological, cognitive and self-report measures)."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow short break to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote the article and added sources. Based on the significant research into short breaks, there likely is enough content to support a standalone article. However, I am not opposed to a merge to another article like Vacation if that is not deemed to be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cunard: Thank you for you in-depth analysis on this phrase. I know your impact is great here on Wikipedia, so I appreciate it and will continue to do so. However...

  ...The references used in this way to validate the term "short break" being encyclopedic seems to have potential WP:SYNTH issues and/or partial title matches for subjects we already have articles for on Wikipedia; the phrase seems to have inadequate encyclopedia value as a phrase other than to have its first word be used as an adjective to describe other topics we already have, such as Vacation, Holiday, Break (work), etc. In other words, my de facto "delete" vote still stands. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for you in-depth analysis on this phrase. I know your impact is great here on Wikipedia, so I appreciate it and will continue to do so. – thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it.

  The references used in this way to validate the term "short break" being encyclopedic seems to have potential WP:SYNTH issues – I don't see any WP:SYNTH issues. The sources I've provided define a "short break" as taking a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes. A violation of WP:SYNTH happens when an article "combine[s] material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Does the current version of the short break article violate WP:SYNTH? I rewrote the previously unsourced article to incorporate the sources I listed here.

  and/or partial title matches for subjects we already have articles for on Wikipedia – regarding "partial title matches", that is a policy-based reason to support deletion of a disambiguation page under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches but not a policy-based reason for supporting deletion of an encyclopedia article.

  the phrase seems to have inadequate encyclopedia value as a phrase other than to have its first word be used as an adjective to describe other topics we already have, such as Vacation, Holiday, Break (work), etc. – the concept of "short break" with the definition of "taking a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes" has been the subject of numerous academic studies (Edgar 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFEdgar2003 (help)) and has been discussed by the popular press and trade publications (Pike 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPike2021 (help)). Under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this means that the subject does have encyclopedic value. The articles about the topics you listed are about distinct topics from the definition of "short break" sources are using:

  1. Holiday is defined as "a day or other period of time set aside for festivals or recreation". The article then lists public holidays, secular holidays, religious holidays, and unofficial holidays. This is a different topic from "short break".
  2. Break (work) is defined as "a period of time during a shift in which an employee is allowed to take time off from their job". This is different from "short break", which is taken outside of a working shift.
  3. Vacation is defined as "a leave of absence from a regular job or school or an instance of leisure travel away from home". It cites examples like staycation, sabbatical, gap year, and career break. Vacation is the article that is most closely related to a short break. A short break is a vacation where a person takes a trip for a few days .

  Based on the extensive academic research on the "short break" phenomenon, I don't think short break should be a red link. I think there is enough material to support a standalone article but a merge to vacation is a potential approach too. Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 1#Short break participants: Steel1943 (talk · contribs), Servite et contribuere (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), Tavix (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), and Someone-123-321 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are more academic sources about the term "short break". For each source, I've bolded the text of how the sources define "short break" to show how they define it as "a trip of a few days' duration for leisure purposes":
  1. Huybers, Twan (December 2003). "Modelling Short-Break Holiday Destination Choices". Tourism Economics. 9 (4). Sage Publishing: 389–405. doi:10.5367/000000003322662989.

     The article notes: "This paper reports the results of an application of choice modelling to short-break destination choices by prospective tourists from Sydney, Australia. Short breaks are defined as trips of two or three nights’ duration undertaken for holiday or leisure purposes. ... As Australia’s largest city, Sydney provides a large target market for short-break destinations. Sixty-five percent of all Sydney short-break tourists choose the surrounding New South Wales regions or Canberra as their destination (National Visitor Survey, 1999). These regions have a particular interest in the short-break holiday preferences of Sydney residents."

  2. Wang, Di; Kotsi, Filareti; Mathmann, Frank; Yao, Jun; Pike, Steven (2022-05-26). "Short break drive holiday destination attractiveness during COVID-19 border closures". Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 51: 568–577. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.05.013.

     The article notes: "A short break holiday is defined as a stay away from home between one and four nights (White, 2000). In this ongoing project, several surveys of consumers in Auckland and Brisbane since 2000 have consistently confirmed this. As suggested in the introduction, domestic tourism has taken on increased importance for tourism stakeholders in many parts of the world during the 2020 COVID-19 global pandemic, and yet only 10 out of 418 destination image publications (2.4%) considered short break holidays. For instance, Davison and Riley (2010) investigated short break preferences of low-cost airline users in the East Midlands. However, our literature search did not identify any previous studies that attempted to the determinant attributes of short break holiday destination attractiveness or any that attempted to segment the market."

  3. Hamann, Antonieta; Hernani-Merino, Martin; Tarazona Vargas, Enver Gerald (2022-12-30). "Perspectives on short break destinations and their contribution to local-regional economic development: a literature review". Revista Interamericana de Ambiente y Turismo [Interamerican Journal of Environment and Tourism]. 18 (2). ESAN University: 207–221. hdl:20.500.12640/3324.

     The article notes: "In the current tourism context, evidence suggests a progressive reduction in the length of stay at tourist destinations (Alegre & Pou, 2006; Moll-de-Alba, Pratts, & Coromina, 2017; Williams & Shaw, 2009), and, based on this, the concepts of “short break” and “city break” are used for short trips. Authors like Davis (1990); Murphy, Niininen & Sanders (2010); Sharma (2010); Dunne, Flanagan & Buckley (2007); and Moll-de-Alba et al. (2017) indicate that a consensus has not been reached regarding the definition of short breaks or of city breaks; current definitions place these two types of trips within a range of stays varying from 1 to 6 nights. This difference in definitions presents difficulties for strategically planning the development of these destinations. Murphy et al. (2010) and Enne & Schofield (2011) mention that short breaks have become increasingly and significantly more common in recent years, and it is hoped that this trend will continue inasmuch as people select this type of vacation to closer destinations, in part because tourists will probably spend proportionally more on this market segment than on other tourism products (Schmidhauser, 1992). However, few studies have been carried out regarding the length of these trips (Tsiotsou & Vasioti, 2006; Yang & Zhang, 2015)."

  4. Pike, Steven (February 2003). "The Use of Repertory Grid Analysis to Elicit Salient Short-Break Holiday Destination Attributes in New Zealand" (PDF). Journal of Travel Research. 41 (3): 315–319. doi:10.1177/0047287502239054.

     The article notes: "Few destination image studies have focused on short breaks to date. For this study, a short break has been defined as a nonbusiness trip of between one and three nights."

  5. Moll-de-Alba, Jorge; Prats, Lluís; Coromina, Lluís (2016). "Differences between short and long break tourists in urban destinations: the case of Barcelona". European Journal of Tourism Research. 14. Varna University of Management [bg]: 29–46. doi:10.54055/ejtr.v14i.241. ISSN 1994-7658. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.

     The article notes: "This article focuses on short duration travellers (short breakers) and those of long duration (long breakers). In general, short breaks are recognised as a differentiated type of trip. The most widely accepted definition, also used in this article, considers a short break to be a stay between 2 and 4 nights with a non-professional motivation (Murphy, Niininen & Sanders, 2010). Despite the importance of the length of stay, usually practitioners use short breaks even there being a lack of agreement concerning what a short break is. Nevertheless, a certain amount of research into the short break, such as for example the previous study, has been carried out. Meanwhile, the long break has not been specifically studied as an aspect of city tourism. Therefore, the main contribution of this paper is to explain the differences between the between the two levels of tourist length of stay, an approach that has not been adopted before now."

  6. Murphy, Peter (2014-02-28). "Potential Synergies for the Short-Break Holiday and Rural Tourism Markets: Evidence from a National Australian Survey". Tourism Planning & Development. 11 (3). Taylor & Francis: 261–274. doi:10.1080/21568316.2014.889520.

     The article notes: "A review of the literature reveals the present commercial short-break holiday format developed in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s (Law, 2002; Teare, Davies, & McGeary, 1989). In the first instance they were promoted by business hotels in major cities which had underused room capacity during the weekends, when the business people had returned home. ... There is no common agreement on how to define a short-break holiday. Not surprisingly with a new research area, Tsiotsou and Vasioti (2006, p. 65) claim “short-term visitors have not been studied adequately in (the) travel and tourism literature” and this has led to a variety of descriptors (Boerjan, 1995; Davies, 1990). The lack of a universal definition is compounded by whether the topic is viewed from a demand or supply perspective. Most references take a consumer demand perspective, defining short-break holidays as being one to six nights with a motivational emphasis on a “short break from normal routine”. In contrast holidays of a week or more are viewed as long or traditional holidays and have a greater “rest and relaxation” atmosphere along with a slower pace. The supply-side of the tourism business has a tighter definition of one to four nights, according to the findings of a recent Australian study (Murphy, Niininen, & Sanders, 2010); but many are not sure where the short-break holiday-makers fit in, since they are viewed as being different from “overnight” or “in-transit” visitors, and nor do they behave like traditional long holiday visitors."

  7. Edgar, David A.; Litteljohn, David L.; Allardyce, Myrtle L. (1994). "Strategic Clusters and Strategic Space: The Case of the Short Break Market". International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 6 (5). Emerald Group Publishing: 20–26. doi:10.1108/09596119410065923. ISSN 0959-6119.

     The article notes: "A literature review revealed little systematic study on the subjects of short breaks or strategic clusters. Most coverage was in the form of trade press articles, specialist journals, conference papers, government publications, and industrial research documents. A computerized database was therefore constructed from primary and secondary data drawn from company and market specific sources, containing the 30 largest hotel companies (by room stock, 1991) operating in Scotland. This allowed cross comparisons to be made of companies, regions, performance, and short break segments."

     The article notes: "As the research concentrates on commercially centred activities, short breaks are defined as “hotel packages of one to three nights, which for a single price together with accommodation include one or more of the following: meals; transport; entertainment; or a programme of activities”. This definition allows for the use of secondary sources for structural analysis, and primary sources for detail of supply and strategic clusters."

  Cunard (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cundard's sources clearly show there is an encyclopaedic concept here. The article needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cunard has clearly demonstrated that there is significant coverage of this topic. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 20 May 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 no consensus‎. Relisted twice with being open more than 3 weeks; a backlog with no notable consensus. There were no counter-argument towards keep after relisting which generated various sources, by Mika1h and AnonymousScholar49. There was no consensus on the second relist. Suggestion per final comment - to look for sources in Chinese and add them in the article. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Kingdoms

[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. This game has got to hold the record for fewest words of review written per dollar earned, as there's been nearly nothing written about Rise of Kingdoms's gameplay. The article's reception section cites three unreliable sources and an Arkansas newspaper.

There's been slightly more written about its marketing and sales, but I don't think it's enough to hold an article about the game together. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources mostly don't constitute as notability after assessment (above). Not much content in the article aside from its advertising, basic gameplay and some reviews. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to interpret this as a request for a source assessment table.

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lilithgame.roc.gp&hl=en&pli=1	Google Play store entry is written by the developer			✘ No
https://gameir.ie/review/rise-of-kingdoms-doesnt-rise-but-falls-flat/		This is a self-published blog. WP:BLOGS.		✘ No
https://www.clashofgaming.com/en/rise-of-kingdoms-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-game		I don't know what this is, but it's not a reliable source. No bylines, no editorial policy, no about page.		✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/riseofkingdomsgame/videos/338745250181557/?__xts__[0]=68.ARBqF5dVNJo3rxUQmQryLq2N3UpXHLd_uHueSsu8liNin5tfu60wCvglXSaZ3Unq_qRgwYpDio2APDD5Cmp_BSyjcRXouAcULRwqjQXK9Gd2TKfqypXFNcRu5kvi291scAZvlQYdHMgPEWqAr0BotfMXZIBgUE8VTMY2nf7RcBOG7xHwacqO8jpL0nI4tr-qnpiC65OrWcHQT6gG7ZFSEbJ_3jY9g-AErip5yeuVmdgGvGlKTp2Max0S2zZUh5hG5D0FOiCeroYU-C983H9-BbHdEoqSznNm6tTN_hn46ZwbY-QdnSt5Ly2V9IvfBl0V0g-RGP6Sw-6x6sAV7tJjYItwFFRQQZ6m	Facebook page is owned by the developer.			✘ No
https://gamerant.com/strangest-mobile-game-ads/		Game Rant is an extremely low quality source that outputs a lot of churnalism (WP:VALNET) and consensus has been that it does not contribute to notability.	This is a two paragraph listicle entry. It's very debatable if this is significant coverage.	? Unknown
https://rok.lilith.com/en#:~:text=When%20progressing%20from%20the%20Stone,work%20to%20visit%20Chengdu%20Museum.	The game's website is published by the developer			✘ No
https://www.pocketgamer.com/rise-of-kingdoms/3-5bn-milestone/			This source narrowly focuses on this sales announcement. It's reliable for that fact, but the source does not discuss the game in general.	? Unknown
https://www.touchtapplay.com/rise-of-civilizations-is-an-epic-strategy-mmo-for-mobile/		This is not obviously reliable or listed as such anywhere. Previous WP:VG/RS discussion is unconvincing: [4]		? Unknown
https://technuovo.com/rise-of-kingdoms-review/		This is a group blog, per their about page.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240721111549/https://mmohuts.com/news/rise-kingdoms-review/		Listed unreliable on WP:VG/RS		✘ 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}}.

(continued)

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/09/game-on-20190909/		Is the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette a reliable source for video games?		? Unknown
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}}.

Of the sources that come close to meeting reliability standards, there's one acceptable source reporting one specific announcement (Pocket Gamer), one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), and one source that's deficient in multiple ways (Game Rant). I don't think this adds up to WP:GNG in a way that the article can be primarily based on reliable sources.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for assuming that sources like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette don't contribute to notability? Cortador (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I described Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as "one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual". My contention is that it's the only source here that contributes to notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3103066/blockbuster-chinese-games-said-boycott-huawei-and-xiaomi-app - Covered by three reliable sources: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Common Sense Media: [5] (both SIGCOV) combined with Pocket Gamer's (fairly short) article about the sales and a list entry on Pocket Gamer.biz: [6], I think it's just enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a poorly written article, but there are sources --[7], [8] (possible paid content), [9], [10], [11], [12], and this book for some reason [13]. Again, this is a poorly written article, but the sources satisfy WP:NVG and WP:GNG, in my opinion. Albeit quite weakly, this passes in my opinion. Edit: sources are barely good enough for the GNG, but they pass. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since other have noted that sourcing is weak, I would lean towards delete. Notability is not clearly established. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Mika1h and AnonymousScholar. The Arkansas Online and SCMP.com articles, together with the book by Sebastian Hale, are sufficient to establish notability and pass WP:NVG/GNG. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is quite simply too weak to sway me that this article passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lilith is based in Shanghai, so I would ask for the effort to search for Chinese sources. Appears to be the English version of zh.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Kyiv School of Economics&lang=en&q=万国觉醒. IgelRM (talk) 17:51, 18 May 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.

Psychonaut 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BAND, was unable to find any form of significant for inclusion. They also seem to have been nominated and deleted previously, and judging from the nomination that time, there doesnt seem to much of an improvement this time around. No charting album, not on a notable label, no inclusion in any big publication. In fact most of their 'press' seems to just come from underground metal online tabloids like Metal Injection and MetalSucks, like many others of this bands size. Searching their name just brings up the usual for underground metal acts such as LastFM or Sputnikmusic mostly. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability. The majority of the coverage on them has been published since the first deletion as well. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so you edited the page since the delete nomination with this edit with the summary "Maybe actually look past page 1 of Google search results". What am I missing here? Obscure webzines/blogs in Italian and Danish? That's the big comeback with verifiable sources? User-created blogs and webzines are generally not reliable sources. You claim "There is plenty of coverage. Not everything, especially for bands from smaller countries will be instantly on the front of major news outlets, which does not discredit their notability", which is fine when it comes to small metal bands due to their appearances on verifiable publications like Revolver or Kerrang etc. yet I still dont see any noteworthy sources like those. All that's mostly used on the article are metal webzines, which anyone can create and maintain - and are generally disallowed per wp:USERG — Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The page has three+ sources with SIGCOV. One of them (metal.de) is for sure reliable per wp:A/S. The rest doesn't raise any apparent problems. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not seeing significant coverage of this group. Does not meet WP:BAND. Seeing that it was deleted in the last AFD, it does not look like it improved much this second time in terms of notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Metal.de and the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa focus on the article subject in depth and therefore both sources fulfill criteria 1 of WP:BAND: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The nominator has described these sources as self-published "blogs", but that is simply not accurate. Both sources are online independent news publishers, with an editor in chief and staff writers, etc, as opposed to blogs written by a single author - under WP:BAND, what constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Footballer from the reserve team for a second-tier club. Absolutely no significant independent coverage, just posts from his own team and database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. — Moriwen (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I support draftify. Was created prematurely. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Before this footballer has only played in reserve teams so far, I don't see it as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Check again - he has not only played in reserve teams so far. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second-tier footballer failing WP:BIO. All independent coverage is database entries; there's a few proper articles out there but they're all published by his club, so not independent. — Moriwen (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. — Moriwen (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While the band this individual is a member of is notable, the individual is not notable themselves outside of the band at this present time. All current information in the article is, or can be, covered in the band article. Andise1 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vial (band). Bearian (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER. Rift (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable serial entrepreneur. It is an AI-generated article, most of the links are not working. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:TNT - it's been one long hallucination. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I may have missed something because my German is basically limited to just the universal icons on the web pages. I did look at some of the pages and none were independent or significant. This is one of the pages that fail from the links in the article. It is about a company he founded/worked in (?) but it's about the product, not him. He did write a book that is one of a series of 6 books, but it doesn't appear to be a bestseller. Lamona (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second-tier footballer who fails WP:BIO. All citations on page are database entries; search is a little tricky due to news articles about several murderers with the same name, and it's possible I missed something in Iranian, but I note the lack of any article on the Iranian wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify per GiantSnowman Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Unable to find significant independent coverage, although his club (PSV) has some press releases; other than that, it's just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft Not sure why it wasn't sent to draft space in the first place. Could easily be notable in the future. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more than 90 days old and therefore ineligible, alas.— Moriwen (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since presently notable. There is a huge distance between the intro and the facts on the ground. SIGCOV sources: ESPN article by Daan Sutorius and AD article by Rik Elfrink. These are multiple sources that support notability. Other items that fall short of standalone SIGCOV yet can cumulatively contribute to such (i.e. do not analyze individually!): [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Among these are additional articles by the sports journalist Rik Elfrink. gidonb (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, since most of the articles that talk about this concept are from the authors themselves. The current sentence in the lead "The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates" is especially problematic for a Wikipedi article.

However, the article has a lot of content and has been around since 2008, so it could benefit from a deeper look from the community to validate this 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Mathematics. 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Will proceed to merge as proposed by another contributor 7804j (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I wrote this page after AfDs for two other pages on work related to Burns. While the concept is primarily used in the work of Burns and his research group, it is used in multiple peer reviewed articles and represents a significant part of the research agenda of that group. The theory remains in use within that group (and even if it didn't, I'd still !vote wk). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Since the concept seems to be almost exclusively tied to the originating author, the article contents should be merged to Tom R. Burns, who does have a wikipedia page. The concept on its own does not merit the page existence, as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a good idea, so I'll withdraw my nomination and proceed with the merge 7804j (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Murray and The Invisible Girls (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable album with no WP:RS or other coverage in the press or other media. DankPedia (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. DankPedia (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Pauline Murray. Ping me if someone finds something that establishes independent notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pauline Murray. I couldn't find any better sources. SirPenguin25 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of communes of Luxembourg by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page, together with List of communes of Luxembourg by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of communes of Luxembourg by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), serve absolutely no purpose, as they list information that is already compiled on List of communes of Luxembourg. Someone close to 20 years ago decided to create a separate list for each of these features, and it means unnecessary extra work has to be put in when, for instance, updating population statistics. Procrastineur49 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dude, just merge the images and redirect them. You don't have to start a discussion for something obvious like this unless someone objects. No need to delete the pages altogether either. Withdraw this and then follow WP:BOLD and WP:MERGEINIT. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, I'd merge the main list into Communes of Luxembourg too. But please do update the stats. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, should have been a merge request, not an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless I'm missing something, the rush to admonishment of this nominator for bringing this to AfD seems unfair. This does not pass WP:NLIST and there is no sense in merging the article into List of communes of Luxembourg because it is literally duplicitous and already covered. Sure, this probably could have been done without an AfD nom, but if editors have any doubt at all about performing a WP:BOLD delete/redirect, we absolutely should create a culture as a community which encourages them to instead come to AfD for consensus. I don't think the nominator did anything wrong. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my understanding is that the only way for non-admins to delete a page is to nominate it for deletion... Also, the thought of turning the pages into redirects had not crossed my mind. I supose I'll just do that. Procrastineur49 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect these lists to List of communes of Luxembourg. These lists do meet WP:NLIST but they're redundant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, the nominator took action and changed this article to a Redirect despite they're being involved and this discussion still being open. I reverted that action and ask that no further action be taken until this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, ok either way. Really don’t see what’s terrible in having these, but if comparison can be made elsewhere, so be it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Republic of Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge to the article of its leader, Dao Minh Quan. Article topic fails WP:ORG, as all the reliable secondary sources provided only mention the government-in-exile in passing as an affiliation of opposition figures who were arrested. None of the content about the group itself is cited (i.e. its institutions, activities, organisation, etc.), and I was unable to find reliable coverage for it online or in local print. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and United States of America. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE found some media about individual contestants like Inquirer (Philippines) but nothing substantial about the pageant itself. Existing sources are entirely fansites like fernandomachado.blog.br, "Misterology", "The Great Pageant Community", and "Indian and World Pageant" (defunct Wordpress blog, see author's "about me" page); and a non-independent brochure which is found at Internet Archive. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability for this local politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for a politician. The article also appears to be generated by AI. Leonstojka (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Our next generation is absolutely, positively cooked. But hey, billionaires will be making money hand-over-fist once the "first-hit-is-free" era of AI chatbots is over. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, could not find any indication of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete upon checking further, there is no notable secondary coverage. [20] This is primary sources confirming subject's post and has no secondary reliable source. [21] resume/pr-like details/contact pages are available at other sites. The article does not meet WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of accountant and politician, but does not have presumed notability as the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation is below state/province level in the UK (generally interpreted as the devolved legislatures or above). Fails WP:GNG as no secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV could be found on internet; cited sources are mostly legal/financial/promotional documents, most of which make no more than passing references of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, and also fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casco Histórico de Vicálvaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not satisfy WP:N and WP:RS DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND itself says that it is not guaranteed notability, and geographic features with limited or no WP:RS do not meet the WP:GNG DankPedia (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet GEOLAND still creates a case for notability suggesting that drive-by deletion requests may require to put a little more work on the deletion side of discussion...--Asqueladd (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. If you are going to argue that every topic-specific notability criteria is ignored (as you seem to be repeatedly doing), you should be putting way more work in assessing existing sources. As Asqueladd put it, drive-by nominations won't cut it. MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per existing refs. Furthermore, a quick WP:BEFORE check of Wikipedia articles in other languages would have turned up more refs. Per WP:GEOLAND, the neighborhood is officially recognized by the City government. Clearly notable! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Spanish article notes the official population was 35,519 in 2023. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The existing references and the additional source identified by A.B. are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It is a legally recognized neighborhood [22]. There's also coverage in the press like [23]. Additional data about various demographic and economic aspects is available in reliable sources, both in book and paper form from a cursory look at Google Books and Scholar. MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pollard (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he serves as a local authority councillor in the City of London Corporation -- but that's the Square Mile, not London in its sprawling entirety, so he isn't entitled to the same automatic presumption of notability that a member of the London Assembly would get, and would have to show really solid WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to establish passage of NPOL #2.
But five of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that does come from a GNG-worthy source just briefly namechecks his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than himself, so it can't singlehandedly get him over the bar all by itself if it's the article's only reliable source.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody more knowledgeable about British local politics than I am can find solidly reliable sourcing to improve it with, but he isn't automatically entitled to an article just for existing as a local authority councillor, and primary sourcing doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Agree with you about the subject not being entitled to an article as a member of the Court of Common Council. The only people who would have probably got something else that allows them to pass WP:GNG; City of London politicians with articles are generally those who have ascended to being Lord Mayor. In conjunction with the recent articles on Stephen Hodgson, Jaspreet Hodgson, James St John Davis et al, it seems a new editor has taken it upon themselves to give everyone at the Common Council a promo on here. Leonstojka (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree per nomination (I was going to AfD this article myself but I got diverted by a related article, Guild of Young Freemen). Paul W (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for Political advertising Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Müller (banking executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

On May 9, Asilvering PRODed this article because the reference links supporting coverage of a non-notable CEO clearly ended with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com URL slug. The following day, Leonstojka endorsed the PROD. After removing the PROD tag, an IP editor has simply rearranged the content and snipped off this tell-tale sign of LLM-generated text from some of the references. The added citations to Muller's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology teaching page and the BBBank website itself do not show significant coverage by independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The only significant coverage appears in the first source, but its hosting on Yumpu suggests that this is affiliated promotional material, though I would appreciate the insight of any German-speaking editors as to whether this is the case. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reason as my prod. The first source is an interview with Transfer-Magazin (I believe this is their website, but I haven't done any investigation and this may be some other German-language magazine named Transfer: [24]) and is not secondary coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  transfer is the only German-language academic journal focused on communication and brand management. Published by the Deutsche Werbewissenschaftliche Gesellschaft e.V. (DWG), it aims to promote advertising science and facilitate knowledge transfer. The DWG is led by an honorary board chaired by H. Dieter Dahlhoff, with members including scholars and industry experts from across the German-speaking world. Vinsmokegerma (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this is their website: https://transfer-zeitschrift.net/ Vinsmokegerma (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The title "bank executive" could be applied to any bank employee who has a desk and/or their own office space. This reads like an employment resume. "modernizing the bank's operations and expanding its services" could be any number if things. We know his career advancements, but nothing whatsoever about any notable achievements. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As CEO, Wolfgang Müller transformed BBBank from a niche civil servant bank into a modern cooperative retail bank. He expanded the customer base beyond public employees, led the digitalization of services, and maintained the bank’s financial stability through crises. I believe he played a key role within BBBank, and his contributions were valuable. Vinsmokegerma (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable film. Literally nothing aside from press releases and basic announcements COOLIDICAE🕶 17:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of significance --TonySt (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Iiii I I I (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly self-promotion, and without declaration of a COI. Barry Wom (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since the film has not yet been released there's no place that this could be redirected to. (Per a discussion at WP:FILM, film articles can be redirected to list pages even if they are non-notable.) It's never been confirmed if short films can be included in pages like List of American films of 2025, but it's never been said that it can't either - so whenever this releases, if there's zero coverage it can just be included on the list page for that given year (barring discussion stating that it cannot). But it has to release first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair they do say case-by-case but I've seen films with pretty much or actually zero coverage get redirected, so we don't have any minimum thresholds for what could be considered something that obviously shouldn't be included. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article on non-notable film. JTtheOG (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Second-division football player with no independent coverage, just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. — Moriwen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Per the Russian sources present in the article. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a saddening case of refbombing, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most of the sources present in the articles are interviews, sources affiliated with the article's subject (websites of his football clubs), a gambling site, and passing mentions. "goleada.ru" source has reasonable coverage, but I don't think this is enough. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability (per analysis above). If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I see nothing independent that suggests this meets WP:NCORP. No mentions anywhere and only a single WP:ZENODO PDF. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, Websites, Europe, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep - see Bibliography of Research Actively Using DraCor in the article's External Links section. There are dozens of independent, reliable references listed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A. B. From the ones I spot checked, most of the research that uses DraCor also provides independent, secondary SIGCOV of it as a tool (e.g. evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, describing its features). This appears to be a widely used corpus in computational drama studies and has been discussed extensively in the research literature. MCE89 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs work, but there are independent secondary sources for this. Worst case there is always a merge. Archrogue (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all of the sources in that bibliography give sigcov but a decent amount do, which is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. One brief article covering his signing, and two database entries; not enough coverage in reliable sources under either his name in Bulgarian or the transliteration. — Moriwen (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. — Moriwen (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([31], [32]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]), primary source election results ([41], [42], [43]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([44], [45], [46]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([47], [48], [49], [50], [51]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.

  Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.

  She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.

  These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.

  Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.

  To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.

  Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.

  The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.

  Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.

  What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.

  If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.

The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.

Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.

Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep preferably but Draftify if necessary. The mayor of a municipality of 200,000 is obviously notable and there is plenty of coverage just from the public broadcaster and the national press alone. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/qld-paul-tully-ipswich-city-council-mayor-gag-allegation/104877954 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/ipswich-council-teresa-harding-paul-tully-media-gag/104866348 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fpolitics%2Fnew-ipswich-mayor-teresa-harding-cleans-closet-after-corruption-investigation%2Fnews-story%2F8cf83650b8a985c2ca1a236443871058&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
• Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. The sourcing does not meet our expectations, per WP:GNG. Size of municipality does not matter - what matters for local officials is whether there is enough reliable sources to say more than "the mayor exists." We want to see independent sources that discuss the impact of the mayor/local official had on their municipality or their region. If sent to draft, this would need to come back through AFC --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as this article has a number of issues including lots of references with passing mentions leading to WP:CITEKILL. It reads more like a profile piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Note I haven't seen an article with significant coverage here yet, with sources put forward appearing to be routine coverage - there are lots of these references. The only reason I'm not !voting Delete is that there may be enough to meet WP:BASIC but I just haven't been able to find these. Nnev66 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]