Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

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

Purge server cache

Lower North East Road (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:GEOROAD. Article solely based on google maps and government map layers. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Giannino (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; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage (either for her acting career or her ice hockey career) in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Women, Film, Television, and Ice hockey. Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree: The CWHL fails Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, and her career also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Combined with the lack of media attention, I regrettably agree that this article should face deletion. That being said, there is something to be said about the inherent notability of someone who has consistently achieved at a high level, even when such achievement doesn't get media attention. Doesn't change my vote, but she is obviously extremely talented, and I dislike the deletion of the article because there isn't sufficient coverage. Unfortunately, we are at the whim of what media decides to cover, and what people decide to care about, and in this case, Women's professional hockey and inline skating is not it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional organisation. In its current state, this article exclusively relies on primary sources, with the exception of an article that was published by a Valnet-owned publisher. Furthermore, it might not be a valid search term, as a massive number of false positives were found while trying to search for usable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtnut (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think the Forbes article provides WP:SIGCOV, and probably also Business Standard India but that's behind a paywall. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A single profile in Forbes is not enough to establish notability. The platform is mentioned in scholarly articles only in statistical comparisons with similar platforms. Virtually everything out there about this is routine announcements, besides the one profile. See WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify-most citations already noted seems to be passing mentions, but the company seems to have potential in terms of coverage, but so far in my searches lacks SIGCOV, suggest to draftify as an ATD to improve article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophies (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:LISTCRUFT with no clear inclusion criteria, but generally when someone uses the plural "philosophies" it means they're selling you something that doesn't work on daytime tv, this should be soft-deleted/redirected to Outline of philosophy Psychastes (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Lots of overlap with Glossary of philosophy, could merge there. I’ll keep it, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  got any rationale for keeping, or WP:JUSTAVOTE? Psychastes (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty sure it meets WP:NLIST by leaps and bounds. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect: this page is like the outline or glossary pages but worse because it is just alphabetical with no additional information. If the ability to hover over a link to see a preview didn't exist it would be useless. Moritoriko (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be happy with a redirect if missing items were added to the glossary. They have hundreds more links in common then disperate. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Though the list needs a better format, I think there is no reason for deletion. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agreed. Smoothhenry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Outline of philosophy. It's hard to see if NLIST is met. There are plenty of sources about philosophy, but NLIST would require sources about discrete philosophies considered as a full group or set. There are perhaps some useful sources about world philosophies but I think it is more natural to interpret these sources as being about philosophy considered from a global perspective. There are also other sources considering groups of philosophies but they are generally restricted to a particular theme (e.g. legal philosophies). The concept of philosophies is probably to vague to have a useful list but Outline of philosophy will have everything that would be useful to readers. Shapeyness (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Delete or Redirect - agree with previous discussions about delete/redirect Asteramellus (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inclusion criteria is obvious, no need to spell it out. Category:Philosophical theories exist. The list would be more useful if instead of just listing things, it had a column listing what year it was first known to exist, and a summary of what it is. Dream Focus 01:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in lieu of the non-existent Category:Philosophies. It may partially intersect the outline and glossary articles, but is quite distinct from them. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association (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 that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added several references. LeapTorchGear (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A number of added sources are from primary sources such as "Roofing Contractor". LibStar (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's hope we get some more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nom in toto, and assuming good faith, if the only resources editor's including User:LeapTorchGear could find are primary in nature, then it is unlikely that there is any true value to keeping the page up. I would also raise that even if it suddenly was mentioned extensively in secondary sources, it still wouldn't be of much value to a Wikipedia reader. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections (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 local election, citations do not show significant coverage. WP:BEFORE did not show anything but I may not have access to some sources. Lots of election pages were created for this city and all show a similar level of coverage so those may be able to be nominated as well Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No comment on merits, but 2025 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections was a high profile election involving the wife of the winner of this 1988 election, who had been vice president. Now, the question is, if the 2025 election was notable, would that mean all articles in the series are also notable? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Davao City local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it would not automatically mean that. The 2025 one is definitely notable, but it does not necessarily carry over here Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting! Where do we draw the line, then? I know you'd say WP:GNG, and in 1988 the internet was never heard of in the Philippines, and all we have are Google Newspaper archives of Manila newspapers. This is not like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Mapandan local elections, an election in a town of 40,000 (in 2025; 25,000 in 1990); this an election in a city of 115,000 in 1990 (210,000 in 2025). Howard the Duck (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, the line is always GNG, but population size does not matter much either. If those newspaper archives showed significant coverage, that would be great, but I did not find any from a cursory search. The sort of presumed coverage I would usually look for is consistent coverage meeting GNG on other pages of the same local elections from different years, but none of the other were very enlightening, except of course 2025. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, interesting that you disregard population size of a settlement in regards to notability. Surely, what happens in a city with a population within six figures is more notable than a town that is smaller than the capacity of the Araneta Coliseum? Would you agree to that? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mean to disregard population size, I would hardly think to nominate a election for a city with a population over 1 million (as an arbitrary example), but my focus is on the lack of coverage that I was able to identify, which in my opinion is the only relevant factor.

  Smaller cities can definitely have more notable elections than larger ones, it all matters on how news covers it. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "population size does not matter much either."

  Then you said "I don't mean to disregard population size." Make up your mind, I guess?

  Either way, what you had said is true; Naga is a smaller settlement than Marilao, of which was deleted. Marilao though is significantly closer to Manila, becomming a commuter town of sorts in the 21st century. Naga is much further away from Manila, but it is a regional center for centuries (plural), and people actually commute to it. It's sort of the Manila in its vicinity. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant to say that the simple fact of a larger population does not imply more coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd probably agree on that, if that what you had said.

  Now, I've went through the series of artickes, and this one had vote totals. I would have agreed to delete articles which do not have that, which are 2001 and 2004, then incomplete totals for 2007 and 2010. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No opinions on outcomes as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An local election involving less than 30,000 total votes, that happened over 30 years ago, without any particularly interesting aspects is of no encyclopedic value. While WP:NOTANALMANAC doesn't exist, maybe it should. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Schools Foundation Academy (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 tagged this article about an independent school with notability concerns in 2023. I have now carried out WP:BEFORE and added a reference to a book which has half a sentence about the school; but I have not found significant coverage in independent secondary sources. I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, although I am aware I may be missing sources in Chinese. It was established in 2000 or 2003, so it may be WP:TOOSOON for notability to be demonstrated. Possible redirect targets: List of secondary schools in Hong Kong and the founder, Charles K. Kao. Tacyarg (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Tacyarg (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perry v. Cyphers (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 haven't been able to find significant coverage in the available sources. Seems that there are only passing mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, and Texas. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jim Crow laws#Decline and removal and then redirect. Essentially, what a circuit court decided in 1951 was news in 1952, but has since faded into obscurity. A sentence or two, and a redirect, is fine. I feel slightly guilt-ridden to write this on Juneteenth, but a smerge is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this would be due for inclusion in the Jim Crow article since it only has brief mentions in secondary sources. The source just added by Maile66 is representative of the paucity of coverage of this case, stating, in full: "Determined to remove this subterfuge to voting, Fred Lewis and several other Blacks, assisted by the NAACP, filed suit in Perry v. Cyphers in 1948." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added a source on this from the Handbook of Texas online. It could use more text and sourcing, but this was a big voting rights occurrence in Texas at the time. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a Google link (looks like the Times Daily in Alabama) that covered the legal events on this. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source AP report. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Baldelli (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)

Having gone through the available source material, I have been unable to find anything to establish significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. His main work of note was a single book about social anarchism, which has received some attention but not much more than a passing reference in most sources (see Google Scholar results). David Wieck's obituary for the Social Anarchism journal, listed in the further reading, appears to be the only work specifically about Baldelli that could lead to any development of this article. As this article appears not to meet the notability guidelines for authors, I'm recommending it for deletion. A possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to social anarchism, although he's not mentioned in the body of that article, so this may not be appropriate. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Politics, Social science, and Italy. Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[1]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[2] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, REDIRECT to David Wieck, where Baldelli and his main book are mentioned. If more sources emerge the article can be broken out again. 04:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Striking my !vote. Jahaza (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, extensively cited in various works on anarchism. --Soman (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wieck page. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just because there is little information now doesn't mean that there won't be more information in the future. FPTI (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I've struck my !vote, about which I didn't have strong feelings. I don't know if you want to WP:IAR and close this up early as a result. Jahaza (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aaaand now I'm striking my comment about closing early because I see that I wasn't the only one to !vote "redirect" Jahaza (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 512 (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 believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 40K (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 believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced / only primary sources if deadlines rescued. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Super 10K (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 believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Checked on the internet archive for them and it's mostly company product listing/promo. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge (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)

Orphaned article with little content; the original game has little sigcov of note, with only notable coverage being reviews of the remake, with individual review websites being of unclear reliability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Brazil. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some of the sites covering the remake seem reliable: [3], [4]. But there is no significant coverage, only announcements of the remake, no critical analysis. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including a short article in the Folha de São Paulo (https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/paywall/login.shtml?https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folhinha/2013/01/1216509-gustavinho-em-o-enigma-da-esfinge-ganha-versao-para-ipad.shtml) (needs subscription); G1 (website) [these are the articles linked in the !vote above; and of course these two sites not only seem but are extremely reliable and the second article is more than an "announcement" while the first indicates the game was a success and how many copies it sold.] https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2013/01/classico-brasileiro-gustavinho-e-o-enigma-da-esfinge-e-relancado.html ; https://gamehall.com.br/gustavinho-em-o-enigma-da-esfinge-relembre-o-adventure-brasileiro-com-participacao-de-marisa-orth/ Universo Online : https://www.uol.com.br/start/ultimas-noticias/2013/01/11/classico-adventure-brasileiro-gustavinho-em-o-enigma-da-esfinge-retorna-em-versao-para-ios.htm ; https://ne10.uol.com.br/mundobit/2013/01/19/a-semana-em-games-classico-brasileiro-o-enigma-da-esfinge-ganha-versao-para-ipad/index.html ; https://44e.com.br/Interactive/Conteudo?emp=3&cat=21 https://bojoga.com.br/artigos/retroplay/computadores/gustavinho-em-o-enigma-da-esfinge-44-bico-largo-1996/ and so on (all sources widely describing the game as a classic and a "great success").--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a video on Alê McHaddo, the developer's founder, by Meio&Mensagem. IgelRM (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 more related sources: A animação de um artista, Osmar: A Primeira Fatia do Pão de Forma completa 30 anos. Both don't appear give this game much notability. IgelRM (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So I had look at the sources again and the news announcement by Universo Online is the best one: [5]. It contains some critical analysis. Then there is a preview of the original game when it was still in development in this print magazine: [6]. I still think this subject is below notability. No actual review of the original game or the remake. There are really short writeups: [7]:

"Nesta edição, o pessoal da CD Expert Kids caprichou. E a criançada irá viajar ao Egito, junto com Gustavinho, um menino esperto e cheio de energia. Serão horas de diversão e aventuras inimagináveis na tentativa de desvendar os mistérios do Oriente Médio, tudo isso num CD- ROM totalmente em português e com a participação especial de Marisa Orth, a Magda do programa Sai de Baixo."

Google translate: "In this edition, the folks at CD Expert Kids have gone all out. And the kids will travel to Egypt, along with Gustavinho, a smart and energetic boy. There will be hours of fun and unimaginable adventures in an attempt to unravel the mysteries of the Middle East, all on a CD-ROM entirely in Portuguese and with a special appearance by Marisa Orth, Magda from the program Sai de Baixo."

This thing: [8] and this: [9]. You would think that something called a "classic" would get an actual review or retrospective in 29 years... --Mika1h (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV - from all appearances, a niche show and game. I'm not convinced that uol.com.br is a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What article specifically? The newspaper mentioned above appears rather reliable. IgelRM (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance 44 Toons or McHaddo are notable and would merge/redirect there if there were EN articles. I question the notability of this game based on the provided sources, but only leaning delete because of aforementioned. IgelRM (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Spectra (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 believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Could be merged into Photron if appropriate, but may still be unsourced. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM SE (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 believe this article fails WP:GNG, no inline references, the external links mostly link to the same homepage on the company's website. Can't find much online about it. Might be best to merge into Photron. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois ODP (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)

Creator seriously removing speedy deletion tags on article created by themselves, Article generally looks promotional, fails WP:GNG fails to have significant coverage, not properly writings, lacks inline citations. Allblessed (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sports. Allblessed (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This program is not a promotional piece or a non-notable subject. It is a state affiliate of U.S. Youth Soccer and has produced multiple players who went on to compete at the professional and international level—including Olympic medalists like Casey Krueger. The article is being actively revised to remove any non-neutral language and to include coverage from independent and reliable sources.

If you feel parts of the article were too close to promotional or lacked sufficient citations, that’s a fair concern—but it’s something that can be improved through editing rather than deletion. Milicz (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep on improving. Nominator is right that the article could be improved, so I have tagged the article accordingly with the issues they have identified (more and better references needed, needs to be revised to be more neutral in tone, likely contains original research). I have also added {{citation needed}} tags throughout, and added a reference and confirmed that there is other significant coverage that could be added (via ProQuest). In any case, the reasons given essentially amount to an argument to delete because cleanup is required, and this is invalid per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. (Even though the desire for cleanup is appreciated.) Furthermore, there is no mention of any WP:BEFORE search. Strongly advise nominator to gain more experience in reading Wikipedia guidelines and editing in their areas of competence before nominating more articles for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you see [10] there is likely a possible COI, tho I’m still checking, my issue is why the creator keeps removing tags, moving articles back to mainspace, creator lacks experience and temperament. Also can you show me how that article meets WP:SIGCOV? Allblessed (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  your comment that I “lack experience and temperament” falls afoul of Wikipedia’s civility and personal-attack policies. Per WP:CIVIL (“avoid personal attacks”) and WP:AGF (“assume good faith”), we’re encouraged to critique content, not contributors. I’ve been an editor for over 21 years and remain committed to improving this article. If you have concerns about neutrality, sourcing, or structure, please point to specific passages or sources so we can address them together. Milicz (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milicz Point taken. It is kind of you to defend the nominator and to ask for specific feedback. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tried to address tone, and have added citations or removed claims I could not find proper citations for. Added ProQuest citations. Thank you for your suggestions Milicz (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. First of all, it is very clear to me that neither of the tagged criteria for speedy deletion (A7 and G11) apply. A before search, which appears to have not been performed by the nominator, shows there is at least some indication of significance. G11 requires the article to be exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles (emphasis included in policy). Cleanup is required but not to the point that the article is not salvageable. Much of the content is unsourced and the references there are not great. Most are either not independent or are player profiles with one-line mentions of the subject program. Moving to draftspace will allow any interested user to build the article up to encyclopedic standards before moving it back into mainspace. Frank Anchor 13:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly sourced, promotional article written by SPA - they've also written similar topic Illinois Youth Soccer Association. GiantSnowman 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggesting that my article must be self-promotional because “someone involved in ODP” wrote it is an ad hominem circumstantial (genetic) fallacy: it rejects the content based solely on an assumed motive or origin rather than evaluating the article’s actual sourcing and neutrality. I have zero involvement in that organization and am still researching it.

  For context, this article emerged directly from the research conducted to answer the community question in Chicago: “Is Illinois ODP still worth it? Does it genuinely help with college recruitment?” You’ll see that the article:

  Notes ODP’s changing reputation, including that it has lost some of its earlier luster rather than presenting it as the undisputed pinnacle of development programs.

  Cites independent coverage—local newspaper articles, US Youth Soccer annual reports, and academic analyses—rather than relying on press releases or self-published claims.

  Maintains a neutral tone, focusing on verifiable facts about the program’s history, selection process, and outcomes.

  If there are specific passages you feel remain promotional or poorly sourced, I’m happy to rewrite them or add better citations. I’m committed to meeting WP:NEUTRAL and WP:RS standards, so please let me know any additional reliable sources I should include. Milicz (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program. This fails notability for organizations. There is simply not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant an individual article for this org. Citing affiliated clubs is not independent. I mean Reddit is referenced despite our policy on Reddit. Two incidental mentions in the Chicago Tribune and sporadic mentions in the context of high school player plays soccer in regional newspapers does not cut it. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The citation to Reddit was for the "Criticisms and challenges portion" and is not used to support any of the facts or notability. Milicz (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. Please read WP:RSREDDIT. You should not be using it as a citation at all.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Articles about things you like are not necessarily good things. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Who says I like Illinois ODP? Article itself emerged directly from the research conducted to answer the community question in Chicago: “Is Illinois ODP still worth it? Does it genuinely help with college recruitment?” As you can see (if you read it), that's an open question. Milicz (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I have started linking to that essay in AfDs because there is a subset of editors who think a Wikipedia article is a badge of honor and spend a lot of time trying to keep articles that should not exist. I could just as easily assume you hated ODP and wanted to create an attack page for this organization or that you are just very, very into youth soccer.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Striking my earlier !vote. Leaning either draftify or redirect to U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program; this article absolutely cannot be kept as is. Milicz You can't cite other Wikipedia articles. See WP:CIRCULAR. You need to remove all those citations you've added to other Wikipedia articles (I removed one for you and then stopped) and replace them with other reliable sources (see WP:RS). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No Wikipedia citations are used to support any of the points, they're only used to link to the individuals or orgs, I will remove them and simply use the appropriate tags [[ ]] Milicz (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK @Milicz...starting to look a bit better. Do you think you could work out a way to explain that Illinois ODP also fields competitive girl's soccer teams in inter-state competitions in the lead paragraph? I think that is not really coming through unless you read further down. (If you only say "program" it sounds like a purely administrative thing which makes people want to delete it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:The Tags on the article are too alarming, check creators contributions, there are high similarities on articles created, now for example the article title is "Illinois ODP" but the first text is "Illinois Girls Olympic Development Program", It seams to have a slight deviation from the article title to be honest. I was to suggest that instead of the creator creating similar pages with different Page names, It would have been wise to just create one or two and provide good source, good writing, formatting skills and make the writing clearer to anyone who comes across the article to understand.

  Allblessed (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it's not uncommon at all for the article title to be short (see WP:CONCISE) versus the first bolded reference to the subject to be long (as examples, see Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush). Please also have a read of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. You are right to want good sources and good writing, but AfD should not be your first port of call in addressing cleanup issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you see the contributions of the user? Did you see the consistency in removing CSD tags and moving drafts back to mainspace? Allblessed (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Allblessed it doesn’t help to challenge my removal of the CSD tags when those tags were added without proper justification. Wikipedia’s guidelines need to be applied consistently—both when adding and removing tags. Rules aren’t one-way streets. Rather than creating disputes, which you have done on my article), it would be more productive to collaborate on refining and improving the article itself. Milicz (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Milicz There is a proper and well outlined procedure for handling allegedly improper CSD tags, and it isn't removing them yourself. When you create an article, you are connected to it more than any other contributor, whether one likes it or not. We know you support the existence of the article, you created it, and it is a conflict of interest to remove these types of tags from something you created, no matter how repetitive or improper they may seem. When you are closely connected to a subject, as it appears you are (whether you're affiliated with them, whether you are working for them, whether you just really like youth soccer in the Land of Lincoln; I don't care, it's not relevant, what is relevant is the level to which you obviously care about this), it is imperative that you operate above reproach, so as to not even give the impression that you may be acting in a biased manner. You are held to a higher standard of behavior because you created the page. You are inherently unable to view any of this completely objectively, and that goes for any author, who creates any page.

  Regarding the actions of other editors, it's important to remember that each situation is evaluated independently. While it can be frustrating if you perceive another editor as not following guidelines, their actions don't justify a similar response. Our focus should always be on adhering to the established procedures for every situation. Further, they did not create a dispute, you created a dispute when you removed a CSD tag from a page you created multiple times. (Almost) any repeated editing back and forth as was clearly done here is a violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring. Wikipedia is a community of editors working to help bring knowledge to the world. The task we have is infinite. We are guardians of and contributors to one of the last stanchions of truly free knowledge, the responsibility is awesome, and it must be treated as such. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Foxtrot620 I completely agree with you. Two wrongs don't make a right, but no one was harmed here and you can all still delete the article. Milicz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Cielquiparle I went ahead and made your suggested change and I think it works better. Now that I’ve reviewed the title, the article should be split into two sections—one for the girls’ program and one for the boys’. I’ll research the boys’ side before drafting that section. Milicz (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Regardless of any behavior by any editor, this organization simply does not meet the bar of notability or importance. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Regardless of any behavior by any editor, this organization clearly meets the bar of notability and importance. It'd be great if the delete crowd could backup the lack of notability argument. Do you not like women's soccer? Do you not think it's clear this org developed players that went on to represent the USA? Is the fact that those notable players advertise that they were in this program not an indicator that those individuals thought it was notable that they took part in it? It's referenced in plenty of material, but not the material you want? 20+ citations is not enough but other articles with a "need citations" tag can stick around for decades? I'm having trouble with the merits of the delete crowd. Easy call on this one for me. 4025MG (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Haven, Wabash County, 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)

A residential neighborhood of Wabash apparently built in the mid-1950s if you believe the topos. Other than that I could find nothing except real estate stuff and juxtapositions with the place of the same name in Michigan. The Wabash article doesn't list neighborhoods, not that this one is notable anyway, so I don't see a redirect. The location appears to be way off, btw: the older topos that show it indicate it to be a strip pm the area now labelled. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles on Wabash neighborhoods/subdivisions:

Sunnymede, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valley Brook, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is either hoax or misidentification. The coords of Zow Tlang per Salehin Arshady here on Prothom Alo is identical to that of Aiyang Tlang as per the discoverer himself claimed here on The Asian Age. Furthermore, the Aiyang Tlang Peak is said to be in between Zow Tlang and Jogi Haphong. However, per USGS Topo Map[11], there is no other peak higher than 1000 meter in between the aforementioned peaks. Therefore, Aiyang Tlang is perhaps a hoax or a misidentification. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lohgarh, Zirakpur (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 cannot find a single WP:RS about this area. The only citation on this article is a Google Map reference, which itself is outdated and not working now. As such, this is an unknown village with absolutely notability and should be deleted. FujaFula (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Zirakpur where there are several references to this as a subsection of some sort (the article is pretty unclear). There is a odd discontinuity in the city street gird which may indicate that this was built separately and then surrounded, but I cannot be sure without words. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the Zirakpur article going to say about it though? Since I'm not sure whether this is a village or what, the cited reference is dead and contains absolutely nothing. Such locality stub articles should be deleted imo as they contribute nothing to Wikipedia. FujaFula (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FusionReactor (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)

From my contested PROD: Fails WP:NSOFT: after searching GBooks, GScholar, and even the "ColdFusion Developer's Journal" on Internet Archive, there is just no independent coverage of this application beyond trivial mentions. None of the current sources in the article are reliable and independent.

I recently reverted edits made by a COI editor, which didn't contain any good sources either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, and Germany. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete have been thinking about sending this article to AfD for a while. I haven't been able to find any sources that would help it pass GNG. Even if independent RS coverage can be found, I'd argue for recreating as a redirect or perhaps selectively merging to a larger article to allow for better safeguarding; since it's creation by the company in 2009, it's only really been edited by a string of FusionReactor SPAs. Talkpage says it all, really. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's not even a NRHP. Once upon a time, a house that is more elaborate than common was built. It changed ownership a few times and have seen several uses, like most buildings. It's now a hotel.

WP:MILL old building. I don't think it meets GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article seems to promote the developer; since it is a business, am wondering if it should be assessed per WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILDING Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article as well as Richard C. Kessler has been blemished by public relations editing. Not surprisingly. Check edit history. I feel that notability is puffed up considerably in both cases. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted 2 (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)

Like previous FNAF games that were sent to AFD in the past, this game does not have enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a separate article, and furthermore, does not meet WP:GNG. Metacritic only shows a grand total of one review from a reliable source, and that's the only review at all. Mere announcements of a game or basic pre-release info is rarely ever enough to establish the notability of video games, and that is the case here. Suggest a redirect back to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted#Sequel, where the subject was adequately covered prior. λ NegativeMP1 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's [12] from VG/S inconclusive Comicbook.com, and Mobygames gives an offline review from Gameplay (Benelux) [13]. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent discussion for Comicbook.com roughly ruled out that the source might be reliable for some things, but probably can't be used to establish notability. Even if it did to be honest, I don't think only three reviews for a game that has a clear merge/redirect target (which would cover the subject better) is enough. An article should only be made if a well detailed article on the subject can be made, and I don't think this is a case where one can be done that is also reasonably well sourced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator, a previous FNAF AFD where the commonly cited WP:THREE argument/essay was thrown out. λ NegativeMP1 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubisa Bojic (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Draft previously rejected after multiple declines (see User talk:Devetakapija#Your submission at Articles for creation: Ljubisa Bojic (December 1)). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:NPROF, references mostly to articles he published, and possible COI given the user has almost only made edits on pages for this prof and this prof's father. Lijil (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Lijil. Sushidude21! (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through the article checking the sources. There are many claims about acknowledgement of his work, but the sources quoted only make minor reference to it. The text is thus quite inappropriate at the very least, and I have added some inline tags. Beyond that his citations are modest with no major prizes so he is some distance from passing WP:NPROF, and there is nothing that comes close for any notability criteria.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagougi (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:NBOOK. Most of these sources seem questionably reliable or are library listings. The only source that is an actual review, citation 5, appears to be a website that takes user submissions judging by the footer. Creator blocked for improper AI usage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? On the Side: Sword Oratoria light novels (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 pass WP:NLIST and the main Sword Oratoria article isn't long enough for this to be worth a split out. Merge/redirect back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any merit in adding the content back in and redirecting this to the main article? I do see what you mean by the article being short. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. I think this would be a logical third option between complete deletion and leaving the page up. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm chapters (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 don't know what the rule here is on these sorts of chapter lists for manga and light novels but this one does not seem to pass WP:NLIST. All the sources here are booksellers. The main Ascendance of a Bookworm is not long so I don't see why this can't be a section there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chapter titles are stupendously inane, picayune, [pick your synonym for trivial]. If somebody wants them, buy the book. NO merger to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 5am Club (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:NBOOK as none of the sources look reliable. All I found in a search were a handful of the very questionable kind of sources you get with a lot of self help books that are questionable independence wise and don't provide any commentary, or are unreliable. I cannot find two reliable reviews. Redirect to Robin Sharma? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is coverage, but it's not about the book as much as it's about the concept of early rising. The book served as a jumping off point, but it's not really the focus of the article exactly. For example, this article in HK Vogue is more about the idea of waking up early with the book as an inspiration. This one from Health Digest does cover the book a bit more, but again it's about the practice not the book itself. Then there's this one by the Times of India which is made up of short bits over a series of images. Not really in-depth. I wasn't about to really look at this from Business Insider but it looks to be more like the Vogue and HD ones. This article by The National (Abu Dhabi) looks to be an actual review, but it's paywalled. I'm also not super familiar with this newspaper to know if it would be usable for reviews or not.

Offhand what I would recommend is that some of the content get selectively merged into the main article for the author and this redirect there. It would need some editing for tone/flow, of course. I might do it if I get the time, but if anyone else wants to do it go for it. I'm going to hold off to see if someone else can find sourcing, but again - offhand the sourcing isn't really about the book in the way that we expect sourcing to go. It's enough that it should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't know that it's enough for its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has been tagged as unsourced since 2018. There's no indication of notability, and searching the title on Google gives me not much except for other related Nigerian towns. Many geostubs seem to slide are the radar, and I think this is one of them. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 19:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents of Aero O/Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All of the information in this page is already covered in the accidents and incidents section of Finnair. Plus, there isn't much content in it in the first place, so it should probably be a section in the main article about the airline rather than a standalone article. Mr slav999 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tisdahl (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)

Former mayor of a city with a population of ~75k. I don't think that's an inherently notable position, and based on the ROTM news coverage cited, it doesn't seem like Tisdahl rises above any other mayor in terms of notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INGEK (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 didn't find any coverage by independent sources about the subject. Svartner (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Fernando Uva (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 didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about him. Svartner (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Labs (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Technology, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a great number of articles published in respectable and trustworthy sources to assert the subject's notability. WP:NCORP is a meeting. LKBT (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are number of articles published but that doesn't justify the notability of the article. This company page is totally written in a promotional manner and doesn't have anything which is notable worthy like awards.Almandavi (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concurrence with Nom and User: Almandavi in toto, besides which, there does not seem to be particular significance to the company in general. One of their headline products, Agastya seems to lack any major adopters, and the publicly facing version on WordPress was last updated in 2019. Augmenta11y is gone from the Google Play Store, and is listed under a different name and different publisher in the Apple App Store. Valmiki, their web browser extension has been taken down from the Google Chrome Web store. SherivanOS is a concept that doesn't even have an alpha test out, and is, in all likelihood a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL in as many words. As far as I can tell, Oswald Labs has no products which are notable or commercially viable. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fanavid (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)

After a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any third-party coverage of this company, just social media and a contract signed with the government. Svartner (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything that gets headlines for one or two days should be turned into an article. Wait to create an article on stuff like this until there is clear WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage. Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Technology, Netherlands, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace. I think move this to draftspace until more is known. Dflovett (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: TOOSOON, and we have no way of knowing how important this is or isn't. And the article doesn't explain who the Rutte person is, so it doesn't even show why Trump messaging this person is important. Just too much wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Or it mentions Rutte in passing in the second paragraph, when it should be in the lead paragraph with links and things. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draftspace / Draftify, agree it is too soon but that may change, useful to keep it somewhere until more is known. Encoded  Talk 💬 23:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPECULATION. This is all based on what might happen based on a private message published by Trump. This seems like a Trump rumor, deliberately leaked just to see the “flattery diplomacy”. It was not an "oops" slip-up event. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 The Hague NATO summit. It is already there and these messages are linked to the event. Dajasj (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Textbook example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The capitalization is an unlikely search term so a redirect doesn't make sense. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions (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)

Superseded by https://climatetrace.org - see Climate Trace Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge onto another entry. There is enough information worth sharing for readers, especially given the current political/environmental climate. Don't see how Climate Trace is superseded here

Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Burroughs'10 You are right that Climate Trace is not superseded. I am saying the opposite: this article was useful until recently but now we don’t need it as the Climate Trace website is much better and they keep it up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zixiang (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:PROD reversed with summary "played fully pro games and abroad and has sources like...[sources]". By the age of 27 he has played two "fully pro" games, in China's second division. He did play abroad, but the writing "Spanish La Liga side Granada after training with Udinese in the Italian Serie A and trialing for Dutch club Vitesse" is missing the mark - those clubs' first teams play in those divisions, but he was on Granada's under-19 side. The sources provided in the edit summary are interviews from 2017, when he was a youth player. In my local newspaper I could find interviews with teenagers on the same topic, but that doesn't mean they're notable players. There's a genre of interest in certain youth team stars who never made it - such as Sonny Pike - but I don't think being passed over by Granada matches that level. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Das osmnezz mentioned some sources when deproded. Svartner (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mentioned are [14], [15] and [16]. It would be helpful if they had been kept in the nomination statement, rather than replaced with [sources], so they can be evaluated by participants. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources I cited have secondary coverage... on top of that he has made pro appearances and was considered a top Chinese goalkeeping prospect who played abroad. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the sources, don't these fall under WP:YOUNGATH? They are pretty old though, so perhaps there is newer coverage that resolves this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Carrying Vehicle (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)

Stub - unsourced for over 10 years, has little more than a single paragraph, and hasn’t been edited since 2022. I would strongly argue this fails notability. Danners430 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Danners430 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I should note that article size and lack of editing are not proper arguments for deletion, and absolutely not indicators against notability. That said, this looks very much like a WP:DICDEF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take note of those points... but I also agree that it's not the only reasons for the proposed deletion! Danners430 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Is a legal term, but doesn't say where it's used (Canada, US, UK, South Africa?). I can pull up sources from all these places, but they're simply texts of various pieces of legislation, nothing showing notability for the term. Article is unsourced, which doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and DICDEF. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Kasriel (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 am unable to find evidence that this person meets the general notability guideline. The coverage that does exist is either non-substantive, or not independent of its subject. My bold redirect to Upwork, of which he was CEO for a brief while, was reversed at RfD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable apart from the companies he's worked for. LinkedIn, Crunchbase, TC, and Forbes contributor articles are not RS Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer, 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)

As far as I can tell this was only a 4th class pre-RFD post office, but it's a bear to search on; the county history I dredged up didn't appear to mention it but I could have missed something in the dozens of hits on the word. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per satellite view, this place is just a crossroad with two houses. Not a community. If the creator wanted us to believe otherwise, they should have provided sources better than an error-riddled database and a questionable place names book. Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Napoleone (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)

Highly resume-like and promotional; questionable whether there is WP:SUSTAINED notability here backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - resume like but passed GNG per achievements, media coverage and founding at least 1 company listed on Wikipedia. More sources should be added and some part of the bio that raises questions on promotion or verifiability must be removed. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – he is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources, which establish person's notability per WP:BIO. The article cites significant coverage in reputable publications, and his contributions to his field are covered beyond routine mentions. He and his wife are also well cited in the Guardian, NY Times and other media 5minutesToMySoul (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability is seen during years, WP Sustained is met; I've added a Wall Street Journal reliable source and coverage and a link to verify his position at the Dean’s Council at the Tisch School of the Arts. There are some sources of high quality in german-austrian newspapers about collections, art etc mentioning Napoleone couple. Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons above. Notability is not temporary, and is unrelated to the current state of the article. Ike Lek (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article has 26 sources (at the time I am doing this) in the reference section which is impressive but I think if you take the time to read them you'll see that they don't reach the level we require to show notability.

1. profile, doesn't confer notability

2. profile, doesn't confer notability

3. same source as 2

4. not mentioned in source

5. not mentioned in source

6. 404 and not archived, no further comment

7. 404 and not archived, no further comment

8. broken link and not archived, no further comment

9. 404 and not archived, no further comment

10. profile, doesn't confer notability

11. profile, doesn't confer notability

12. profile, doesn't confer notability

13. same source as 2

14. partial paywall but I don't believe this source confers notability

15. partial paywall but doesn't seem to be talking about him so its probably not in-depth

16. primary document, not in-depth

17. business announcement, not in-depth

18. primary document, not in-depth

19. business announcement, no mention

20. same source as 12

21. list of donors

22. about his wife, not in-depth on him

23. as far as I could tell only mention was they were the source of artwork talked about

24. behind a log-in but I think it is similar to the above (kinda guessing)

25. about his wife, not in-depth on him

26. about his wife, not in-depth on him

Hopefully the 40+ minutes I spent writing this up can convince you that the sources here do not support a designation of Notability (although we might be close for his wife) Moritoriko (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to the source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely sorry to inform you that you have waisted your time. I advise reading WP:NEXIST and WP:NNC. Sourcing in an article is irrelevant to determining notability. The presence of sources in an article that demonstrate notability is solid evidence that those sources exist, but the lack of inclusion of sources that demonstrate notability is not evidence that such sources do not exist. Again, I do sympathize with the time sunk, but maybe your post can save someone else the time at least. Ike Lek (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ike Lek, the last sentence in WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." So why exactly do you think the person is notable? Is there another source not yet mentioned that shows this? Or are you saying that well there could be another source? What would that source say? Or are you disagreeing with @moritoriko's assessment of the sources currently in the article? Lijil (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that I am positive that sources demonstrating notability exist, although I suspect they do. That isn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that the quality of sources currently used in the article is irrelevant to notability, and cannot be used as evidence that the subject is not notable.

Separate from that, I do think the subject is likely notable. I will try to look for better resources online when I have more free time, although I do not speak Italian and sources may be in print. Still, WP:GNG only requires the existence of these sources to be presumed. Ike Lek (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed, fine. But we need to see some indication of them here. "Trust me, bro" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understandable that "trust me bro" isn't enough, however my point about article sourcing being irrelevant still stands. I will make a new comment with some potential sources. Ike Lek (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most of the sourcing is as described in the comment above. I don't see notability ... I suppose the government job would show some notability, but there isn't much besides simple confirmation that they held the post. Gsearch brings up anything and everything, the name is rather common. I have no sourcing to look at that shows notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential sources to confirm notability - I am linking below some articles I have found that I suspect may contain prominent mentions of Gregorio Napoleone. I do not have full access to most of them, so hopefully someone who does could take a better look at them. I'm sure not all of them will be up to par, but I think they could warrant a closer look, and possibly indicate if there is more to be found.
  • https://www.privateequitywire.co.uk/stirling-square-backs-omni-helicopters-international-growth-strategy/
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB927574333996717980
  • https://www.penews.com/articles/stirling-square-invests-in-glass-company-20170719
  • https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/citigroup-backs-stirling-square-capital-partners-3/
  • https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/dlj-phoenix-private-equity-eyes-european-opportunities/
  • https://realdeals.eu.com/article/stirling-square-raises-950m-for-fourth-fund
  • https://www.privateequityinternational.com/stirling-square-nets-e600m-buyout-first-close-exclusive/
  • https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/stirling-square-nella-rete-1272954?refresh_cens

I apologize for not being able to vet all of these fully, and I know some will be useless, but I hope this can still be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. - Ike Lek (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all about Sterling or financial firms, not about this person. "Prominent mentions" are just that, mentions. We need articles about his time as a politician or articles about him as a business person, not simply an article about something else that mentions him. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASIC only requires that the subject has "received significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources, not that the sources be primarily about the subject. I didn't include any sources that were just his name attached to art galleries or only mentioned him as being married to his wife. If you want to provide specific reviews of how any of the articles do not contribute to demonstrating potential notability, that would be helpful. Ike Lek (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggest that those who commented before Moritoriko reconsider their Keeps

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

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

Was raised at RSN slightly over 2 months ago, not much has changed since the article was previously deleted as Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed (AfD), which isn't too surprising considering it was only 4 months ago. Sources are promotional and of questionable independence, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies. Might ping previous participants later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Medicine, and Nigeria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: *Clear throat* This person is a Fellow of West African College of Surgeons. I guess we should re-read NACADEMIC together. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reading Beans Thanks for pointing that out, It’s funny how I saw this article here, I even made a search on google and I found out the old deleted revision was garbage but this fresh article seams better, maybe @Alpha3031 might by Judging based on previous AFD discussion, I don’t know who was the creator by the way, I’ll only create articles that meets notability, atleast few points. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure Reading Beans. I don't really think Chippla360 needed to ping me for this, but I suppose I should clarify that I did read both the article and the past discussions, where thes is mentioned but not fully discussed, in addition to doing a search for sources. And possibly something about NPROF. Ah, I'm sure I'll think of it later, but it might include something about at least three thousand fellows between 1983 and 2012.^[1] Might also have the word highly in there somewhere. Something to get to after the reread then? I'm sure Chippla and Dxneo have arguments in favour of the subject's notability, but we won't really know for sure until the sources are discussed here, no?

  It's not like this is a forgone conclusion, Vanderwaalforces and Drmies both mentioned the fellowship in the past discussion, so they might be convinced given the evidence of it existing, or maybe not (who knows). I'll also ping the rest,  Versace1608 , Bearian, Ibjaja055, and Gheus and ActivelyDisinterested from the RSN discussion, to see if they have any insights. There's also the American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine but I'm not sure they're even a reputable training company, much less their academic reputation, and I couldn't find much on them so I might leave it to someone more familiar with American medical associations to comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the last discussion you’re talking about, VWF said the claims were hoax and to be honest, I only assumed good faith and didn’t verify the honest. I’ll do

  some searches and I’ll be right back. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This list of fellows has his name on the Original Fellow List #5000. I don’t think there’s a debate here about the notability (there could be possible UPE, but that’s not a deletion criteria). This is my 2€ (I don't do cents), and I’ll be watching the discussion to see the trajectory it takes. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not great at saying things by implication, so since we seem to be past that I will just say that I didn't have doubts they're a fellow, but I looked things up and they seem to have awarded fellows in two ways since 1983, one of which being considerably more selective than the other, and I don't see any way to tell one type of fellow from the other. I suppose we might still be able to consider it highly selective, but I don't think it's a done deal so I don't want to preempt any discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  also, it seems like I accidentally pinged everyone again when adjusting the formatting, so I apologise for that.Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I don’t know why this article was brought to AFD but potential editors have viewed this page serval times but didn’t think otherwise, before i decided to create this page, I found reliable sources, why some articles found on google seams to be published in a Fan point of view, I have used only reliable sources and there is no prove of the references used in this article been promotional, article passed through AFC, there are editorial bylines and subject clearly passes WP:GNG, meets WP: NACADEMIC.
  I saw the Old AfD Discussion, deletion log Also Came across this on google (It was nothing to write home about) Maybe it’s the issues previous participants where pointing out on the AFD discussion, so I had to do my research. Also found WP:SIGCOV [17] [18] Aside other facts about this subject, It’s verifiable also through serval source that he is a fellow of West African College of Surgeons. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chippla360 I found the old deletion logs and it was nothing to write home about. How did you find the content of the deleted article and what makes you think Alpha3031 may be judging from the “deleted” content and not the content of this one? Judging from my participation of the previous AfD and if I remember the content of the article correctly, this your version is nothing much different from the deleted version. There are so many things that seem off with this recreation in its entirety, but I’d have to take my time and give a proper look later. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, the nomination rationale shows that the nominator was judging based on previous deleted content. But let’s focus on the actual issue here which is to know if Aranmolate satisfies NPROF#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanderwaalforces @Alpha3031, have a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed, I don’t have much to say about the previous existence of this article, But I did my search for notable, tried to understand the flaws before I decided to create this article, sources I found was what lead me on to the "page title" I used which was more appropriate. Then I still made some research on google and I came across [19] after I created and submitted the draft to AFC, So I’m thinking If these might be the old content some AFD participants actually talked about on the old deletion log, In General I won’t choose to create an article if the subject doesn’t meet the requirements. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 07:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Certainly. I have no doubt that you created the article because you believed him to be notable, and I have no issue with that. Even AFC/NPP reviews only require us to check that people are likely to survive a deletion discussion, not certain to to survive a deletion discussion, so please don't take this as me calling into question anybody's judgement. It's just that I think it's reasonable to have the discussion, when the sources are subject to caveats surrounding independence and reliability, and the assessment is more difficult as a result. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is probably my last comment here, @Alpha3031 your nomination is obviously based on passed events seeing the links you dropped, @Reading Beans can agree to that, I have to politely ask, you stated that the sources are promotional, I want to see the prove, You cant just say all the sources used aren’t good enough to prove notability because you didn’t state that the subject failed any notability criteria on your nomination comment, I’ve Assume good faith lastly, check the source and points I dropped on my keep vote, also see my comments here, Thank you. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        I don't think "you've obviously based your nomination on past events" really falls under the letter or spirit of assuming good faith, when I did state that I performed my own search for sources. I believe the link provided some relevant context, I don't particularly appreciate the accusation I've done no additional work because of it, but just to avoid all doubt, I have in fact read the sources currently cited in the article, and those that came up in my own search.

        This wasn't really a topic I had in mind in the first place when I opened my nomination so I do appreciate your stated willingness to drop it. As I've said, and I'm sorry if this discussion is distressing to you, I've brought it here because there was concerns raised about the sources, and I didn't particularly disagree with them, so I thought a discussion on the issue was reasonable. I really don't understand why this has turned into me making a judgement based on the previously deleted content. I do not have viewdeleted. I cannot see deleted content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: It's certainly more balanced and not the hagiography that we see sometimes out of the Nigerian pay-for-play media. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't even remember this one, but I was mentioned here. At a glance, I would say the article is fairly referenced in RS. The legal issues, accolades, work in surgery (very reliable source), plus he's been making headlines since 2020. Promo does not apply here. dxneo (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a primary source: it only proves he was the co-author of a published article. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Great! He's also a published author and still can't ignore all the headlines dating back to 2020. Ping me if you need me. dxneo (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Do we consider Fellow of the American College of Surgeons or Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons notable by default? No. Fellowship of West African College of Surgeons is a professional achievement but not enough to feature on an encyclopedia. Basically everything else is written by SEO guest posters on supposedly reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. 102.218.200.22 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IP, are you assuming good faith? Check the points on WP:GNG, You said this sources are "reliable" yeah, so what do you mean by SEO guest posters, did you review the existing sources? All of the articles has a Journalist byline or the publisher’s byline having significant coverage, which clearly meets GNG. Been a Fellowship of West African College of Surgeons is just one thing, subject has worked in government health centers as a Doctor, also a medical director and CEO of a health center which has been active and impacted for over 10 years [20]. Also a clean up and improvement has been made on this article by an admin since it’s AFD nomination, I suggest you review Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before you come to give your opinion without clear facts. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we refocus on the sources, please? Do we have WP:GNG here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As Requested by @asilvering

  Here are some source that meets WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV having a journalism byline and reliable per WikiProject Nigerian sources

  References

  ^[2]

  ^[3]

  ^[4] Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what posting the first three sources in the article and saying they have bylines is supposed to imply. Yes, there's a list with the publications on it, but that list doesn't really have any more consensus than WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA does (arguably less). Even putting aside the WP:COISOURCE/WP:SPIP concerns, which I feel like you're not actually engaging with (I'm sorry if I've been at all unclear, but that is in fact the main concern and the reason I've brought this up for discussion), reading the Abisola article, for example, I don't think there is a single sentence that can be identified as having analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, as per WP:SECONDARY. And the COISOURCE issue is kinda hard to ignore, with the context of the other articles under Abisola's name there. You can't seriously say that any of these articles: [21] [22] [23] have any prima facie appearance of journalistic objectivity, surely? I really don't see what your response to the IP editor about assuming good faith could possibly mean. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  1. Fails WP:GNG
     All cited coverage consists of routine “meet the professional” write-ups (Independent Newspaper Nigeria, The Nation, Guardian Nigeria News) that lack any critical analysis, evaluation or synthesis of the subject’s work, mere announcements rather than true secondary sources. No evidence of feature-length profiles, investigative pieces or scholarly discussion that would satisfy WP:SECONDARY.
  2. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF#2 (“Highly Selective” Professional Recognition)
     Fellowship of the West African College of Surgeons, while honorable, has enrolled over three thousand fellows between 1983 and 2012 (Omigbodun 2012). Such volume places it below the “highly selective” threshold required for automatic notability under NPROF. No indication that Dr. Aranmolate has received any rare, competitive awards or distinctions beyond standard fellowship.
  3. Promotional tone and possible WP:COI
     The prose reads like marketing copy (e.g. “global excellence,” “healthcare excellence”) rather than neutral encyclopedic prose. Multiple sources may derive from press releases or SEO-driven content farms, raising WP:COI concerns.
  4. Previous deletion and lack of new, independent evidence
     A near-identical article was deleted only four months ago. No genuinely new, reliable, independent sources have emerged since to alter the consensus. Re-creation of an article recently deemed non-notable suggests this revival is premature.
  5. Absence of demonstrated impact or wider recognition
     No record of major peer-reviewed publications, leadership in landmark studies, national awards, or significant influence beyond routine clinical practice. No coverage in major international medical journals or mainstream global media.
• Given the absence of in-depth independent coverage, the non-selective nature of the fellowship, the promotional tone of existing sources, and the prior deletion, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines WP:GNG or the professional notability criteria WP:NPROF. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:GNG per having publications and headlines since 2019 till date, Promo doesn’t apply based on the fact there are multiple secondary sources.
  Secondly since the nomination, I see experienced editors making some improvements to the article, there is no valid reason for a delete, meets WP:NPROF#3 and point 1.
  The subject clearly meets WP:BASIC which qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Allblessed (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If I should say, this is a;
  "Nigerian surgeon, medical professional and a burn consultant. He is the medical director and CEO of Grandville Medical and Laser Center, and a fellow of the West African College of Surgeons."
  Which is subject to WP:SIGCOV, from the nomination, the nominator didn’t say subject fails GNG, NPROF, or whatsoever. This was the basis of his nomination "Was raised at RSN slightly over 2 months ago, not much has changed since the article was previously deleted as Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed (AfD), which isn't too surprising considering it was only 4 months ago. Sources are promotional and of questionable independence, WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA applies. Might ping previous participants later."So for me i think the nomination doesn’t apply, because how does it point out that the subject fails any criteria for notability. I have to give my honest opinions.
  Some broad-line RS found on the web not used on the Article, showing impact [24] [25] [26]. Allblessed (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given this referred to the nomination statement specifically, at the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, the words questionable independence, the reference to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and the linked RSN discussion are all made in reference to the RS/IS criteria of GNG. The repeated accusations of me not doing what I'm supposed to are really starting to feel like personal attacks here, and seem a little misplaced given the assertions that the subject clearly passes the four criteria do not engage one bit with RS, IS or SECONDARY, and only engagement with the SIGCOV part of GNG is a vague wave towards "lots of sources" without any evaluation of depth of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You made mention of not much has changed since the article was deleted, But I see new secondary sources even if most source aren’t cited here, so I’m a bit confused because this looks like a fresh start. Allblessed (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am much more happy to clarify that, Allblessed. The article was deleted 8 February 2025. By not much has changed, I am referring to sources published between February and the present day. The reason I note this is because it is reasonable (and therefore I do so unless there is evidence otherwise) to assume the participants in the previous discussion did at least a cursory search for sources on their end, but that they would not have been able to base their assessment on sources published after their discussion. I have not referred to the reference list of the previous article, because as I've mentioned previously in this discussion, I do not have viewdeleted and I find it easier to just do a search for sources myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my last comment, I added some RS which shows impact, also in the reference I can see here, most source are from March to date. Allblessed (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue isn't "showing impact" Allblessed, the 4 criteria are independence (Wikipedia:Independent sources) and reliability (Wikipedia:Reliable sources), which is called into question when the sources show signs of WP:SPIP (which NEWSORGNIGERIA and the RSN discussion are useful context for); WP:SECONDARY, which requires analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (the facts themselves are primary); and finally, WP:SIGCOV, which again isn't "significant as in impactful", but "significant as in directly and in-detail". You'd really need to actually say why, even if you think it's obvious it meets all four, because from where I'm sitting the three articles you've chosen so far are mostly quotes and other non-independent content, similar to the coverage pre-Februrary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can’t just say all the references and publications this subject has over the years it’s secondary or isn’t reliable, that’s not a good one to say because it’s obvious it is per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources, I suggest a clean up and not quoting that all isn’t valid, that’s all I can say to you because I’ve seen how you respond to every keep votes only, it seams you really want this article deleted and not seeking possible solutions to improve it, I believe the closure of this discussion will agree with me on this. Allblessed (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll love to see the promotional content on the source listed on the article and lack of independence, I’ve reviewed the sources I didn’t find quotes [27], aside this I’m off. Allblessed (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources did not meed notability, mostly coming from unreliable websites. 03:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs)

  @Historyexpert2 are you sure you reviewed wikipedia:Notability? Did you also review the reliability of the source (Website) per WikiProject Nigerian sources. All are reliable source, article is finely sourced and has been cleaned up also. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu (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 to establish notability independent of his association with Ratan Tata, per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:INHERITED.

His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and there are many more in line. Easily passes WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of these sources are about a Linkedin post he made. Two have no bylines. Toadspike [Talk] 05:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pass WP:GNG.Sync! (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the sources provided above I think that notability is met here. I think it would be wise to integrate those sources into the article so that we don't have to argue this again. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources are not in-depth or significant. Zuck28 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Square Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A normal business that is doing normal business things with no real sources in 8 years. All sources currently in the article are primary. A quick before search shows nothing besides ORGTRIV mentions like M&A. Putting this article up for AfD because of the current WP:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Napoleone (2nd nomination) Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Halken (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)

Lack of significant coverage; could not find more sources with significant coverage to demonstrate the actor's notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Denmark. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See WP:NACTOR ["the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") and the page in Danish please, to check the said roles--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

• Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [34] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Close call, but doesn’t seem to definitively meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify- as an ATD, given the article has potential being kept, if more SIGCOV be added as well as some integration from the other language ver. like the Danish ver. for same article to this english ver. .Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[35]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[36].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Endorse PamD above; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#7-8; also this bio suggests that #11 (and to some extent #12) can also be met. There's more biographical information about the subject in (Rajagopalan 1990, pp. 171) harv error: no target: CITEREFRajagopalan1990 (help) though with limited online preview. Also, the use of "may" in MUSICBIO, to my understanding, means that the fulfilled criteria should be verifiable in reliable independent sources, and not that a significant coverage is required in addition. WeWake (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the rebuttal as well? There is no such thing as inherent notability. The "may" is there because it indicates the subject is likely notable, not that they "are" notable. Otherwise, why include may when it can be replaced with something more definite. Note WP:BASIC ("presumed notable" but not "are notable"), which also covers "one event" which may apply as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, For a decades long career that's been recognized with several notable awards is not a case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion–the award makes it easier to obtain some news coverage but is not the only basis of notability here. For niche-musicians, traditional coverage might be hard to come by (as is the case here, though I found one tertiary source above). Nevertheless, my two cents is that the subject is "worthy of notice" or "note" through a verifiable statements capturing several subject-specific understanding (of the community) of notability, and should be kept with {{Sources exist}} if existing are insufficient for a BLP. The SNGs allow us to contextualize the requirements of WP:BASIC and avoid a renewed reinterpretation with every article. The use of 'may' in that language broadly captures that these policies are consensus driven and evolve, and thus it cannot (possibly ever) prescribe a definitive criteria of notability. — WeWake (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy of notice would have more than just mentions or unreliable sourcing. I would agree a sources exist tag could be used, but that is assuming sources exist. They do not. All we have is what has been presented which falls short. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument for keep is that she meets WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG. Any thoughts on that? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand Front Bench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, very out of date anyway. Information can just be included on the main Green Party article or the individual people's articles if its relevant TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list with no independent sources and no evidence of NLIST being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest posting an alert to the NZ politics WikiProject to get wider input/consensus Kiwichris (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements; no more than trivial coverage of the Green party front bench as an entity in its own right. Agree with nominator that to the extent any content is relevant it can be included on the Green Party page or individual articles. As an aside, I note the article has been included in the shadow Cabinet category but that isn't really accurate. The official opposition at the moment is the Shadow Cabinet of Chris Hipkins and in practice in New Zealand it's always going to be the National or Labour party, rather than one of the smaller parties like the Greens, barring a major change in our political environment. It's hard for me to see how a list of a minor party's spokespeople could ever meet WP:NLIST. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Arnhem city fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, and Netherlands. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. There is nothing routine about huge fires in city centers of the Netherlands that wipe out a huge block of buildings. 25 buildings destroyed, including a national and several city monumental buildings are major IMPACTs. This article, part of sustained coverage, literally states that the impacts are lasting. Coverage is SUSTAINED and ongoing from March, with the most recent articles published just hours ago.[37][38] Unclear why this was nominated. There is a stated rationale yet it isn't correct. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All coverage is breaking news about the fire itself or updates since then. A dearth of retrospective analysis. "It feels important" does not confer notability. There's also a WP:NOPAGE argument, as there's no valid justification for this to not be covered at Arnhem if better sourcing is found (is it not mentioned there because it's not important, or because it is important but we instead opted for bragging rights of a "new" article?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It feels important" does not confer notability. Sure, but that is stating the obvious. The case for keeping is based on SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. Merging would create UNDUE so there is no WP:NOPAGE argument. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree the sources in the article are all near in time to the event, but it's still in the news three months later, which clearly passes WP:LASTING. See [39] [40] (looks like the first one is already linked above). There's no other reason for deletion given, either, and I am not really sure why this is up for deletion when the sustained coverage is so obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, just today two articles were published in national news about the fire "Suspects of fire in Arnhem city centre remain in custody, stood 'screaming on balcony' when they heard sirens", "Remains of medieval walls demolished after city fire Arnhem" (although the latter was published by regional news on a national news site). Dajasj (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Breaking news was published, which is irrelevant. WP:RSBREAKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would these articles be "breaking" if the coverage continuous three months after the fire? Are you aware that the Netherlands has highly developed mass media and institutions of higher learning, and that people publish articles and books all the time in the Netherlands? Your reactions create the impression that you throw random stuff against the wall. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is all local coverage of the sort one would expect of a substantial fire in any city. Maybe it should be merged into the city article itself, but A bunch of buildings burned, some were historic, it was sad, life went on, the buildings will be replaced or rebuilt, people may be prosecuted, but all in all it's the sort of thing that happens from time to time in any city. It isn't as though the central business district was leveled, and even then, one could make a very good argument for briefly and proportionately covering such a huge catastrophe in the city's history. This is nothing of such scale. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a ridiculous argument. NOTNEWS replies only to the routine. This was a major incident which was picked up by international media in the AP, UAE, Canada, and Malaysia [41] [42] [43] [44] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [45]

  Compare to this routine fire of a house in the same city from 2023 which only appeared in local news and had no follow-up coverage, which is exactly what we apply WP:NOTNEWS to. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with SportingFlyer. 1) It’s not local news coverage, and if so it’s not a valid reason. 2) It’s not only about the sources in the article but about all sources that exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This disaster has a major impact in The Netherlands, with still ongoing coverage in the main national news outlets. Disaster meeting each aspect of WP:NEVENT with a main lasting effect. If I take for instance a look in reliable sources of only last week: About the cause, About suspects, About the location and its future, About the medieval walls, About the trial, Description of suspects. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major event in the Nl which has continued to receive coverage, as per above. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per the sources identified by gidonb and SportingFlyer, the subject meets at least the first two points of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. With WP:SIGCOV three months after the event, I would argue that it's WP:LASTING. I'm also mystified by the WP:NOPAGE assertion - there's no justification for it.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources above. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is may not notable according to WP:NACTOR and does not meet the requirements for WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Asia, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep despite the earlier deletion. The coverage of his death seems to just barely qualify him. Pinging Zuck28 who added Pandey to the List of Bhojpuri actors in January. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.

  Thank you for pinging me.

  Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable actor, Mentions, unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Nurmagomedov (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)

He does not fulfill WP:MMANOT, having been #59 at highest in the Fight Matrix rankings and not having very notable wins. There is independent coverage for his involvement in the McGregor/Nurmagomedov altercation at UFC 229 but in my opinion it falls under WP:1E. Ticelon (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep: The controversy section has articles about the person, rather than just match reports. ESPN also has this about him [46]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yug Nirman Yojana (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, google only turns up trivial mentions Psychastes (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify- most citations found in the article seems mostly passing mentions or lacks SIGCOV, though movement seems widespread, suggest draftify as an ATD for Indian speaking wikipedians more familiar with the subject to check if there maybe more RS or SIGCOV outside the English websources , as checked into the Hindi version of this article, and has even lesser references.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevon Harris (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)

Played for USL Pro and USL Second Division clubs and have a single match for Jamaica national team, but lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Jamaica, and Virginia. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found this as well as mentions from the 2001 Youth World Cup. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Whisenhunt (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)

Played for USL League Two and USL Pro clubs, but lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Antigua and Barbuda, North Carolina, and Ohio. Svartner (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played for USL League Two and USL Pro clubs, but lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Svartner (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ivitskiy (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)

Page on a young Materials Scientist which claims that he is a mathematician, but has only published on polymers. According to this page he was in the Department of Chemical, Polymer and Silicate Engineering described here. While there are claims that he is a Professor, the relevant staff page does not currently verify this. Page makes many claims, for instance 200 scholarly works but he only has an h-factor of 13. (An h-factor of 13 is at about the level of a senior postdoc in Materials Science, to at most a starting assistant professor. If he was truly a mathematician then an h-factor of 13 might be acceptable.) Page has major refbombing and a fair amount of peacock. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF on any count, or any other notability criteria. Page was previously PROD by nom, then indirectly challenged by Jars World here. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Ukraine. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As stated in the nom, this appears to be ref-bombed. I'm not convinced by the 30 or so links, my search doesn't bring up much of anything about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I find social media, youtube... The name is too common to find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Bay Breakers (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)

Oklahoma City Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Orlando Nighthawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pensacola Barracudas (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permian Basin Shooting Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Philadelphia Freedom (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rockford Raptors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sacramento Scorpions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shasta Scorchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sioux City Breeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tallahassee Tempest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tulsa Renegades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Washington Mustangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Waco Kickers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wichita Tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All articles nominated here were created in 2006, and in the nineteen years since, still have not developed beyond a stub. Only one article here, Waco Kickers, has a single citation – the rest have none. WP:NTEAM defers to WP:GNG to establish notability of a soccer club. I doubt these minor league soccer clubs, that played one to six seasons and folded three decades ago, pass WP:GNG. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close What a shit show, different football clubs tend to have different history. This is not a helpful AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a helpful response either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only appearances fo J-League 3, and a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable MVNO, references only at launch Update6 (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Edelkhanov (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)

Another stub created by Lugnuts. No WP:SIGCOV found, redirect to Russia at the 1996 Summer Olympics is a valid WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Sportspeople, and Russia. Svartner (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's quite a few pictures of him, from "chidlovski.net" and "wsport.su", which suggests there's info about him out there. A search in Russian may prove fruitful. Kingsif (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines Manager 2 (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've looked for reliable sources covering this game, but I didn't find any. The furthest I've got is a page at JeuxVideo, but this cannot be considered significant coverage of a game. The fact that there are allegedly over 1.3 million active accounts for this game cannot be considered for notability (would fall under WP:POPULARITY). Therefore, this game does not seem to meet our notability standards. Additionally, the article seems to be entirely translated from the French Wikipedia. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and France. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or WP:TNT in userspace: This is definitely a unique case, in that the article is an WP:ORPHAN, doesn't appear to be completely formatted properly (spaces inbetween certain ref numbers within text) and a cite web error which appears to be caused by WP:LINKROT. I may be a tad harsh by saying this article either needs to be completely written/translated from the French Wikipedia article properly or failing that, deleted completely. 11WB (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the original game, Airline Manager, doesn't appear to have its own page on either the French Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia. This leaves me questioning its notability. 11WB (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Man you're too harsh 😅, that are not reasons to delete an article it can just be fixed Mathious Ier (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your vote below is unfortunately unsigned and has no timestamp on it, meaning I'm not able to reply. I understand based on what is written if the 1.3 million number is legitimate, the game is definitely popular, however the article itself does have issues in its current form.

  
  

  I noticed an edit from the past 24 hours removing a source that is flagged under WP:ELNO, which backs up what the OP said regarding reliable sourcing.

  
  

  My votes on AfDs are never an attempt to insult those who worked on the article, I am an advocate for improving articles over deleting them, so I apologise if I caused offence, that wasn't my intention @Mathious Ier. This article should definitely exist if the sourcing and the translation can be improved, among the other things I mentioned in my original post. 11WB (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the sources which are that are topic-focused and reliable. And regarding Airlines Manager 1, it's normal that there is no article on it, because it was not successful and is no longer even available, unlike the 2nd. Mathious Ier (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox acquires Airlines Manager developer Playrion Game Studio, perhaps a merge/redirect to Paradox? IgelRM (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an idea to consider for sure. Does Paradox have its own article currently? 11WB (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Paradox Interactive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, @Vacant0! 11WB (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only reliable secondary source seems to be this news announcement by fr:L'Usine digitale: [47]. Not enough to pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Also a redirection to Paradox Interactive or List of Paradox Interactive games is not appropriate since this game was released in 2013 and Paradox acquired Playrion in 2020, and I don't see any mention that Paradox ever published this game. --Mika1h (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mika1h Primary sources say so: PR, official forum. IgelRM (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @IgelRM I don't see any mention of Airlines Manager 2, only Airlines Manager which is either referring to the first game or the series as a whole. Instead Airlines Manager could be redirected to Paradox Interactive if someone adds a mention of it to the History section. --Mika1h (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciate the precision. Based on the website, I think Airlines Manager 2 is the same game as the current Airlines Manager and "Airlines Manager 1"; like games that get updates on an ongoing basis. The number two in the game's title was added and the removed at a certain time. IgelRM (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this, this is helpful to know. Unfortunately, I don't believe it makes a difference to the notability of the game overall. 11WB (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there's more support for a redirect or merge to Paradox Interactive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of utility cooperatives (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)

Stated by @Otr500:, most entries didn’t have articles, with many that do having questionable notability. He cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

As for me, this article’s sourcing is barren, with sources that are serving no purpose beyond directing to their respective company’s website. With this article having inadequate sourcing, I believe it should be merged into Category:Utility cooperatives. Roast (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: At present, almost every entry has an article, and most of them are decent enough in the sample I checked. Not sure whether this list is the way to go, though. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am inclined to agree with Guerreroast, as a secondary option on a merge, as an WP:ATD. The embedded US list has no references. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are nearly 3,000 electric distribution companies in the US that include "investor-owned, publicly owned, and cooperatives". According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, there are over 900 Cooperatives. Listing 75 does nothing as a table of contents or navigation aid. Two sources cover Japan, and two cover California water companies.

An issue is a lack of reliable and independent sources overall, on the article, and none in the US section, indicating a lack of notability|. WP:NLIST states Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.

On a "spot-check:

• A&N Electric Cooperative: The first on the list has six references. Three of the sources are dead (404 Page Not Found) links, which include the two non-primary sources. While this possibly can be corrected, it is a red flag.
• Allegheny Electric Cooperative: Two primary sources only.
• Carroll Electric Cooperative: Four sources, one non-primary.
• Central Texas Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
• Concho Valley Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
• Fayette Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
• Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative: YEA! 11 sources.
• Minnkota Power Cooperative: No sources, two links in the "External links" section,
• North Arkansas Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
• Oliver-Mercer Electric Cooperative: No source. Google Books link in the "External links" section.
• Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative: Four sources.
• West Florida Electric Cooperative: Four sources.

It appears that a lot of the individual articles are not notable, but certainly not part of a list. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I've started work in my user space on a list of US electric cooperatives. That's about 880 coops and long for a list. I'm thinking about how to organize it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My notes are at: User:A. B./Electric coops. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree the present article is sort of an amorphous mess; this article should probably be deleted and replaced by several more comprehensive lists. This isn't a !vote yet; I'm still thinking about this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The US also has about 260 rural telephone coops.

  I don't think utility coops are common in many other countries other than maybe the Philippines. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fluentgrid (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a PUBLIC/WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. Current page is just a WP:SPAM, full of company products and services links WP:NOTADVERT. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. The article doesn't seem to have any problems. According to WP:SIRS, it is notable. Earth605 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up. The company has potentially hundreds of instances of coverage in reliable sources. This article does it no justice. FalconK (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am intrigued to hear why you think so? I didn't pull up anything good when I did my quick look so I am curious about your rationale. Moritoriko (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source analysis would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip's Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a future television episode. Has no coverage on the episode itself and is little more than an article shell. One of the three sources is a forum. Could reasonably be made into a draft as a potential WP:ATD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Disney. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as pointless. The episode airs in four days, at which time there will either be coverage, or not. Starting this now guarantees that the notability will change halfway through the seven-day window. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Haven't done enough research to determine whether this should be kept, but if this isn't kept, I would suggest redirecting to Big City Greens season 4#ep101 over deletion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep

  many sources exist 2600:4040:2838:FA00:802D:E325:FCEE:4CB6 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Following more research, this should be a redirect to Big City Greens season 4#ep101. I'm not seeing any coverage of the episode's production or reception – there is coverage of the show hitting 100 episodes, such as this, but that is coverage of the show, not the episode (essentially the 100-episode mark is just a reason for people to write articles reflecting on the entire series). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Big City Greens season 4 This recap style has long been depreciated and is unsourced outside PR and a Disney adult blog. Nathannah • 📮 16:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you can add many sources such as websites like the Disney website or even the tv guide 2600:1003:B1B1:1960:BDDD:63DA:6256:410A (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage from the broadcaster and TV Guide isn't significant, as basically all episodes receive this. There should be independent sources choosing to cover this episode in non-trivial ways. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Roberts (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. Article with several basic information missing, based on two database sources. I couldn't find anything about him after a WP:BEFORE. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and England. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft? Little bits on the web, Did you see those in your WP:BEFORE? BBC Line-up, BBC gets a mention. Mostly primary sources and databases online atm. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chang-joo (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 three professional appearances in J–League 2 [48] and a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and South Korea. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 3 appearances confirmed, subtract 3 from that and you have his notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable per WP:ORG and an AI-generated WP:PROMO. As a draft, it was declined four times, rejected once, then moved to mainspace by creator. Cited sources are non-independent. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing although it is difficult to search due to its generic name. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Bangladesh. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

The article has been improved with inline citations, neutral tone, and independent references. Sources include KiteMetric, PRLog, Product Hunt, and SourceForge — all third-party domains with no ownership or connection to the subject.

1. "Free Document Maker – KiteMetric" – detailed coverage from a neutral tech blog. KiteMetric is an independent company with offices in Vietnam and the UK (see their contact page and corporate email). Retrieved 25 June 2025.

2. "Free Document Maker Emerges as Bangladesh’s Fastest-Growing AI Software Company" – PRLog. Retrieved 25 June 2025.

3. "Free Document Maker – Product Hunt". Retrieved 25 June 2025.

4. "Free Document Maker – SourceForge". Retrieved 25 June 2025.

The subject is verifiably notable under WP:ORG — publicly launched, reviewed externally, and cited. Prior draft rejections were fixed by improving tone, sourcing, and structure.

Requesting to retain article with room for further improvement, not deletion.

SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — SaddamHosenSaad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see the table below:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
KiteMetric		Blog
PRLog	By: Free Document Maker Software Company
Product Hunt		I don't see how this is reliable
SourceForge

As you can see, none of the cited sources show notability. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that editor is the creator of the software. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero coverage of any kind about the software; download links don't count towards notability. Social media posts are all that come up. Not much really that we can use for notability. Appears PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm fairly sure Product Hunt is user-generated but either way the listing there has since been deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Encoded  Talk 💬 23:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2000 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. From WP:NFILM (my emphasis): Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.... Alibris Filmaffinity and Plex sources are one paragraph synopses. Wisconsin State Journal is three sentences about making the film, not WP:SIGCOV. Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one paragraph in a newspaper listing, a capsule review at best. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2006 is a comprehensive film guide. I couldn't access the BFI source via Proquest, but it is from the BFI's Film Index International, which is a comprehensive database of films. None of these constitute critical full-length reviews of the film, or go towards establishing notability through any of the other provisions of WP:NFILM, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hard keep: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has nothing to do with your career, we need sourcing about the film in order to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?

Now, as far as the nomination goes, don't take it too hard. Just about everyone on Wikipedia has had something reverted, deleted, or nominated for deletion at one point or another - sometimes even after they've been around for a while. It's not meant to be an insult or attack.

To go over the sourcing a bit more, what is needed here are sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. So for example, VideoHound could probably be used to back up basic details but can't be used to establish notability because they're too short and in some cases, are just plot summary with no actual commentary to justify the bones rating. Capsule reviews have much of the same issue, as they are often very short and are more summary than review.

I'll go over the sourcing in a bit more depth on the AfD talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Reader, thank you for understanding. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It can get overwhelming on here, I know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Gallo, Phil (2000-07-12). "Out of Sync". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

     The review provides 483 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "VH1 tackles a Wash-like saga in its first top-to-bottom fictional telepic, “Out of Sync,” a joke-free “music-filled comedy” that mindlessly romps through the cliches of soap operas, the record industry and network movies of the week. ... Wuhrer, the former MTV veejay who has become actress most likely to be nude in a straight-to-video pic, is an annoying bimbo with a constant jiggle. Camera takes careful aim to maximize body shots over any dramatic connection the character may make with the story. Rest of the acting is perfunctory. Music is catchy at times."

  2. Justin, Neal (2000-07-12). "FYI - Internet moving tips". Minnesota Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

     The review provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Clothes are also not a priority for Sunni (Kari Wuhrer), the would-be rock starlet in "Out of Sync," (Two and a half out of four stars, 8 p.m. today, VH1). She'll do anything to make it big - flashing the record producer, licking peanut butter off his trophy, sucking lime juice off a male model's belly. What makes this more than a Carmen Electra impression is Wuhrer, a former MTV personality who smartly satirizes the pop bimbette. She doesn't hesitate to pretend to have a great voice, even though she's "borrowing" from a "plain" housewife (Gail O'Grady, who's too attractive to be portraying an unmarketable artist). VH1 gently skewers itself with considerable success in this female version of Milli Vanilli."

  3. "Out of Sync. Alternate title: Lip Service". British Film Institute. 2002. ProQuest 1745738700.

     The source provides 300 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "Dissipated, down-and-out record producer Roger Deacon needs a hit, badly. A decade ago, he was a bona fide hitmaker until he imploded, publicly burning all his bridges in the music biz. To get back to the top of the charts, he'd sell his soul to the devil - or worse, to a record executive with a girlfriend who wants to be a star. Industry honcho Sidney Golden's newest 'friend,' statuesque Sunni, sure looks like a star, but as a smitten Deacon soon discovers, she sings more like Benny Hill than Faith Hill."

  4. Deming, Mark. "Lip Service (2000)". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31 – via Alibris.

     The source provides 260 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "However, when Sunni discovers she's been reduced to a lip sync act for her upcoming video and concert tour, she's none too happy, and shares her displeasure with her boyfriend; Roger, meanwhile, is wrestling with the fact that he's fallen in love with Maggie, who is married and not prepared to leave her husband. Also shown under the title Out of Sync, Lip Service was produced for (and originally aired on) the VH1 cable music network."

  5. Less significant coverage:
     1. Marill, Alvin H. (2005). Movies Made for Television 1964–2004. Vol. 1. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0-8108-5174-1.

        The book notes: "Out of Sync (VH1, 7/12/2000, 120 mins). Gail O’Grady plays a housewife whose singing abilities catch the ear of a down-and-out record producer who desperately needs her to lip sync songs for a record executive’s musically talentless girlfriend. Take the dubious career of faux rock luminaries Milli Vanilli and the basic plot line of the memorable Gene Kelly movie “Singing in the Rain” and this is what more or less emerges. Production Companies TVA International, Hearst Entertainment. Director Graeme Campbell. Executive Producers Dan Lyon, Anne Carlucci, Marian Brayton, Rona Edwards. Producer Terry Gould. Teleplay Eric Williams. Photography Nikos Evdemon. Music Jonathan Goldsmith. Editor Ralph Brunjes. Production Designer Bob Sher."

     2. Abbott, Jim (2000-07-10). "Lineup Ranges from All-Stars to Survivors". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

        The article notes: "The difference between a pretty face and a pretty voice is the story line on Out of Sync (9 p.m., VH1). This original TV movie stars Gail O’Grady (NYPD Blue) as a homemaker whose powerful voice turns a record company executive’s no-talent girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer) into a star. Just think of it as a female version of the Milli Vanilli story."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Out of Sync, also known as Lip Service, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources 2, 3 and 4 (Minnesota Star Tribune, British Film Institute and Rovi via Alibris) while reliable would not count towards notability under WP:FILM: Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides, the first is a TV listing, the second a comprehensive film guide and the third seems to be advertising copy for a DVD. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Plot summaries have nothing to do with significant coverage, there has to be critical commentary. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles in Variety and Minnesota Star Tribune provide both critical commentary and significant coverage of the film. The articles in British Film Institute and Rovi provide significant coverage of the film. The sources are enough for the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like additional sources have been uncovered that deserve additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Sources 2 and 4 shown above are the best with critical review sections. We probably have just enough to meet notability. I've tried in .ca sources, there just isn't much online. Probably in newspaper archives... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in reply to Cunard - the Variety source is great, but the Minnesota Star Tribune source is far too scanty: one paragraph of 119 words in a "variety" column that also covers Internet moving services, a TV show and an article exhibition about hair is nowhere close to the requirements of WP:NFILM full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. It is a perfect example of a capsule review, which is not sufficient. Something else along the lines of the Variety source is needed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC United of Wrexham (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)

Club are of no significance and have never played at a level of notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveAlbatross37 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ruscoe (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)

Person is of no significance LoveAlbatross37 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holborn Adams (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 GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle Bash007 Thank you for your other message and feedback. I created the page because a link existed on another page that was red and didn't go to a page that existed. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation and I have seen other similar pages so assumed this was fine so long as there are notable references available. The references are all news articles. I have made some changes in line with your feedback to make sure the copy is purely informational. It is not intended to be promotional but factual and I hope this improves it. There were also links on other Wikipedia pages to this page that should now work rather than link to a page that does not exist. Are these improvements suitable? Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican supercentanarians (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 as a group, there are some online groups like Longeviquest and the Gerontology Research Group who track these, but why we should replicate their databases is unclear. (Also typo in article title). Fram (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Costa Rica. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aju Mathew (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)

Seems like a lot of puffery for a not really notable academic. Sources like this, this and this are just promotional, and I don't see much beyond the first source which could help in establishing actual notability. Fram (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is too informative. Not matching up the notability of WP:BIO. Almandavi (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Security bug (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)

Should be merged into Vulnerability (computer security). Seems to largely be a neologism fork without much content. guninvalid (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previously involved editor: @HourWatch guninvalid (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vulnerability (computer security). Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. guninvalid (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am familiar with DB from Epic Rap Battles of History. From an inspection of the references, there appear to be many from YouTube and X, which are not reliable and violate WP:RS/PS. I am uncertain how to vote for now, so I will wait for others to give their opinions before settling on a vote. 11WB (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are maybe two legit entries, GOAT (sports culture) and The Greatest of All Time. Nearly all of the entries are properly (or, in the case of Ms. G.O.A.T., was improperly) listed in Goat (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freebird Games (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 am not convinced Freebird Games passes WP:NCORP. It has a dearth of coverage about the studio itself that isn't just about the To the Moon series, which doesn't have similar notability issues.

I do believe that Kan Gao, the games' mostly solo dev, is independently notable, per WP:NARTIST and various sources. [59] [60] However, he is likely notable under his real name for a biography article, not under the studio name for a company article. Thus, it would require a rewrite and has no bearing on this page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Augusta Eugenie of Urach (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)

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is nothing in this article about the article subject except family relationships. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page already exists in both the French and Italian Wikipedia sites so I don’t see a problem with it being on her, besides it contains more information and actual references unlike the other two. Also there are a lot of articles with far less information that are still up. Angelicvirgin (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are a lot of articles with far less information that are still up Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, each edition of Wikipedia is independent from the others; see WP:OTHERLANGS. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject is a non-notable actress and model who has made only minor appearances in films and music videos. The "Filmography" section is misleading, as she did not have a lead role in Kesari Veer. The article relies mainly on primary sources, mentions, interviews, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA and lacks WP:SIGCOV coverage.

Concerns include potential manipulation of her date of birth, with primary source citations (e.g., Instagram) contradicting verifiable information, such as her being 20 in 2016 during India's Next Top Model season 2. The article may be affected by COI/UPE and violates WP:TOOSOON.

I have made some edits but seek other editors’ expert opinions on its encyclopedic value and sourcing. Zuck28 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Dance, Music, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has very significant roles in Laila (2025 film), Kesari Veer and Trivikrama (film). Please see WP:NACTOR.--Eva UX (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources?

  Zuck28 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about it? I've added a few secondary sources to the page. Also 1) I've added a source indicating she plays one of the four main characters in Kesari Veer (and see Leading actor) and the filmography can hardly be described as "misleading". 2) A page cannot "violate" WP:TOOSOON, which is an essay, not a policy but, most of all, citing that essay may have been useful back in 2017 but certainly not today, as she has now an already notable acting career 3) Stating that she has "made only minor appearances in films" is totally inaccurate, for that matter. I have no idea about potential conflicts of interest regarding the page but in its current state, it does not strike me as an issue. Eva UX (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s no Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. Only passing mentions, wp:NEWSORGINDIA, and interviews.Zuck28 (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns in support of Afghan activists and human rights (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 appears to just be a coatrack for information about post-Taliban human rights campaigns in Afghanistan. The existence of such a collective phenomenon is not supported in reliable sources—sources exist, but this doesn't appear to be a "real" topic. Title also would need to specify post-Taliban human rights campaigns, but that's an issue for if the article is kept. Maybe this can be merged to Human rights in Afghanistan. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barr Britvic Soft Drinks (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)

Hypothetical merger which was abandoned in 2013, information on it is already in the two separate company's pages so no need for this article Update6 (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Could be briefly mentioned in each article about both companies, I don't see much for the company that never was. Sourcing is only about the merger, nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Movement and Black Power (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)

Term paper redundant with Asian American movement and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm the librarian supporting the students editing this page, and have consulted with them to make additional edits. Additional feedback will of course be appreciated! AnitaConchita (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to note that this is an article copy of Draft:AAPA and Black Power (previously draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAPA and Black Power). It looks like a few students were working on it this past semester and then copy-pasted it here, so if the article is kept, that draft should be redirected here and the attribution fixed. My read of the article is that it's mostly stitching together sections that would be better covered as subtopics in the corresponding articles (in particular, the amount of detail about Yuri Kochiyama kind of turns her into a metonym for an entire social movement). My recommendation would be to delete this copy and merge relevant info from the draft into Yuri Kochiyama, Asian American Political Alliance, and maybe George Floyd protests or Killing of Akai Gurley. @AnitaConchita If you're continuing work with the students still, I'd encourage exploring how this info can be incorporated there. hinnk (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I'd suggested some of these possible routes, and will share this feedback with the students. Appreciate the thoughtful notes, @Hinnk! AnitaConchita (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that this article is an attempt to circumvent the draftication of Draft:AAPA and Black Power. Gjs238 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, based on the edit summary, the scope got expanded (rightfully, IMHO) during the process of writing the article, and the creator, who is autoconfirmed anyway, didn't know how to change the name once they were finished. I agree it's probably not suitable for mainspace and submitting to AFC would've been a good idea, but to me, this looks like a couple of new editors trying to figure out how to contribute productively and trying to follow roughly the same steps as some of their classmates. A great opportunity to encourage the newcomers! hinnk (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it was all done in good faith, I'd hate to get too far into the weeds over it and bury them in red tape. I wish there was a peer-review/buddy system where you could work with them to help publish the article (there might be, but that's beyond my wheelhouse of Wiki tips and tricks). Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A copy of draftified Draft:AAPA and Black Power.

Gjs238 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not really clear to me how notable: sources include a few local news sites about his books, but the books themselves don't seem to be notable; orphan article and may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, so page does not really contribute to the wiki in any meaningful way while possibly contravening its terms of use Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem notable Update6 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Since the last AfD, we're now a lot stricter on notability. Simply competing in the Olympics (and getting a low position of 83) is not enough. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Klein Weidman (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)

Fairly new article written by an inexperienced editor; fails WP:NBIO; only two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, Television, and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these pages created by the same editor:

Barbara Allen (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dave Brandt (sportscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nelson Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jeff Werner (sportscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Speedy delete: Joan Klein Weidman, Barbara Allen, Dave Brandt, and Nelson Sears are clear WP:CLOP copyright violations - I am going to tag them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is evidence also of copyright violation on the Jeff Werner article, but it is less clear cut. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Copyright violations are evendent. Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Joan Klein Weidman has been edited and no longer qualifies for G12. @SunloungerFrog: @Nixleovel:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mvcg66b3r:
    • Also Jeff Werner (sportscaster) does not appear to be a copyvio per Earwig search (since no specific page for it being copyvio'd from was mentioned). The other three have been G12'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am surprised at that, @The Bushranger. [61] still looks pretty clear cut to me. Both the Early life and education and Career sections have a good deal of overlap. But I'll remove the copied text and request cv-revdel. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks SIGCOV of her career as an actress; the only significant source seems to be "Casting Might-Have-Beens" book. These ones cover her small business [62], [63], [64]. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Colorado. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant roles in The Dungeonmaster, Retribution (1987 film) and Strangeland (film), and perhaps also in Return to Halloweentown (see List_of_Halloweentown_characters#Chancellor_Goodwin) and High School Musical (3 films) (see List of High School Musical characters#Parents and adults). Please see WP:NACTOR--Eva UX (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, she should be notable based on NACTOR policy, but I cannot find any coverage of her beyond mentions in credits to make her notable. If there are no coverage, the page cannot be meaningfully expanded into something +/-encyclopedic. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Return to Halloweentown, The Dungeonmaster, Retribution and The Cowboy and the Ballerina (Reviews here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some coverage here and here. Not sure if this is enough for GNG though I didn't look for very long. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instyle Furniture (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)

Seems to just be one showroom in Scotland and the only references were news of an administration, not notable Update6 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable actor. Should be restored as a redirect to Shane Jacobson, whose name is very frequently misspelled this way - there are more hits for him with his name misspelled this way than for this guy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a stub or delete the redirect. I am of course familiar with Shane Jacobson, and have several of his films in my library, so when I stumbled on the name "Shane Jacobsen", unlinked, in an article on an unfamiliar film I was surprised. I linked it without saving, to see where it would lead, and found to my surprise that it led to the Australian actor. Not impossible, as many Aussie actors have found their way into American films. Off to IMDb, where Shane Jacobsen of New Orleans is mentioned as appearing in three or four movies, two having WP listings and, quite properly, neither one linked. How much time did I waste? Two minutes tops. Had it confused anyone else? Maybe not. Would someone turning those unlinked "Shane Jacobsen"s blue reduce Wikipedia's usefulness ? Absolutely. The beauty of this solution is the hatnote. Anyone looking for either person by that name gets what they want.
  • We cannot keep it because he is not notable. The notable actor's name is regularly misspelled this way by sources, so it is just as likely someone would be searching for him - sen/son are regularly confused in names and this mistake is in many news articles referring to him. Sometimes, people have similar names. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. This particular actor doesn't have a body of work that satisfies WP:NACTOR. Two seasons of American Crime as two different recurring characters hasn't gotten him much media recognition. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: To Shane Jacobson. The person who made the existing redirect into a stub first initially made a stub worthy of BLPPROD. Took me two reverts explaining in the edit summary why this is a bad thing to prompt them to make an actual stub, albeit still unsourced for the time being. This was good enough for me. Now that the stub is in AFD now, I'll be truly honest. Even after a source got added by another editor, I just don't see how this actor meets NACTOR, he's just too obscure of an actor. Plus that Shane Jacobsen is a valid misspelling of Shane Jacobson. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• no contest re notability of actor Shane Jacobsen, and I have reverted the links I made in those two film articles. I maintain, however, that the original redirect was not useful, and because there is a real life person of that name in WP articles, counterproductive. Doug butler (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not useful? The Sydney Morning Herald, Radio National Breakfast, Mediaweek, even the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart all spell his name with an "e". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Courier Mail has Angry Andersen and the National Library of Australia has Dick Bently. Is it Wikipedia's job to anticipate every likely misspelling? Doug butler (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just the frequent ones in (otherwise) reliable sources, especially when they're (soon) not in use. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newton, Wabash County, 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)

A defunct rail junction where the only building was, as far as I can determine, the tower building that controlled it. Now one of the lines is gone and there is nothing there but trees. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Stations, and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing in historic aerials and topos. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No information found, not notable. And why should we keep an article when its author didn't even bother to finish its (one) sentence? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Corner, Wabash County, 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)

Severe case of label drift here, as older topos place the label next to the College Corner Brethren Church, whose website has this to say: "The congregation received its name because a man by the name of Davis, who lived on that same corner, was the first man to send a son off to college. The church quickly became known as ‘the church at the corner by the boy who went off to college’." So it appears the name refers to the church, which is really the only thing there. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly just a non-notable church, not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with WeirdNAnnoyed. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a G4, but neither have the issues raised at either of the prior AfDs been addressed. I've also done some paperwork, but am not positive of the results. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In one season he went on loan, came back and then went on to make a total of 19 professional appearance for Crewe. With the fact he signed a new contract, I'm under the impression he is becoming more notable. Regardless of the WP:PRIMARY sources present, there are a few secondary and if he has a good coming season then that helps even more. It's a weak keep for me, but I feel it's a fair assessment on his notability and where his career is. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources there are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC ones obviously! :/ Govvy (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Okay, I see two BBC sources:

  1. Rotherham United 2 - 1 Crewe Alexandra - Clearly a match report which is equally clearly a primary source.
  2. Crewe midfielder Lunt signs new one-year contract - 81 words specifically about the page subject before moving onto other things. We learn he is Kenny Lunt's nephew, and he signed a contract. It's not SIGCOV in my view, but even if it is, this is still reporting the signing of a contract. That is still a primary source as there is no synthesis of sources here. It will have come off the back of a club announcement, and is not independent of that.

  So, sorry, I don't agree we have secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BBC are a secondary sources and are not classed as primary sources. Primary is close too, BBC are not close to the club or the player. However what you say is correct in view of individual sources. Again, you fail to understand the rules of GNG, when one source isn't enough you can combine multiple sources. Also again, I said my vote is a weak keep as he is an active player where as more sources can be added as he progresses through his career. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ??? 1. Of course BBC can be a primary source, such as for match reports or other breaking news. 2. Primariness has nothing whatsoever to do with "closeness to the club", you seem to be confusing that with independence. 3. GNG says nothing about combining non-SIGCOV sources, that's something only found in BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A BBC match report is not a primary source. However, more importantly, it is also not SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's moot, but... if someone watches a match and writes a report of the match, how is that not a primary eyewitness account of the match? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment with Govvy's input already here, I'm not going to G5 it, but dropping Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnglishDude98 if helpful to others. Star Mississippi 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per discussion above, I don't see any secondary sources in this article. Match reporting is all primary, as are result tables. Interviews are not independent and primary per WP:IV. News reporting is primary without any secondary synthesis per WP:PRIMARY (note d) and see WP:PRIMARYNEWS. We need multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. We don't have any. And WP:SPORTCRIT imposes an absolute minimum requirement that we must have one. Created by a block evading user, there is no reason to keep this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Number of professional appearances in 2025 should merit coverage if notable - and note that this was likely created by a sock. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed as being created by a sock and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. GiantSnowman 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question GiantSnowman Not doing a WP:BEFORE today? How much do you want on the snip bits? [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. Plus the stuff on the article already. Btw, there are interviews by the clubs, but those are primary, I could add about another 50 citations for him on match reports and comments about him. It goes on really, I honestly don't understand why people are so adamant about deleting a footballer who has multiple independent sources of a paragraph here and there, a sentence here and there. It's as if no one gives a shit about WP:BASIC anymore. That's what, 10 minutes, 15 minutes of looking! I wonder what someone will find with a few hours to burn. Anyway I am going to go make some dinner now! Govvy (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did a Google search - nothing you have linked to is anywhere near SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the identified sources provide the required IRS SIGCOV. Primary match reports, routine transactional announcements, interviews etc. do not count. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran strike intel leak (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)

Why do we need this page when it could be easily subsumed under United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites? It's not as though this "leak" (if the report were indeed genuine) was that earth-shattering as to deserve its own article. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 02:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• obvious merge per above of what is and probably always shall be a single paragraph taken out of context from a larger article. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Mangoe. Not every action of this conflict needs an article. Devopam (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not notable except in context of the strikes Placeholderer (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not notable enough for a standalone article WCNo47 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Crap article really. Not encyclopedic. This can be written in 4 sentences tops in the main us strikes on Iran article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelhakim Bitat (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. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Algeria. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Algeria at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Swimming – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besha Tuffa (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. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ogwang (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. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:OLY. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete it is super short relies on one source and doesn’t nessacarily have notability. 8bit12man (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Uganda at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivar, 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)

A rail junction, definitely, but I got nowhere on finding anything out about this as a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Chester Township, Indiana where this mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm finding the need to ask: what is the township article going to say about it? redirecting to the township is almost never an appropriate response. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article states it was never a town, just a rail point. WP:GNG applies to those, and I can't find any sources at all that aren't already in the article (and those are probably not RS). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with WeirdNAnnoyed. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. FujaFula (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meyzenq (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 disambiguation page is unnecessary. At present, there is only one Wikipedia article referring to an individual with the surname Meyzenq, namely Raymond Meyzenq. The creating editor appears to consider an individual listed on the Salomon Group article to be a notable figure and therefore has created a disambiguation page. However, there is no existing article on this individual to substantiate this claim of notability. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be deleted or be redirected, with CAT:RWP, to the existing article on Raymond Meyzenq, since he is the only person with that surname currently covered on this platform. QEnigma (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QEnigma (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a surname page, not a dab page. It's reasonable to include the CEO, for whom a redirect would also be reasonable. PamD 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([73]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QEnigma It was always a surname page. It was incorrectly labelled as a disambiguation page. PamD 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QEnigma But, OK, it might have been helpful if I had pointed that out ! Sorry about that. PamD 11:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PamD: I understand your position. However, it would have been preferable to make the alterations through consensus. That was the primary reason this article was listed on AfD forums. Nevertheless, I maintain the view that this article, whether a disambiguation page or a surname-related entry, requires the inclusion of more notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles in order to be retained. As you are aware, there are numerous senior executives across various notable companies who do not have individual Wikipedia articles on them and are therefore not included in surname-related pages. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QEnigma I don't think any specific consensus is needed to remove an incorrect {{tl|dab}} template and add the correct {{tl|surname}} template. The AfD template says "Feel free to improve the article".

  Plenty of CEOs don't have links, plenty do. I've made a redirect from him to the company, and tweaked the dab page accordingly. PamD 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a useful surname SIA which links to substantive information about two name-holders. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, it looks like a "No consensus" closure or, possibly, a "Keep" closure. Any more opinions now that the template has been corrected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Two entries is enough (barely) for a surname list. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cascades Shopping Centre (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 significant in-depth coverage outside of local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Portsmouth. Other articles about shopping malls give details such as what movies they've appeared in, what historical registries they're on... According to this article, the Cascades Shopping Centre is just a shopping center. Merge with no prejudice against re-creation if sourcing establishing independent notability can be found. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not a great article, in need of editing, sourcing and removal of non-encyclopaedic comments, but the subject seems clearly notable enough for inclusion. I also note that the proposer states No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media, which suggests that there is significant in-depth coverage in local media. Unless there is something in our notability guidelines that excludes local media, and I certainly cannot find anything, then this statements seems to contradict the proposal. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I certainly don't claim to be an expert and am not sure if it applies here, but WP:AUD does exclude local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is part of WP:NCORP; if there's a subject guideline here it is WP:NBUILDING, part of WP:NGEO. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm browsing the British Newspaper Archive on my phone at the moment, which makes it difficult to assess things properly, but I'm seeing quite a lot of substantial coverage of the early stages of planning and building the shopping centre (up to 1987) in the Portsmouth Evening News, which is more "regional" than "local" in nature. I will investigate fully when I get home tonight. The Cascades is a prominent shopping centre, comparable to those listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article; I feel continued coverage "should" be findable – quite probably in Portsmouth Reference Library, which I have used before. I will follow up on this later. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost all the google news hits are from local press. Thus fails WP:ORG based on WP:AUD, just another shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as right now there is no consensus and we have a variety of outcomes proposed: Deletion, Merger and Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Presbyterian Church (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)

Every source in this article which mentions the subject is either from the denomination itself, one of its churches, or Dewey Roberts, the convening moderator (i.e. founder). Regardless of the author of the Aquila Report articles, the Aquila Report itself probably doesn't qualify as reliable. This is a splinter denomination that hasn't received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I went looking for SIGCOV and did not find it. - JFHutson (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JFHutson (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Liberal Thinking (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)

Last AfD was 2006. The only sources provided are its own website (same with the Turkish version of the article). Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article editor Qwertyx~enwiki changed their ID years ago. I am not aware if they are an active user. The only two references are from the home page of Association for Liberal Thinking. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If they have "~enwiki" in their name, I think that means their account was WP:USURPNAME which started in 2008. – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turkish think tanks; the subject fails WP:ORG for its own article but a search yields enough references that it could be included elsewhere. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merger or should this article just be Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Power and Participation Research Centre (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 research organization. Although cited occasionally, there are no independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage about it. Fails WP:NORG. Worldbruce (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Centre for Policy Dialogue - There exists a growing number of secondary sources for the article due to its participation at a conference hosted by a separate Bangladeshi organization, see linked [74]. If the article for CPD is reworked, I think more information about the PPRC could be included there. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide (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)

Last AfD was no consenus. Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some random road in Australia. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Yeah, it's a main city street, and these are almost never notable. Coverage is routine stuff which one could find about pretty much any street in any large city. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resisting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but note it's an arterial road from the western suburbs dating from when they were sandhills and swamp, not a city street. I've removed the out of date map from the infobox and added a couple of old pictures. It has an A route number so clearly the state government thinks it's important. I still support keeping it. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Morris (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)

Parent company of only one main subsidiary, not notable Update6 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Home Bargains Home Bargains is their trade name and it's even mentioned in the lede, making this article superfluous. Nathannah • 📮 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Home Bargains: that article is written in such a way that makes it clear that TJ Morris is just the corporate name behind the Home Bargains chain. It's pretty telling that, as currently written, the separate TJ Morris article claims that the company owns several businesses, but the only other one besides Home Bargains to be mentioned in the article, Quality Save, had all their locations rebranded to Home Bargains over the course of a year after being acquired. There's no separate notability (or topic) here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Mishra (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:NJOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC doesn't appear to pass either. Coverage in article is all passing. WP:COI suspected as well; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Politics, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Refs [2] and [9] appear to reviews of his book with a bylined editor (who appears to be a senior-resident editor of The Pioneer). Given subject's stint at the same place, not sure how "independent" that would be. Bulk of the notability is driven by opinions/commentaries etc in multiple venues — I am not sure how that is generally used for Journalists on Wikipedia re: notability. I am leaning weak delete but if something else surfaces, I am happy to revisit. WeWake (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own Technology (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:NORG doesn't pass, no sigcov in article, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, Technology, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC, no sigcov in article. Also strongly suspect WP:COI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, Medicine, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations are nonzero, but look well short of WP:NPROF. No other assertion of notability in the article, no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctory: as a WP:ATD. I note that doctory was created by ThePerfectYellow and might also need to be examined. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea that page is also a little sus. I'm unlikely to nominate myself (working on other things atm) but encourage others to grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:JOURNALIST; coverage in article is passing mentions. See WP:COI and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow; I believe several major contributors to this article were paid to edit this article. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybage (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, the only topic in here would be the controversy its office construction project appeared to cause, which is very WP:MILL. As it stands, this page is a promo created by an SPA. FalconK (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not seeing how this group meets WP:BAND notability guidelines. LInks provided are just WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, they exist, and have been played at least once on BBC Radio 1 per [75]. Apart from that, per the nom, I am unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of the Philippines to Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A short article that fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Its sources are derived from primary entities. Hauskasic (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Philippines, and Jordan. Hauskasic (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your claim seems to ignore the second paragraph.

  "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

  Ike Lek (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - These lists are routine in coverage of all country's diplomatic relations. Ike Lek (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please indicate how this meets a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The original nomination does not indicate how the article fails any notability guideline, as the current sourcing of the page is irrelevant to notability as per WP:NEXIST and length is irrelevant as per WP:CONTN. Moreover, WP:NLIST acknowledges potential exceptions to WP:GNG for certain types of lists. Additionally, the list likely does meet general notability guidelines, as the role of Philippine Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is notable, thus a list of people in that would also likely be. I would also argue the an ambassadorship qualifies as an international or national political office in regards to WP:NPOL, if notability of list subjects is being called into question. Ike Lek (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC, and I'm nominating in part because this article was created and largely written by a sockpuppeter, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magill Road (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:GEOROAD. The sources of google maps and government of South Australia map layers are insufficient. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete yet another run of the mill road in Australia. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC (university appears to be fairly minor?). I'm nominating in part because this article was created and largely written by a sockpuppeter, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]