Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< June 25	June 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Lower North East Road

(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
Delete: And another unnotable stretch of bitumen. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Adam Warlock. Consensus for redirect. Any merge, if required, can be done later as history is preserved. (non-admin closure) Allfather (Benison) (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Enclave (comics)

(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
Delete Complete WP:ALLPLOT, no apparent encyclopedic value. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE per the suggestion of @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply
~~Delete~~ - The single non-primary source currently in the article is not only a WP:VALNET source, but its actual coverage of The Enclave is the most trivial of mentions. Searches are also not actually turning up significant coverage in reliable sources regarding the group - the vast majority of "coverage" of the group are simply mentions (in largely churnalism-like articles) describing who Adam Warlock is with a brief mention that he was created by the Enclave. The only possible valid WP:ATD here would potentially be simply to redirect this to Adam Warlock where the group is already mentioned as part of his origin, but there is no valid content here for a merge, and suggesting to Keep this without actually offering any reliable sources that would suggest it passes the WP:GNG is pretty ludicrous. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Adam Warlock - per the discussion with Suriname0 below, and to help build a consensus, I am formally changing my recommendation to Redirecting this to Adam Warlock. Rorshacma (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Adam Warlock ~~List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations~~ - No independent SIGCOV. Rorshacma, what's your objection to the proposed redirect target? I see other non-notable organizations already listed. Suriname0 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Comment - Well, to start, a Redirect to the list would not work, as the entry for this group there is simply a link back to this article - an actual merge would need to occur and as I said above, the lack of reliable sources in this article makes merging content inappropriate. And to answer your question, the fact that those lists are overstuffed with non-notable groups/characters/etc is something I largely oppose in AFDs. As I often say, not every character/group/etc needs to be included in these bloated lists, and they need to have some modicum of sources and notability to be included, in my opinion. This particular article is a case of the fictional group having so little coverage in reliable sources that including in the list would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

I find that compelling. In that case, I agree with your Adam Warlock suggestion, since that's at least verified in passing mentions e.g. in this book: When the mysterious Enclave engineers an artificial being who is supposed to outclass all of humanity, the man known only as “Him” kills his creator and immediately leaves earth to explore the universe. (footnote: In Thor 165 (June 1969). Eventually he becomes Adam Warlock, but that was the work of other writers and artists.) (pgs. 52-53). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Redirect per above, WP:FANCRUFT failing WP:GNG. We still have dozens if not hundreds of such DC/Marvel plot summary to clean, sigh, how many years it will take... tnx for the nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply
Redirect per all. This doesn't pass WP:GNG but there is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Adam Warlock per Rorshacma and Piotrus. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Opinion is pretty much evenly divided between Keeping and Deleting. This closure shouldn't prevent a discussion on possible Merger or Redirection on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of philosophies

AfDs for this article:

(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

Keep but overhaul. Agletarang (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

National Roofing Contractors Association

(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
Roofing Contractor ISSN 1098-1519 is a reliable, independent and secondary source published by bnp media. LeapTorchGear (talk) 17:04, 27 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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge

(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: , . 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: . It contains some critical analysis. Then there is a preview of the original game when it was still in development in this print magazine: . I still think this subject is below notability. No actual review of the original game or the remake. There are really short writeups: :

"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: and this: . 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

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

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

The result was delete‎. As U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program, the IDed redirect appears likely to be deleted as well. If another ATD is IDed, happy to restore behind the redirect Star Mississippi 01:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Illinois ODP

(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 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. Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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

Comment above !vote is by a confirmed sockpuppetry of Milicz and has been blocked. RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. RedPatch (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Aiyang Tlang

(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, 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 (U T C) — 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

Delete unless more sources are provided. Additionally, the sources on this article are claiming Aiyang Tlang is the highest peak, which contradicts the banglatrek.org source documenting the measurement of Zow Tlang at 3352 ft , higher than the claim for Aiyang Tlang. If this article is kept it needs cleanup as it is, at the very least, misleading. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 08:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zirakpur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Lohgarh, Zirakpur

(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

Well, it would have said whatever it did before you went a stripped out any mention of the place.... Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

I only removed unsourced stuff per WP:UNSOURCED couldn't find anything about them as well. FujaFula (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete This article significantly fails WP:GNG as this place has no signs of being notable. ZXCVJJKI (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Lewis Kayton House

(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
Delete Let's focus just on notability here for a second: there is a reasonable argument to keep. It's in architecture books and Savannah Now article which talks about the building, but if you look closer, the vast, vast majority of sources are about the businesses/hotels occupying the building and not about the building itself. The article as written fails NCORP and it's not clear that it would pass if the article were about the hotel itself. In short, this is an article which I could see being salvaged, but at the moment it's an article on a building that's really being used to promote the hotel within the building. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - The subject of this article fails WP:NCORP criteria; and SportingFlyer's evaluation. It's possible PROMO for the developer/business. Additionally two of the existing sources in the article are Arcadia Press publications; there have been several discussions about the reliability of this series of books that are marketed to tourists in trinket shops and convenience stores, they are not serious architectural history analysis. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted#Sequel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted 2

(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 from VG/S inconclusive Comicbook.com, and Mobygames gives an offline review from Gameplay (Benelux) . ~ 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
Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted#Sequel as an WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. There was an additional AFD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ljubiša Bojić and all three AFDs closed with a Delete outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Ljubisa Bojic

AfDs for this article:

(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

Thank you for your detailed feedback and for highlighting the areas requiring improvement. In response, I have made substantive revisions aimed at addressing the concerns you raised, specifically regarding notability, sourcing, and editorial tone.

I have significantly expanded and improved the reference base throughout the article. Not only are there now more independent and reliable secondary sources, but these also include peer-reviewed Nature journal articles and major policy documents that discuss or cite Bojić’s work—particularly on large language models and the “CERN for AI” concept. This is intended to more clearly demonstrate that his contributions have been independently recognized in both academic and policy forums, with attention to WP:NPROF and WP:GNG criteria.

Where previous references overstated the subject’s recognition, I have revised the language for neutrality and accuracy. “Acknowledgement” claims have been replaced with verified citations, and a [dubious] tag remains where appropriate for transparency. Direct quotations from new policy briefs and reputable news sources have been incorporated to highlight independent uptake or discussion of Bojić’s ideas, such as in the context of EU deliberations.

Bojić’s institutional roles are now fully cited, including links to the AI Institute of Serbia’s events and the Serbian Government’s official registry of researchers, directly confirming his affiliations.

- Claims relating to his involvement with UNEP foresight initiatives are now supported by official UN documentation.

- Biographical details about family members now cite Wikipedia articles in Serbian, as per cross-referenced WP:BLP policies.

I hope these improvements address previous concerns. I believe the article now meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:PROF standards, and I respectfully suggest that retention is currently warranted. I welcome any further suggestions or requests for evidence. Devetakapija (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep – In response to the points raised:

Thank you all for the careful scrutiny and the specific feedback provided above. I would like to summarize the recent improvements to the article and how these revisions address the policies cited by participants (WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and COI concerns):

1. Addressing WP:GNG/WP:NPROF: Several reliable, independent secondary sources have been added that reference the subject’s work beyond mere self-publication or routine teaching roles:

The Edinburgh Companion to the New European Humanities – a scholarly monograph, discusses the subject’s pioneering multidisciplinary approach to the digital humanities. This is an independent, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source (see NPROF C2).
Multiple peer-reviewed articles about LLM assessment, artificial consciousness, and pragmatics, have cited the subject’s research (including recent citations in Psychology Today and Scieniast). This constitutes some recognition by the academic community (relevant for NPROF C3).
Policy documents (including a Horizon TwON project brief and an interview in Research Professional News (Clarivate)) independently mention the subject by name and reference specific contributions (i.e., the CERN for AI initiative). These references go beyond passing mention, as the policy brief specifically discusses the relevance of Bojić’s research and recommendations in context.
The European Commission's 2025 AI investment initiative, while not naming Bojić personally, closely aligns with models discussed in his work, indicating potential notability through significant indirect influence.
Participation in global initiatives (e.g. UNEP foresight projects) is now credibly cited via official and independent documentation.

2. Reference Improvements: All references were carefully reviewed. The article now takes care to distinguish between brief citations/mentions and deeper discussion. Any previous overstatements have been toned down to match the actual significance of cited coverage, per WP:NPOV and WP:V.

3. Modest Citations and Awards: While it is accurate that subject does not hold major international prizes, NPROF does not require awards per se: it also allows notability to be demonstrated through significant coverage/impact in reliable sources, including peer recognition and applied policy impact. The above sources show the subject’s influence on current research and policy.

4. Possible COI: I acknowledge concerns about single-purpose/COI contributions. The improvements made draw on independent, third-party sources, and I encourage further independent edits/corrections from uninvolved editors to ensure neutrality. I do not have a conflict of interest beyond a desire to ensure coverage is accurate and policy-compliant.

5. Sorting Lists: Thank you for adding the article to appropriate deletion sorting lists. This invites needed community input.

Happy to address further tagging or clarify any remaining issues with sources or content.

—Devetakapija (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Your statement that "The European Commission's 2025 AI investment initiative, while not naming Bojić personally, closely aligns with models discussed in his work, indicating potential notability through significant indirect influence" shows how far you're having to stretch to try to demonstrate notability. I've removed the sentence about this from the article as original research, given that it doesn't mention the subject or his work. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Dear Crodless Larry, thank you for your effort and guidance. I understand why you deleted this. I understand but I do not agree, as I think it would be useful not because of Bojic's notability, but because of creating informative article. But let's put that aside. The fact that Bojic was the first person to introduce that term "CERN for AI" in scientific discourse is the notable enough, at least in my view. If you are looking for notablity I think there are additional infos now in the Recognition section. Devetakapija (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete The citation figures are paltry, and every other argument for notability is even more of a stretch. The Psychology Today item, for example, is a vacuous listicle that doesn't even mention Bojic by name. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
The Psychology Today item cites important scientific paper published by Bojic as primary author and collegues. They do it as the first point:

Here are my 25 intuitive, nonscientific, and entirely subjective predictions for 2025:

As AI becomes more powerful, growing in autonomy and perhaps even showing signs of sentience, we’re bound to become humbler.

Sentience is linked to Bojic's paper. Maybe I am wrong, but for science, it is important to cite work of scientist and not nessearly mention his or her name.

See here:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-romance-of-work/202501/25-ways-ai-will-change-how-we-think-and-feel-in-2025

On the other hand Scieniast is legitimate sceince portal, the most influential in Netherlands, that did an interview with Bojic about that very paper. In that article, Bojic name is mentioned and he is interviewed. See here: https://scientias.nl/chatbots-hebben-verschillende-karakters-de-ene-is-manipulatiever-dan-de-andere/

The same goes for another policy portal which is highly regarded, just that without subscription of login one cannot see article. This one: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-infrastructure-2025-2-cern-for-ai-seen-as-a-positive-step/ Devetakapija (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
I just found important mention of Bojic's work in which his name is mentioned as well, not only link to his scientific paper (which I think is enough):

Bojic's research on the regulatory challenges of the metaverse has been cited by The Regulatory Review.[22] Summarizing his 2022 article, the publication notes Bojic argues that, since laws and policies tend to follow rather than precede technological developments, major technology companies have significant influence over identity, ideology, and truth in the metaverse. According to Bojic, this regulatory gap raises concerns over issues such as ownership, democratization, and the amplification of social problems like hate speech, racism, and sexism within digital environments.

Here is the link that [22] points towards

https://www.theregreview.org/2023/01/07/saturday-seminar-regulating-the-metaverse/

Also as you may have noticed, I previosly added to the article that Bojic was mentioned in The Edinburgh Companion to the New European Humanities as the founder of a new multidisciplinary approach that uses digital tools to inquire into the humanities. The book is open access and it can be seen here:

https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-the-edinburgh-companion-to-the-new-european-humanities.html Devetakapija (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Most of these are just citations, which don't belong in "recognition" section, which should cover major awards, prizes, etc., not be a blow-by-blow account of each time someone's work in cited in another publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

@Devetakapija, unfortunately you are misinterpreting what is needed for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All academics who publish papers get some citations, just being referenced by itself does not make someone notable. Please be aware that postdocs and junior scientists such as starting associate professors also get referenced in papers, but are rarely considered as notable. What is needed is significant numbers of citations by peers, this indicates that the community has decided that the work is important. While this depends upon area, typically we look for something like an h-factor of 40, and several thousand total citations, for instance > 5,000. He has an h-index of 15, and 954 total citations as of today. He has one paper with 234 cites which is a good start, but the rest are below 80. A really impactful paper has more than 1,000 cites.

In the same fashion, we look for major awards as indicators that his peers consider his work to be notable.

Note: in all of this we are looking for unbiased indicators. It does not matter what you or I think of his work, others have to independently and verifiably have found it to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Yes, but those citations are not from scientific publications. The citations that I brought there were mentions of his name by the important book as the founder of a new direction in humanities. Also, the mentions of him are by policy publications su as the Regulatory Review (University of Pennsilvania). So this is more about quality than quantity. Espcially in humanities the number of citations is not so high, the field is like that but this is not taken into account by you. I think this should be changed. Also the important concept CERN for AI is introduced by him. Thus, I repeat again the reason is quality, not quantity. Please take this into consideration. Devetakapija (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply
"CERN for AI" is not an important concept. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep – Having reviewed the latest revision, I believe this article now clearly establishes notability in line with Wikipedia standards. Dr. Bojić’s work is referenced not just in academic publications, but also in significant policy documents and reputable news outlets, demonstrating wide recognition and impact. The improved sourcing shifts the article well beyond promotional material, showing independent discussion of his research and policy ideas—especially notable in the context of EU AI policy debates. While he may not have major prizes, the depth and quality of coverage indicate his influence in the field is more than routine. The main concerns about sourcing and editorial tone seem to be addressed, with new references and more neutral language. As such, keeping this article is appropriate, provided it continues to receive regular scrutiny and refinement from independent editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara dragisic (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. As mentioned on the prior AfD, there is little chance of this passing if this goes for a full week. There are also concerns of self-promotion here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

The Subdued Sound

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

Same problem as WP:Articles for deletion/Shariq Us Sabah and WP:Articles for deletion/Manifesto of a Lover. References are falsified (several are literally to example.com), does not pass WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: aside from the catalogues and UGC refs, falsified references is a serious issue. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Also worth noting: this subject has actually been deleted before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Subdued Sound (Book) and the recreation is by the same author. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete or Speedy delete - yep, references go to dead links, and there is no significant coverage in any reliable, independent source. Lijil (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete – Per WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW and as a promotional article. This does not have the turnout as the books have, however this has similar issues with both sourcing/notability and promotional tones. If someone wishes for this to run the full week and gain more of a consensus I am fine with myself or another admin restoring this. Of note to other admins, there are concerns of past sockpuppetry with the article creator, so please be careful with requests to that end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Shariq Us Sabah

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

Many references falsified and do not exist and do not appear to have ever existed. All others are self-published or library listings. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manifesto of a Lover (his book, by the same creator) has the same issue. Author on whom nothing reliable has been written it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete: fustrating that this article has managed to stick around so long -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. There's little chance of this passing NBOOK if this were to run for longer. There are also valid concerns about self-promotion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Manifesto of a Lover

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. The two "reviews" are falsified and do not exist and have never existed as far as I can tell. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Us Sabah which has a similar problem though that one is from 2016! Yikes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Speedy delete: aside from the catalogues and UGC refs, falsified references is a serious issue. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete – Per WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - zero chance of meeting NBOOK. AI junk. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Nagougi

(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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm chapters

(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
Delete This is WP:NOT how an encyclopedia covers a story. The main article can follow other standard articles. Archrogue (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Finnair#Incidents and accidents. Star Mississippi 02:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of accidents of Aero O/Y

(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

Delete per nom. The list is shorter than the accident lists incorporated into many major airline articles, despite the fact that several entries are excessively wordy and could be shortened. This list is entirely redundant and I can think of no good reason to keep it. Carguychris (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Redirect to Finnair § Incidents and accidents as ATD. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply
I would support a redirect instead of outright deletion. Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

INGEK

(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

Delete. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentions are limited to niche blogs and local EDM outlets. There is no evidence of charting, awards, or sustained impact to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG.Cinelatina (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete I have tried to find suitable coverage, including on the labels he has released on. Unfortunately I'm not sure such coverage exists and therefore I don't think Wikipedia:NMG is met. satsuma ^talk (she/they) 14:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Luiz Fernando Uva

(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
Delete: Unable to find any secondary coverage, only database entries (, ). Doubt there would be anything from WP:OFFLINE, either; he competed in a junior racing series for two seasons, only had one win, and the seasons that he competed during don't even have their own articles. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. A possible Merge of contents can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions

(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

gotcha thanks for following up. I still think merge is preferable to an outright deletion Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 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

Speedy keep. Completely invalid, and irrelevant reason for deletion. If there is a good, unused source, the solution is to use the source in the article- not to delete the article. Dege31 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Note: Please do not post large amounts of content in an AFD discussion, it interrupts the flow of the conversation. Post a diff or link to the content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Wang Zixiang

(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 , and . 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
Delete. Sourcing is not sufficient for YOUNGATH and is not SUSTAINED, failing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Comment - Just to clear things up, I was going to give Das osmnezz some time to add the sources to the article before taking it to Afd - I'm going to vote based on what happens to the article. I appreciate Unknown Temptation for starting the afd, don't want to sound like I'm annoyed about it xD - as in it's current state, it doesn't have enough sources. If Das can update the article and add the Chinese sources they know about, I'll vote. I'll keep an eye on this. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Someone needs to explain the new sources as SIGCOV. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Comment - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, @RossEvans19:, Sources include:

- ("If it weren't for his 189cm height, Wang Zixiang, who has been busy following his parents and staff, would be easily ignored as a "runner". Unlike many choleric football teenagers, he was taken to the Workers' Stadium by his father to cheer for Guoan at the age of 4... Wang Zixiang's love for football came from his father. His father, Wang Aijun, was a die-hard and loyal football fan whose childhood dream was to become a professional player. Although he did not achieve his dream due to some unforeseen circumstances, Wang Aijun immediately placed his hopes on his son - watching Guoan at the Workers' Stadium was the first time Wang Zixiang came into contact with football. When Wang Zixiang was 5 years old, his father sent him to Balizhuang Central Primary School in Chaoyang District to play football. Former Guoan player Shao Jiayi started his football career here. Because the school was a boarding school, the young son could not adapt to the pain of not seeing his parents. Especially when he left home for the first time to go to school, Wang Zixiang kept hugging his parents' legs and cried and refused to let go. Fortunately, this period of time, which he described as "very unhappy", "always crying and making a fuss", and "unable to sleep", did not last too long. Two years later, Wang Zixiang joined the Beijing Cross-Country Football Club, and it was here that his football career underwent the first major change. In September 2008, before a game of the team, due to the absence of the goalkeeper for some reason, the tall Wang Zixiang was temporarily appointed as the goalkeeper by Coach Zhao... After training in the cross-country club, Wang Zixiang went to Shanghai to join the Lucky Star Club in September 2010. There, he got the opportunity to be selected for the Chinese youth team with his good performance. After that, Wang Zixiang also briefly trained and played with Shanghai Shenhua and Beijing Guoan. Although he just turned 18 a month ago, this Beijing boy has a very rich youth training resume. Last November, Wang Zixiang was accepted as a closed disciple by Beijing football legend Li Songhai. In the latter's opinion... At present, in the 1997 and 1998 age group where Wang Zixiang is, the one who can be called the number one goalkeeper in China should be the young player Zhang Yan who has just been transferred to the Beijing Guoan first team. In many competitions that the national youth team participated in last year, he played for the country as the main goalkeeper. Wang Zixiang is no stranger to Zhang Yan. The two had trained and played together in the Guoan echelon a few months ago. Unlike Wang Zixiang who spent his life in Beijing and Shanghai, Zhang Yan's youth training career represents the growth experience of most young players in China. They graduated from key football schools and then entered the professional club echelon, waiting for the opportunity to become a professional player. However, due to the incomplete youth training system in many cities in China and even in the country as a whole, not to mention substitutes, even the main players can hardly compete with amateur teenagers in Japan and South Korea. Therefore, in order to improve their competition experience, young people like Wang Zixiang have to change teams frequently - in order to have a stable competition position, they even have to come to a strange city to fight. Many years ago, Wang Aijun sent Wang Zixiang to Shanghai to play football because he didn't want his son to only serve as a substitute for Zhang Yan... this young man who idolizes Zeng Cheng and Buffon")

- ("Wang Zixiang, a Beijing native born in 1998. He was selected for the 1998 national youth team and played in the 2014 Asian Youth Championship. Wang Zixiang has been seeking to study abroad. At the end of 2015, he went to the Dutch Eredivisie for a trial. In March 2016, he trained with the Udinese first team for nearly three months. On August 8, 2016, he joined Granada. Although he is a U19 player, he is currently training with the B team")

- ("Who is Wang Zixiang?... He once played for Shanghai Lucky Star Football Club and was a substitute goalkeeper in the 97/98 age group. He first learned football in a well-known cross-country football club in Beijing. Because of his tall stature, he temporarily played as a goalkeeper, and then played goalkeeper until he entered the football echelon. With the help of the cooperation between desports and the Italian Pozzo family, Wang Zixiang got the opportunity to play football in Italy. Wang Zixiang will first receive top European goalkeeper technical training in Udinese in Serie A, and then he will have the opportunity to join La Liga and the Premier League depending on the actual situation. He will become the second Chinese goalkeeper to experience the atmosphere of Serie A football after the current national goalkeeper Wang Dalei")

-

- among many more Chinese and Spanish sources. Again, on top of that he has made fully pro league appearances and was clearly considered a top Chinese goalkeeping prospect who played abroad. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Please improve the article by adding sources and accomoanying prose, and ping me, and I'll re-visit per WP:HEY. Giant Snowman 07:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

It doesn't matter what the state of the article is if the sources fail our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete - The sources above are covered by WP:YOUNGATH. Sources that tell us about a young hopeful who is off to play European football do not speak to the notability of a football player. We would need more sources over an extended period. These sources are from 8 or 9 years ago. If the young hopeful became a notable footballer, there would be more coverage of this. What happened after he got to Europe? Why do we have no coverage of that? 18 year old Chinese hopeful travels to Europe is not an encyclopaedic article, it's a human interest story for the Chinese market. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Passenger Carrying Vehicle

(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
Delete if this was a brand new article that would be one thing, but it is instead 10 years old and is very poorly sourced. It is not likely to improve based on age any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Pioneer, Indiana

(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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ignoring the WP:BLUDGEONing and assumptions of bad faith, I find the source assessments of those arguing for deletion far more fact- and P&G-based, and less WP:TENDENTIOUS, than of those arguing for retention. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate

(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 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 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 . 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: 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 . 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 , 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

References

↑ Omigbodun, Ao (July 2012). "The membership certification of the west african college of surgeons and its relevance to the needs of the west african sub-region". Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2 (3): 83–87. ISSN 2276-6944. PMC 4240233. PMID 25452996.
↑ Abisola, Shojobi (1 April 2025). "Meet Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate, Nigerian Plastic Surgeon". Independent Newspaper Nigeria. Archived from the original on 13 April 2025. Retrieved 3 April 2025.
↑ Adekunle, James (3 August 2022). "Dr. Rasheed Aranmolate's career journey from Lagos to global excellence". The Guardian Nigeria News. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
↑ Abiodun, Alao (31 March 2025). "Rasheed Aranmolate: Standing for healthcare excellence in Nigeria". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 3 April 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Strong Delete. The sources cited by those seeking to keep this article are written in a promotional tone. Chippla earlier cited the first three sources in the article as evidence that he meets the GNG. Here are some quotes from each:

"Nigeria’s medical landscape shines brighter with the contributions of Dr. Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate" "Born on June 16, 1977, in the bustling city of Lagos, Rasheed hails from the historic town of Ijebu-Ode in Ogun State. His roots run deep in a land known for resilience and pride, qualities that have defined his stellar career. From his early days at Ondo State Government College, Usi Ekiti, to his transformative years at the prestigious College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Dr. Aranmolate’s pursuit of knowledge was relentless. His passion for healing led him to specialize in Burns and Plastic Surgery, He also completed a Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Training in Johns Hopkins University, United States." – seriously? even the town he was born in must be described as "historic"? It really feels like someone ran his CV through an LLM with the instructions to puff it up in every way imaginable.
Mostly a CV, but contains this as well: "Currently, Dr. Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate is a practicing surgeon and medical consultant with over 15 Years of experience, having a drive to support the medical community"
is also just a prose version of his CV. I don't see why they included this, though: "In an era where vitality is the new currency, health takes centre stage as the ultimate wealth. it’s about thriving, health care lights the way to a stronger, brighter tomorrow."

In summary, I don't think any of this coverage is truly INDEPENDENT of the subject. There is certainly no secondary coverage – they're just reading straight out of his CV. The remaining sources are just some quotes from him (not independent) , more of the same promotional CV do-over ("Grandville Medical and Laser stands as a beacon of innovation and excellence in Nigeria’s healthcare sector, driven by the visionary leadership of Dr. Ayobami Rasheed Aranmolate. Renowned for its advanced technologies and holistic approach, the center is revolutionizing plastic and aesthetic surgery.") , and the information that he was suspended from medical practice for, among other things, promoting himself on TV ("The fourth count was that Dr. Ayobami, registered medical practitioner, in wanton disregard for the rules of the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria 2008 Edition, engaged in self advertisement in a television program known as “Dr Laser” and thereby, conducted himself infamously...") . I of course do not consider research papers published by the guy himself to be independent coverage, and I don't think the fellowship raised above is sufficient to meet NACADEMIC – it seems to be more of a professional certification program than an honor or award. Toadspike [Talk] 08:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Comment: I’m unsure of articles reading like a CV there, GNG counts on multiple independent source (sources can be combined to attain GNG) Some writers may not articulate there words very well, doesn’t mean there are no other source that meets GNG, there is no proof that the information are gotten from the subject’s CV. None of us has seen the subjects Cv. Since 2018 this surgeon has been subject to news headlines, most of the articles and content that seams promotional has been removed, there are serval sources, the controversies isn’t a short coming because in my opinion this subject is notable, anyone can express there point of view, doesn’t change the fact that the sources here are reliable. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

You are bludgeoning this discussion. Please refrain from replying to and pinging every delete !voter (bar one) without making new arguments. I do not need to see the subject's CV to see that a plain listing of his educational and career history with no critical analysis is not secondary coverage. Interviews with and quotes from the subject are not independent coverage either. The source you have just linked is both an interview and has the same issues with promotional tone as the others: "In a bold move to address Nigeria’s healthcare accessibility challenges, Grandville Medical & Laser, founded by Dr. Aranmolate Ayobami, is championing telemedicine as a solution to the nation’s medical care crisis." I completely disagree with the remaining points you've made, but since I already explained my reasoning once I will not repeat myself. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

This is a Significant coverage and off course a reliable source independent of the subject Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Don’t get me wrong, don’t see much issues on the Wikipedia page the way you made it seams, The Wikipedia article of this subject is written in a Neutral point of view, WP:NPOV so many users have improved it over time, so it’s nobody faults if some journalist writes content on some many, doesn’t deny the subject of notability per the points I and other editors whom commented and voted on this discussion has made. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete - having checked out the four sources that could contribute to notability via WP:SIGCOV (that is, the first four in the article), I am suspicious that The Nation and The Independent came out with rather similar gushing coverage only a day apart. I therefore discount those with a big question mark over brown envelope journalism. Those are the only ones that were published since the last AfD, I think, and, for me, there is not enough in the rest to substantiate a BLP. I should say that I am trying to balance both WP:RSNG and WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, but am more swayed by the latter's Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Strong Keep: This subject easily Meets WP:BASIC, All information are verifiable. 197.211.63.23 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to I Came Upon a Lighthouse. Please note that the target, I Came Upon a Lighthouse, is also currently nominated for deletion. Participants here are encouraged to voice their opinion on it as well. Owen× ☎ 07:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Shantanu Naidu

(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) yet another sock block. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: , , , , , , 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

@CresiaBilli:, I would ask that you respond the to the AfD issues on your talk page. Since you have not, pinging you here. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 27 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

Redirect to I Came Upon a Lighthouse per WP:ATD. The page doesn’t have much going for it content-wise or in terms of notability. "General manager, head of strategic initiatives wing" fails to clear the WP:NBUSINESSPERSON bar. Yuvaank (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - Paid-for articles and churnalism that fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not what can be used for notability. The attempting gaming of the AfD process tells me this is also UPE and would recommend salting or we will be right back here again. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete: based on what the nom and others have put forward. Redirecting it to 'I Came Upon a Lighthouse', is fine too. Charlie (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Comment. The book is also up for deletion and is extremely unlikely to pass AfD. If this article fails at AfD, this could probably redirect to the in popular culture section of Tata's article - I've added a couple of sentences there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Stirling Square Capital Partners

(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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see support for the claim that the subject's notability stems from more than just them winning the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, but no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 07:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Nagamani Srinath

(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. 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.-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

Keep: Due to the notability of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and the sources cited. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:07, 4 July 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) 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

Comment: Including a source analysis table for reference as well (link here):

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sangeet Natak Akademi Award	govt. body	official bio	India's highest honor for arts	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Autobiography Feature		per RSPLIST	In-depth article on her book	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Festival Concludes		per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
The Hindu: Disciples' Showcase		Per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
News18: Concert Review	concert review	~ minus points lack of byline	performance review	~ Maybe
Deccan Herald: Musicians Rue Lack			passing	✘ No
Deccan Herald: Feature	Independent feature		in-depth article on her career	✔ Yes
Deccan Chronicle: Different Artist			passing (award notification)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

— WeWake (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

1) first source you say passes the test is this. It is not independent as it is simply taken from her bio and can be seen in this press release, this bio, and this YouTube video description. It is not something that was independently verified. Simply a reprinted bio. 2) Not sure how much indepdnent journalism was invovled in this one based on this. But, let's assume it passes. That gives us one piece of significant coverage. 3) The third is not and "independent feature" or "in-depth article on her career." Unless the link provided is wrong, it is clearly an interview with the subject providing the content. Far from independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

CNMall41 – thanks for taking a look. Few comments: (1) The press release and linked PDF are the same (because they were published by the same source, the award committee). For the shaale.com bio, it's hard to say if they simply didn't copy the bio from the award publication. There's no wayback archive so I can't go back and check and would lean towards trusting the bio from the notable award committee (between the two). The video link seems wrong? It doesn't have anything about Nagamini. (2) The PDF you've linked is something that tons of coaching/preparatory academies or predatory colleges in India compile for students to study for exams that test them on general knowledge. I can say with some confidence that The Hindu article wouldn't borrow from that. (3) source is an interview, but it is a mix of primary (interview) and secondary source in my opinion. For example, the first two paragraphs in this case contain non-trivial coverage that's not coming from the interview/subject per-se. Also, not to mention the book citation from my comment. Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep She meets both WP:ANYBIO with multiple awards (not all in the article yet) and WP:MUSICBIO. The Hindu and Deccan Herald are reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. I have corrected the year she received the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, per the source in this article and the info in the article about the award. I also don't think we can claim that no other sources exist - her career has spanned decades, and she has composed and performed in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil, so there would have been print coverage in those languages before the internet. Even for 2010, the year she received the major award, news coverage may not have been either digital or digitised. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply
- RebeccaGreen, thanks for highlighting this. Indeed, I found one source from December 1986 print newspaper archive containing review of her performance. WeWake (talk) — WeWake (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

No one is inherently notable for winning an award. We also don't blanket accept references as reliable because they come from a reliable source. Would a press release from The New York Times be reliable just because it came from NYT? There are other factors involved which I pointed out above.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep: Per source analysis made by WeWake. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply
Question - Final question for all the !keep votes. Is it your contention that those who have won the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award which can be verified through a reliable source are notable for inclusion? If so, I will create a page for each and every person I can verify listed on that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

And adding that I am not joking either. I will withdraw this nomination and make a page for everyone who can be verified. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Happy to help you with that! Thanks WeWake (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, she has SIGCOV in and . I think these coverage is just enough to make a start page. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Neither of those are significant coverage as stated previously in this thread. The first is churnalism the second is NEWSORGINDIA. My question remains. @WeWake:, can you answer in the affirmative? I will go ahead and withdraw once you do. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 07:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

(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

Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR, with the reviews added by DaffodilOcean. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply
Hey\'ed keep Moritoriko (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

2025 Arnhem city fire

(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. 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. There is no WP:NOPAGE argument, just a wave. 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 (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 and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China:

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
Keep WP:LASTING impacts to the city's remaining cultural heritage (a decent amount was destroyed during the Battle of Arnhem), WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE past the 24 news cycles (coverage continues as of the past few weeks as per 95.98.65.177, which is very much not routine for fires), we have diversity of sources, they are as in depth as they can be given we are only a few months out of the fire. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

LetsTrack

AfDs for this article:

(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) 12:27, 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) 12:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete. There's a fair bit out there but it's all routine stuff or dependent sources per WP:RSNOI when I look at it. Clearly a case of WP:SERIESA and, as @User:HighKing described in the previous AfD 6 years ago, a very active marketing department. FalconK (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Delete: Lots of paid PR/undiclosed COI/socks in the last AfD... I don't see much for sourcing, most are rated average reliability. This is about what I find --yourstory.com/2018/04/letstrack-raises-funding-1-7-million-led-us-based-investor-james-arthur -which is on the blacklist sites here, funding announcements and other PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Just a whole bunch of PR items in spammy links as I posted above. Probably trying to get better SEO results, but we aren't here for that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Yug Nirman Yojana

(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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Long Key Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Actress Universe Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actress Universe Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete. As mentioned in the other AfD, we establish notability for awards in two ways: either coverage of the award as a whole or reprints of the winners in independent, reliable sourcing. I searched for this one under its current name as well as its original name. I found some light coverage, but not really anything in places that would be considered RS on Wikipedia. When the site is potentially usable, the coverage is so light that it's not really something we could use to establish notability. Most of the time it's mentioned in passing in relation to a film or person. For what it's worth, I do think that they're trying to run an honest awards ceremony - this doesn't appear to be a vanity award offhand. It's just that the RS outlets haven't really taken any notice of the awards.

Maybe there's coverage in Russian, as the company appears to be run out of Moscow, but as I'm not fluent in Russian and don't have the awards names in Russian I have no way of checking this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 17 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 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

Delete: Gnews has nothing about this award. Gsearch is purely social media or blogs. Sourcing in the article is more about individual films rather than this award. Whole lot of not much for notability.... Nothing we can use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Corey Whisenhunt

(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
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete: The best I could find was [] which is a WP:YOUNGATH failure. The WP:GNG is simply not met here due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Toric Robinson

(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
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this nomination and will see about a more appropriate way of getting these articles deleted. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎reply

North Bay Breakers

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

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
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Procedural close - 'shit show' is mild. I call these kind of nominations 'clusterfuck'. Totally inappropriate to nominate 15 articles, in one AFD, in 1 minute - from an editor who has a long history of poor conduct at PROD/AFD. Giant Snowman 18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Choo choo – I understand what the nominator wanted to do, since they are all stubs from the same league, but it is better to analyze it on a case-by-case basis. WP:TRAINWRECK. Svartner (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
While I disagree with the characterisation as a WP:TRAINWRECK, I highly appreciate that you took the time to suggest a better way to go about this instead of just getting angry at me. With that said though, I'm going to seek the help of an unrelated admin to see if your suggestion is indeed the best way forward. It's not that I disagree with your suggestion at all, it's that I've been misled and yelled at enough times during this whole process that I want to make sure I don't get yelled at again for following your advice too. For now, I'll just withdraw this nomination. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Ayumu Matsumoto

(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
Delete - I couldn't find anything. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is poorly-sourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. The article needs to be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Vizz Africa

(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
Delete: An article about a company/brand. There is announcement-based coverage at launch in 2011, more in 2012 , both falling under WP:CORPTRIV. Their website appears to have ceased operating around 2014, and there is no redirect target article here on the parent company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PRODUCT. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Sources are found in this AfD. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Umar Edelkhanov

(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

Keep: Subject appears to have WP:SIGCOV in [] and []. I'd say this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Looks fine to me, I'll withdrawn. Svartner (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't see any support here for retaining this list. Owen× ☎ 13:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of utility cooperatives

(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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Big City Greens season 4#ep101 per WP:ATD-R, eliding the ATADD (WP:SOURCESEXIST) made twice by the same IP editor. No prejudice against restoration if third party, independent relible sources providing SIGCOV of the topic are found to demonstrate the notability this discussion failed therein to do. (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Chip's Revenge

(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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Han Chang-joo

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

Declined PROD. Only three professional appearances in J–League 2 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
Delete - per nom. Article does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is just an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails in GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable South Korean footballer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Free Document Maker

(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?
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
Delete non notable software platform. Zero WP:SIGCOV. The user is clearly spamming and self-promoting. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete per the graph analysis the subject fails to be important and notable enough on its own. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing early per WP:SNOW. A strong consensus has already formed, and keeping this discussion open longer is unproductive. (non-admin closure) PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 18:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Shubhanshu Shukla

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

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

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

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

This subject is not notable, the coverage about him is all for a single event. See WP:BLP1E. All of the sources covering him are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA lacking bylines, having a promotional tone or being puff pieces in general. Wareon (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

He is very notable, see Axiom Mission 1, Axiom Mission 2, Axiom Mission 3, every crew members have their own page. And India has their own Indian Human Spaceflight Programme which is an astronaut program itself just like NASA , Roscosmos and JAXA. Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply

And also why we are even discussing this when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap the decision already made for Shubhanshu Shukla and Prasanth Nair article should be Kept and rest two i,e Angad Pratap and Ajit Krishnan should be opened when they will be in orbit.

~~So from my side STRONG KEEP. Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockreply

~~Also you are against the Indian news see this BBC: and , Arab News: , The Guardian: etc. Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockreply

~~also The Washington Post: , NYT: Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockreply

These sources prove my point that he is only notable for this launch, nothing else. These articles only cover his role in the mission. Read WP:BLP1E carefully. Wareon (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

This is not a single event. He is gonna fly Gaganyaan-4 and may be in near some other mission may be Soyuz MS. See the astronaut page Zena Cardman she still yet to fly the SpaceX Crew-11 mission but her page is still there without any issue. Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply

And also if you have a problem with specially astronaut why not you nominate the same deletion for astronaut Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski and astronaut Tibor Kapu... Why India? WHY?? I don't see any logic here? Ghosted Editor (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply

Good point. He’s also the second Indian in space, the first in the 21st century. He needs this page 49.206.224.42 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Shubhanshu Shukla is a famous personality because-

1) Second Indian in Space. First Indian to travel to space in the 21st century.

2) First Indian to participate in the space program as a mission pilot.

3) First Indian in ISS.

4) First Indian astronaut in space under a commercial spaceflight program.

5) He, along with other three astronauts (Prasanth Nair, Angad Pratap and Ajit Krishnan) were selected for historic Gaganyaan mission, India's first indigenous crewed mission. Later, part of a commitment announced by then US President Donald Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi during Modi's 2019 US visit, two of that group were selected for Axiom Mission-4 (joint mission of NASA, ISRO, ESA, HSO, POLSA, SpaceX, Axiom Space).

6) He is Group Captian and is serving as test pilot in Indian Air Force with about 2,000 hours of flying experience in various aircraft, including the Su-30 MKI, MiG-21, MiG-29, Jaguar, Hawk, Dornier 228, and An-32. He has notable military career also. So, he is selected for the mission pilot for Ax-4 mission and going to play a very important role in this mission.

7) These prove the point that he is not only notable for this launch, he is going to play a important role in the history in Indian Human Spaceflight Programme, consisting of Gaganyaan programmes and leading to future human spaceflight programmes of the country like, Bharatiya Antariksha Station (2028-2035), crewed mission on Moon (within 2040) etc.

Astronauts from NASA , Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA and other government owned/ private space agencies (infact many who are yet to fly) have their pages. So, why it is not applicable for astronauts of ISRO representing India, one of the leading country in space exploration.

Wikipedia is not a platform to show and express own personal opinion and biasness towards a person, an organization, a community, a nation and a country. Before editing and nominating an article for deletion in Wikipedia, first make a study on that topic in details from reputed sources. I expect you will stop making multiple strikes on these article and remove your nomination for deletion, as soon as possible. AdGhosh (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Aviation, Spaceflight, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG with WP:RS. 14.139.127.131 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Non-Indian sources also showing notability. One of four members of the crew, ample of news coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
BBC as above, this AFP article in French , showing international notice of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. He's India's first astronaut after 41 years, so naturally Indian news oganisations will cover him. Besides, here's dedicated coverage from BBC, BBC (2), France24, Bloomberg. Plus, there is general coverage on the spaceflight along with his biography in it from most major outlets. Regardless, it does not meet the 3 criteria to be deleted as a WP:BLP1E: 1. He has been covered for at least two events - with regards to Axiom Mission 4 and Indian Human Spaceflight Programme, 2. Is not likely to remain low-profile due to his upcoming commitment in IHSP, 3. Both events are significant and the subject's role well-documented, even in news articles which only cover the spaceflight in general. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails WP:N, and this is a case of WP:BLP1E. The above !vote is not based on our strict P&G on the notability of BLPs and has misrepresented previous AfD where consensus emerged to redirect these articles. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
KEEP Literally for Christ Sake.... I don't think your response have any weight. Don't you understand what I have just said. There are several astronaut page who have not flown to space yet but they have an wikipedia page because they are very notable for example:
- ~~Zena Cardman~~
- ~~Rosemary Coogan~~
- ~~Pablo Álvarez Fernández~~
- ~~Raphaël Liégeois~~
- ~~Marco Sieber~~
~~and there are more.~~

IF SOMEONE IS IN ORBIT, they are utterly NOTABLE for the sake of HUMANITY. And Shubhanshu Shukla is already in Orbit right now even in ISS which is not easy to achieve by every country. India has achieve this marvelous goal. That's why astronaut Shukla page is very notable. Ghosted Editor (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply
Keep per Oaktree b and CX Zoom. The sources are clearly sufficient to meet GNG, and I think CX Zoom has accurately explained why BLP1E does not apply here. MCE89 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Passes WP:GNG - Astronauts generally are notable for one event. Sally Ride and Neil Armstrong for instance, who were the first in their specific achievements. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Passes WP:1E - As per this - If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The subject(Shubhanshu Shukla) will be playing large role in carrying out missions for first Indian Human Spaceflight Program "Gaganyaan" by ISRO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainayush362 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep else, if this article is deleted I will ask you guys to allow me in deleting all the unflown astronauts, one time flown astronauts, all astronauts who one flew under iss programme (one event), all one timer space tourists. Check the time when they were announced I had started nominating all such pages for deletion, but none were deleted. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 13:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Absolutely, if his page gets deleted, then the pages for all the other members of the crew should also be deleted. This singling out of a VERY NOTABLE astronaut is absurd. 182.69.182.194 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
My attempt when initial they were being deleted during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap for non flown astronauts but even on deletion nomination all stand and deletion nominations were deleted (even for soviet cosomoanuts) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=RIP+B1058&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2024-03-15&end=2024-03-15&limit=50

Another massive point if Shubhanshu Shukla is under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, all Chinese taikonauts that we create pages are under WP:NEWSORGCHINA if it exists for example Chen Zhongrui (2 citations of xinhua news agency and one of China Science and Technology Network, all from china) who is currently in space and all his page material is from Chinese News portal and this is the same for all Shenzhou 12-20 rookies (one time fliers). Now tell me which taikonaut (other nation later) is ready for deletion? Don't tell me there's censorship over western media in China so we depend on contemporary or domestic sources of china. All news from China and North Korea depends 90% on their domestic sources, so what is wrong if indian sources are used for Indian stuff. (All selective outrage) ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep as per @RIP B1058 about the China's astronaut. I agree. Indian Astronaut should not face any discrimination like this. We are the only South Asian country who is in ISS and even investing so much in Outer Space. I don't know why there is so much rage against our Indian Astronauts. 2405:201:900C:D17F:75C1:A0DE:6676:4CE6 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

(Long message so broken) Earlier I used to make Chinese taikonauts pages the best I made for Jiang Xinlin (one of the best translations from other Wikipedia done by my side and was accepted while I was an IP editor) can get max 3/13 non Chinese sources while spending half a day in searching for citations. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Before the launch of Shenzhou 20, Chinese Agency did not share the name of their two Taikonauts i,e Chen Zhongrui and Wang Jie. But when they are in orbit right now of course they also deserve page and as the Chinese space are secretive about their own astronauts yes there are very less news articles and much of them are from China itself. Ghosted Editor (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply
What's the point of removing a page about an Indian astronaut who is on the ISS? Without attacking the person, I think it's ridiculous that you would do this. Wikipedia isn't for these things. Lately, it's been terrible with some editors wanting to remove all pages, even those about tourist missions. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. I agree with much of the above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Double Strongest Keep I Agree with all of the above points mentioned under keep.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

I think it is time the discussion should end because as per @Lazaro Fernandes it is of-course ridiculous to delete a notable astronaut page and also the deletion tag on the article does not look good. Let's complete the discussion. Literally @everyone here is saying Keep.... can we call an administrator here who can take the decision to end this discussion neutrally? (Actually I don't know how to end it that's why I said Admin so don't mind may be it can be anyone) Ghosted Editor (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Sockreply

Overwhelming Keep; I admit, the article does has its issues, but seeing that he is going to be an influential person who might appear in the media for some more time, potentially piloting our Indigenous Human spaceflight, I don't see the point of deleting this. I request a speedy close on this matter. RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep As per analysis by CX Zoom, Oaktree b and Maile66. They are notable irrespective of WP:BLP1E Agent 007 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Double Speedy keep. It passes WP:GNG, WP:1E and WP:BIO and also got massive coverage in several WP:RS including international ones. The astronaut discussed here is currently in the ISS and will go again to space in India's Gaganyan mission, as he is the only 1 of the 4 astronauts to be named out currently considering his skills, experience and knowledge. Clearly the motive to raise this deletion is highly questionable, outright biased and definitely not in a good faith. All news sources even BBC, CNN, WaPo have branded content and advertorial section, so does the Indian sources mentioned in the NEWSORGIndia, it's clearly mentioned to check and verify articles from these sources weather they are branded or not and not simply ignore these sources outrightly. I suggest the user who bought this up to read the NEWSORGIndia clause firstly. The articles wrt the Axiom mission covering Shubhanshu Shukla clearly aren't paid and doesn't have any disclosure of branded promotion either and also have a lot of Indian and international WP:RS sources listed here. So I demand a Strong Keep and Speedy close this matter asap by the respective admin. Editking100 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Lip Service (2000 film)

(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. Retrieved 2025-06-16.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  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. Retrieved 2025-05-31 – via Alibris.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  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
- Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  The 119 words of coverage in the Minnesota Star Tribune cover "the topic directly and in detail" so this source contributes to notability. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 30 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

Comment What is with the comment by User:Tropical Storm Angela. Is there a WP:COI there that should exclude them from !voting in this discussion? The film looks trivial at best and not likely notable from available sources, and their near hysterical reaction to the possibility of it being deleted is concerning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
I didn't interpret this as a COI - I think that they are just very into editing Wikipedia and as such, gets protective of their pages and edits. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Andrew Ruscoe

(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
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG as a lot of the sources are quite trivial or not significantly in depth of Ruscoe himself but rather the teams he was connected too, especially the non-local sources. Dank Jae 19:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete a CV masquerading as an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete, Fails GNG, SPORSTCRIT, and SIGCOV. Article should be deleted as this does not appear likely to change. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

List of Costa Rican supercentanarians

(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
Delete - we are not a directory nor a free web server. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Aju Mathew

(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
Delete - fact-free rèsumé. Compassion is only rewarded in pediatrics, labor and delivery, and hospice. Otherwise it's not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete this is far from passing WP:NPROF. While he has a good career, we look for much, much more than this. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete article would appear to be somewhat WP:PROMO-like in its wording in addition to failing notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Vulnerability (computer security). ✗plicit 14:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Security bug

(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

Merge - this looks to be a clear case for merge. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Merge into Vulnerability (computer security). That is a good suggested target. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Merge into Vulnerability (computer security) is a good choice. Phạm Ngọc Phương Linh (T • C • CA • L • B) 07:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Godtube

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, doesn't have enough significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:00, 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} 07:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Websites, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Sources identified in the last AfD seem fine, which was closed only a few months ago. Easy keep Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
The three sources provided in the last AfD aren't actually in the article. Why? Looking at the sources in the article, there aren't any WP:RS. Why are the NYT, The Guardian and ITnews sources not included? I'm guessing it is because they are critical of the platform, WP:PROMO. The article should be draftified until it represents a balanced view from all the available sources. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Keep, WP:ITSUNREFERENCED -

JFHutson (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

I would like to withdraw this deletion request. By my own comment above I already realised that the article just needs work, rather than outright deletion. This is not the avenue to discuss those changes. My apologies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Akanksha Sharma

AfDs for this article:

(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
Even if that assessment was correct, she still would pass Wikipedia:NACTRESS. And please note that WP:BASIC indicates that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (the different reviews in reliable sources of the 3 films she had lead roles in mention her performances with critical assessment and those mentions, some being brief, cannot be considered trivial nor passing mentions). Eva UX (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:NACTRESS. What secondary sources are you looking for, reviews suffice. The 2 interviews should be considered for sourcing since they are not the bulk of the sourcing. You can always tag the page for needing citations instead of deletion. DareshMohan (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Interviews are primary sources and therefore unreliable for supporting claims in articles. While interviews can be used to establish that an interviewee made a particular statement, they are not considered reliable for verifying the accuracy of those statements. For example, this actress lied about her age in one of her Instagram posts, and later that post was used as a reference to manipulate the date of birth on Wikipedia. See wp:IV

There are reviews of the movies as citations but none of them can really provide in-depth reporting. See Wp:SIGCOV.

while someone passing Wp:NACTOR may be considered notable, but this is not always necessary.Zuck28 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets notability criteria per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has acted in films across major Indian language industries (Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada), with roles that received individual mention in professional reviews. The Times of India described her as "bold and glamorous," while The New Indian Express and Cinema Express included her debut in their critiques. In addition to her film roles, she has appeared in high-profile music videos performed by prominent artists like Badshah, Tiger Shroff, and Harrdy Sandhu — each of which has received notable media attention. Her modeling background, including participation in India’s Next Top Model, further supports a career with sustained media visibility. I think reliable sources, both mainstream and entertainment-specific, provide significant coverage of her career, satisfying the general notability guideline. Cinelatina (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep: Verifiably meets NACTOR through roles in Laila, Kesari Veer and Trivikrama. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Barr Britvic Soft Drinks

(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
Delete Only routine news mentions about the proposed merger were found. The subject does not meet notability guidelines, as coverage is limited to transaction announcements which are not sufficient. Yolandagonzales (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Given this is a copy of the text at Draft:AAPA and Black Power, that should be the main article to preserve attribution. In addition, that draft should be submitted to WP:AFC when it is ready for the mainspace. This is not meant to be a punishment or to bite newcomers, but the consensus is that this should be done properly and only when the article is ready. Malinaccier (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Asian American Movement and Black Power

(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

Continuing revisions with assistance

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Liam Borchers

(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. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails in GNG. The person who took the photo of Liam also created the article, which isn't always a red flag, but in this case it is. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing the GNG. With a positive outlook just maybe TOOSOON. The books are self-published, the coverage human interest. The editing does not look paid at all. gidonb (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete some not insignificant COI concerns, but also more relevant, the subject is non-notable as of now. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Saudi Arabia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery. ✗plicit 14:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Adel Aljabrin

AfDs for this article:

(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
Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery since I really try and WP:PRESERVE when possible. That is the best option at this moment. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Leslie Wing

(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 , , . —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
Keep as meeting WP:NACTOR. There is biographical info about her in a couple of papers on Newspapers.com from 1984, when she starred in The Cowboy and the Ballerina. I'll try to add some to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Instyle Furniture

(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

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Shane Jacobson. Malinaccier (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Shane Jacobsen

(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

Delete. There is only one brief mention in a film review, with no substantive coverage of the subject himself. No indication of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.Cinelatina (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Newton, Wabash County, Indiana

(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
Delete Tiny railway junction, in a tiny county, and tiny notability. Not deserving of a Wikipedia article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete: Stations are not usually notable, and this almost abandoned one even less so. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

College Corner, Wabash County, Indiana

(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
Delete per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete tiny and insignificant and non-notable subject matter. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Owen Lunt

AfDs for this article:

(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:
Rotherham United 2 - 1 Crewe Alexandra - Clearly a match report which is equally clearly a primary source.

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. Giant Snowman 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
A 'primary source' refers to "accounts written by people who are directly involved" (i.e. in soccer we usually class that as the player's club or similar) - not an independent journalist writing a report. Giant Snowman 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
OK, well I see where you are coming from, but that's not really a sufficient summary of WP:PRIMARY. The closest we come to that is in note d, but note d doesn't just say participants. For instance, it also says, A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Eyewitness accounts are always primary for the event they describe. To be secondary, sources must be synthesising primary sources. The word "secondary" refers to this fact that secondary sources are synthesised from the analysis of primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

WP:PRIMARY is not limited to non-independent sources. They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. A recap of a match by a journalist who observed that match is primary. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 30 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. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Number of professional appearances in 2025 should merit coverage if notable - and note that this was likely created by a sock. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Confirmed as being created by a sock and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Question GiantSnowman Not doing a WP:BEFORE today? How much do you want on the snip bits? , , , , , , , . 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. Giant Snowman 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
Delete – Young footballer who never played at higher levels. The secondary sources provided are transfer announcements and brief mentions in match reports. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 05:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Delete though I do think we are very close to notability here - just need one more article on him. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was speedy merge‎ to United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. SNOW close per WP:AVALANCHE. (non-admin closure) 9ninety (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Iran strike intel leak

(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
agreed, merge is most preferable option 149.22.219.132 (talk) 12:58, 27 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
Merge with United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: The parent article is less than 6,000 words, thus no justificaiton for splitting based on size alone. This content would therefore be better suited in the broader topic, specially the section Leaked DIA assessment. CNC (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Merge with United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: as per CNC. Im the one that added the Leaked DIA assessment subsection above the text there. Just merge the info here over there. That article is not bloated and could use more info in it currently. RopeTricks (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Merge with United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as an unjustified SPINOFF and a likely NOPAGE transgression. Redirect would also work. gidonb (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Algeria at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Malinaccier (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Abdelhakim Bitat

(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
Delete: Only source is a database and I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV anywhere else. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Malinaccier (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Besha Tuffa

(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
Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The source provided in the article does not in establishing notability since it is simply a database (hence it is not secondary). Searching using Besha Tuffa's google translated name – በሻ ቱፋ – returned two articles from Addis Admass, . I'm unable to access either of them, but judging from the previews, they simply seem to be short mentions of game results. So all in all, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Uganda at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Fred Ogwang

(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
Redirect to Uganda at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The source provided in the article does not in establishing notability since it is simply a database (hence it is not secondary). Searches performed on the Daily Monitor only include short passing mentions of Uganda's Olympic results. Other sources didn't yield anything that would satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Uganda at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics: I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV for this individual. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Bolivar, Indiana

(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

Delete several of these recent Indiana tiny town nominations are all completely non-notable. This one is no exception. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Meyzenq

(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 (). 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
Comment - Is there a policy or essay somewhere that guides our general decision-making around surname lists? I've been wondering this for a while, as most surname lists are completely unsourced and almost certainly don't meet WP:NLIST. (For example, is it really the case that Meyzenq "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"?) I have no problem with keeping these per WP:IAR, as they're generally useful nav aids, but WP:CSC (for example) only refers to the selection criteria for inclusion on a notable list. I'd appreciate any pointers. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Cascades Shopping Centre

(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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Vanguard Presbyterian Church

(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
Delete - tiny breakaway denomination with all of 27 clergy in 23 churches. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Grange Road, Adelaide

AfDs for this article:

(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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Home Bargains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

TJ Morris

(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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Sidharth Mishra

(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

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Raziuddin Aquil

(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
Keep Yes there is a COI but the topic is not non-notable. Either you will need an article on this subject or any of his multiple books. I would prefer the former because it is an immediate solution to the present need with regards to this topic. Agletarang (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. I found six published reviews of four books (at least some of which are edited volumes) , and evidence for at least two more offline. My keep is weak because of the edited volumes and the cleanup issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep There are enough reviews of his work as well as the coverage about the individual. Lorstaking (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Magill Road

(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
Delete: An unnotable 5.7 km stretch of bitumen. TarnishedPath^talk 02:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Bishnu Mohapatra

(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
Delete. I could not find evidence of academic notability in the form of heavy citations to his work nor anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

[1] Omigbodun, Ao (July 2012). "The membership certification of the west african college of surgeons and its relevance to the needs of the west african sub-region". Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 2 (3): 83–87. ISSN 2276-6944. PMC 4240233. PMID 25452996.

[2] Abisola, Shojobi (1 April 2025). "Meet Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate, Nigerian Plastic Surgeon". Independent Newspaper Nigeria. Archived from the original on 13 April 2025. Retrieved 3 April 2025.

[3] Adekunle, James (3 August 2022). "Dr. Rasheed Aranmolate's career journey from Lagos to global excellence". The Guardian Nigeria News. Retrieved 4 August 2022.

[4] Abiodun, Alao (31 March 2025). "Rasheed Aranmolate: Standing for healthcare excellence in Nigeria". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 3 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

This page was redesigned at the edge.