Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 26#FusionReactor

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 30 (Mon)      June 29 (Sun)      June 28 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Lower North East Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: And another unnotable stretch of bitumen. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Women, Film, Television, and Ice hockey. Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree: The CWHL fails Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, and her career also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Combined with the lack of media attention, I regrettably agree that this article should face deletion. That being said, there is something to be said about the inherent notability of someone who has consistently achieved at a high level, even when such achievement doesn't get media attention. Doesn't change my vote, but she is obviously extremely talented, and I dislike the deletion of the article because there isn't sufficient coverage. Unfortunately, we are at the whim of what media decides to cover, and what people decide to care about, and in this case, Women's professional hockey and inline skating is not it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two of the sources in the article, in Pulse magazine [1] and Telegram & Gazette [2], have sigcov of her. They do include interviews with her, but also have info about her career and her life outside hockey (studying biology and speech language pathology, which could be added to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Forbes has become deprecated. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian: not per WP:FORBES? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure @Bearian cited the right guideline. I'd instead take a look primarily at WP:SIRS; a mere profile is almost always a dependent source. You can tell a dependent source because it reports information that is quoted from the company or readily available from the company and indicates no outside sourcing or investigation. FalconK (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not both? In my opinion, Forbes is the Newsweek of the financial press, so it's deprecated, in part because much of their "reporting" is dependent upon whatever the business (person) says, without double checking the facts. "I said what I said." Bearian (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that Forbes is always wrong - their reporters' own work appears to be accurate - but they rely heavily on self-reporting and interviews. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Roofing Contractors Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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]

1988 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete: An local election involving less than 30,000 total votes, that happened over 30 years ago, without any particularly interesting aspects is of no encyclopedic value. While WP:NOTANALMANAC doesn't exist, maybe it should. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge If the Naga elections do not meet GNG (which has yet to be demonstrated), then the local elections across the next appropriate (n.b.) administrative subdivision up probably do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  Naga is currently an independent component city; there's no subdivision above it. (Unsure if this was the case in the 1980s.) Howard the Duck (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

Independent Schools Foundation Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

  All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

  Sources
  1. Lok, Sau Ling 駱秀玲 (2023-03-20). 3月29日入學簡介會接受登記 "【小一簡介會】全港最貴私校弘立書院　3月29日入學簡介會接受登記" [[Primary One Information Session] Hong Kong's Most Expensive Private School, Independent Schools Foundation Academy (ISF Academy), Opens Registration for 29 March Admission Briefing]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 3月29日入學簡介會接受登記 the original on 2025-06-28. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

     The article notes: "直資及私立小學陸續開始2024/25學年的報名程序，其中「光纖之父」高錕有份創校、有全港最貴私校之稱的弘立書院，即將於3月29日舉辦小一入學簡介會。弘立書院是一所獲國際認證的國際文憑（IB）世界學校，家長可透過簡介會了解學校的教學理念、課程特色、招收政策及程序等。弘立書院現提供5年制IB-MYP國際文憑中學課程，以及兩年制IB-DP國際文憑大學預科課程。近年該校IB成績優異，去年合格率達到100%，"

     From Google Translate: "Direct Subsidy and private primary schools have started the registration process for the 2024/25 school year. Among them, Independent Schools Foundation Academy, which was co-founded by "the father of optical fiber" Charles Kao and is known as the most expensive private school in Hong Kong, will hold a primary one admission briefing on 29 March. Independent Schools Foundation Academy is an internationally recognized International Baccalaureate (IB) world school. Parents can learn about the school's teaching philosophy, curriculum features, admission policies and procedures through the briefing. Independent Schools Foundation Academy currently offers a five-year IB-MYP International Baccalaureate Middle School Program and a two-year IB-DP International Baccalaureate University Preparatory Program. In recent years, the school's IB results have been excellent. Last year, the pass rate reached 100%."

  2. Lok, Sau Ling 駱秀玲 (2023-07-07). 畢業生獲劍橋牛津取錄 "【IB狀元】弘立書院誕1狀元6榜眼探花　畢業生獲劍橋牛津取錄" [[IB Top Scorers] ISF Academy Produces 1 Perfect Scorer and 6 High Achievers; Graduates Admitted to Cambridge and Oxford]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 畢業生獲劍橋牛津取錄 the original on 2025-06-28. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

     The article notes: "國際文憑大學預科課程（IBDP）昨日（6日）放榜，私立一條龍學校弘立書院誕生一名考獲45分滿分的狀元，另有6名學生取得44或43分。該校今年有68名學生參加IB考試，當中42%奪40分或以上的成績，獲得雙語文憑的弘立學生高達72%。弘立是一所獲國際認證、非牟利、私立、獨立的國際文憑世界學校，提供中、英雙語沉浸式課程。校方指2023年畢業班已收到來自全球123間專上學府、超過465份錄取通知書，其中包括常春藤盟校的布朗大學、哥倫比亞大學、康奈爾大學及賓夕法尼亞大學；在美國亦有喬治亞理工學院、約翰．霍普金斯大學、紐約大學、西北大學、加州大學、芝加哥大學、密歇根大學、卡內基美隆大學、南加州大學、聖母大學及波士頓大學。"

     From Google Translate: "The results of the International Baccalaureate University Preparatory Program (IBDP) were released yesterday (6) In addition to the IB examination, 42% of them scored 40 points or more, and up to 72% of Hongli students received bilingual diplomas Independent Schools Foundation Academy is an internationally certified, non-profit, private, independent international diploma world school, offering bilingualism in Chinese and English The graduating class of 2023 has received more than 465 admissions from 123 colleges and universities, including Ivy League universities, Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University and the University of Pennsylvania."

  3. "五年計畫八大路向 弘立加強中西融合" [Five-Year Plan Outlines Eight Key Directions: ISF Academy to Strengthen Integration of Chinese and Western Cultures]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2019-09-30. p. F4.

     The article notes: "弘立書院成立於二○○三年，已故諾貝爾物理學獎得主高錕教授為其主要的創辦人之一。該校辦學團體推出最新的五年策略規劃，《親子王》特別跟該校總校長查永茂博士（Dr Malcolm Pritchard）作一專訪，了解當中的八大項目。"

     From Google Translate: "Independent Schools Foundation Academy was established in 2003. The late Nobel Prize winner in Physics Professor Charles Kao was one of its main founders. The school's management group has launched the latest five-year strategic plan. "Parenting King" interviewed Dr. Malcolm Pritchard, the school's principal, to learn about the eight major projects."

  4. Chan, Hang 陳恆 (2019-06-24). "深耕八德一智厚植傳統文化－香港弘立書院探訪小記" [Cultivating the Eight Virtues and One Wisdom to Deepen Traditional Culture – A Brief Visit to ISF Academy in Hong Kong]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). p. A7.

     The article notes: "香港弘立書院為本港已故諾貝爾獎得主高鱘院士等倡議創辦，建校雖時間不長，但很受本港家長青睞。我於五年前慕名探訪了該書院，受到總校長查永茂博士的熱情接待，至今記憶猶新的是該校深耕“八德一智”，厚植中國傳統文化的獨特辦學理念。 書院位於港島南，校園四周林木扶疏，碧草茵茵，有鳥鳴蟲唱，無車馬喧囂，環境靜穆，堂舍敞亮，確是莘莘學子求知問學的好處所。... 書院設有「中國文化中心」，建造家校融合的社區，定期邀請國學名家講授中國傳統文化。書院也開闢了一個充滿中國古代書院風格，擁有典藏經典文獻、學習和研究功能的學術機構，命名為“書院中的書院”，開設了中國古代經典文、史、哲、詩、詞、曲等課程"

     From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Independent Schools Foundation Academy was founded by the late Hong Kong Nobel Prize winner Academician Gao Xun and others. Although the school was established not long ago, it is very popular among Hong Kong parents. I visited the college five years ago and was warmly received by the principal, Dr. Cha Yongmao. What I still remember is the school's unique educational philosophy of deeply cultivating the "Eight Virtues and One Wisdom" and embedding Chinese traditional culture. The college is located in the south of Hong Kong Island. The campus is surrounded by lush trees and green grass. There are birds singing and insects singing. There is no noise of cars and horses. The environment is quiet and the halls are bright. It is indeed a good place for students to seek knowledge and learn. ... The college has a "Chinese Cultural Center" to build a community where families and schools are integrated, and regularly invites famous Chinese scholars to teach Chinese traditional culture. The college has also opened up an academic institution full of the style of ancient Chinese academies, with classic documents, learning and research functions, named "College in the College", and has opened courses in ancient Chinese classics such as literature, history, philosophy, poetry, lyrics, and music."

  5. "弘立建分子生物實驗室 可做大學規格科研" [ISF Academy Builds Molecular Biology Lab Capable of University-Level Research]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2019-01-21. Archived from the original on 2025-06-28. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

     The article notes: "中學生已有機會做具大學規格的科研實驗，已故「光纖之父」高錕有份創辦的私立獨立學校弘立書院，本學年新建「分子生物實驗室」，由中學生構思分子生物相關實驗，題材可圍繞不同生物的細菌，由包括香港大學理學院前院長梁志清在內的團隊從旁指導。有學生化驗了馬、企鵝的腸道細菌，發現了具生物技術潛在用途的新型細菌。位於薄扶林的「一條龍」學校，開辦非本地課程的弘立書院，2018/19學年成立「分子生物實驗室」，面積約1500平方呎。 ... 弘立書院中、小學部有逾1800多名學生。"

     From Google Translate: "Secondary school students have the opportunity to conduct scientific research experiments with university standards. The private independent school Independent Schools Foundation Academy, which was co-founded by the late "Father of Fiber Optics" Charles Kao, has built a new "Molecular Biology Laboratory" this school year. Secondary school students can conceive molecular biology-related experiments. The subject matter can be around bacteria of different organisms, and a team including Liang Zhiqing, former Dean of the Faculty of Science of the University of Hong Kong, will provide guidance. Some students tested the intestinal bacteria of horses and penguins and found new bacteria with potential uses in biotechnology. Independent Schools Foundation Academy, a "one-stop" school located in Pokfulam, which offers non-local courses, established a "Molecular Biology Laboratory" in the 2018/19 school year, with an area of about 1,500 square feet. ... Independent Schools Foundation Academy has more than 1,800 students in the secondary and primary schools."

  6. "弘立書院15週年 高錕廣場開幕" [ISF Academy 15th Anniversary – Charles K. Kao Square Inaugurated]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2018-11-18. p. A14.

     The article notes: "由已故諾貝爾物理學獎得獎學者高錕創辦、現址位於薄扶林鋼線灣的弘立書院，昨舉行建校十五週年慶典匯，剛完成重建的「高錟廣場」，亦在昨舉行開幕儀式。出席嘉賓有全國政協副主席董建華、教育局局長楊潤雄、高錕慈善基金主席高黃美芸、智立教育基金董事會主席黃匡源及弘立書院校監黃惠君等。"

     From Google Translate: "Founded by the late Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Kao, Hong Li College, currently located in Conveyor Bay, Pokfulam, held a celebration of its 15th anniversary yesterday. The newly rebuilt "Kao Po Plaza" also held an opening ceremony yesterday. Guests attending included Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Tung Chee-hwa, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Chairman of the Charles Kao Charity Foundation Kao Huang Meiyun, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chi Li Education Foundation Huang Kuangyuan and Principal of Hong Li College Huang Huijun."

  7. "Independent Schools Foundation Academy". Tatler Asia. Archived from the original on 2025-06-28. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

     The article nots: "The Pok Fu Lam campus opened in 2007 on a 140,000sqft site. Classrooms have modular teaching spaces and a comprehensive IT system. There are two libraries, a gymnasium, basketball courts, a climbing wall, music practice rooms, art rooms, and a 500-seat dining hall. Additional facilities include a swimming pool, a performing arts centre, an auditorium, and an all-purpose ball court. ... Independent School Foundation Academy educates students in a Chinese-English bilingual environment, deeply rooted in Chinese culture and with a global understanding. ... Each year, the school's graduates receive close to 300 offers from over 100 universities and colleges around the world, including ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Independent Schools Foundation Academy (traditional Chinese: 弘立書院; simplified Chinese: 广流书院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perry v. Cyphers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment The sources at this point either (1) don't mention the case at all (refs 4 and 5); (2) mention the case in passing (refs 1, 2, and 6 (which is a historical marker)); or (3) are primary sources (ref 3). Notability still has not been established. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Comment There's an extensive biography in the Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (which was originally a print publication and is now updated and expanded online)[3]. Between that and the Wieck obituary, I'd be fine with "Keep" if only there was a third published source. The Dizionario points to an undergraduate thesis, but it's unpublished. Jahaza (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd hope with an extensive list of publications for WP:AUTHOR notability, but I only found one review so far.[4] It would be good if someone has access to Italian library sources to search those. Jahaza (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect simply as an alternative to deletion. The keep comments above have not established which sources as a group meet the GNG. If all we have is the one encyclopedia source and passing mentions in books (which is all I've found), then that isn't enough on which to base a standalone article. It would require a much deeper scavenge of period Italian-language sources to find reviews for his other works, as his 1972 Social Anarchism was not apparently reviewed in English-language periodicals or indexed in Book Review Digest. czar 15:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FASTCAM Ultima 512 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

FASTCAM Ultima 40K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

FASTCAM Super 10K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Brazil. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some of the sites covering the remake seem reliable: [5], [6]. 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: [7]. It contains some critical analysis. Then there is a preview of the original game when it was still in development in this print magazine: [8]. I still think this subject is below notability. No actual review of the original game or the remake. There are really short writeups: [9]:

"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: [10] and this: [11]. You would think that something called a "classic" would get an actual review or retrospective in 29 years... --Mika1h (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What do you see [12] there is likely a possible COI, tho I’m still checking, my issue is why the creator keeps removing tags, moving articles back to mainspace, creator lacks experience and temperament. Also can you show me how that article meets WP:SIGCOV? Allblessed (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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]

South Haven, Wabash County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete all three - non notable mid century developments, fails GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is either hoax or misidentification. The coords of Zow Tlang per Salehin Arshady here on Prothom Alo is identical to that of Aiyang Tlang as per the discoverer himself claimed here on The Asian Age. Furthermore, the Aiyang Tlang Peak is said to be in between Zow Tlang and Jogi Haphong. However, per USGS Topo Map[13], there is no other peak higher than 1000 meter in between the aforementioned peaks. Therefore, Aiyang Tlang is perhaps a hoax or a misidentification. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [14], 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Let's focus just on notability here for a second: there is a reasonable argument to keep. It's in architecture books [15] 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]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's [16] from VG/S inconclusive Comicbook.com, and Mobygames gives an offline review from Gameplay (Benelux) [17]. ~ 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

• 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]

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

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

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

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

List of Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? On the Side: Sword Oratoria light novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST and the main Sword Oratoria article isn't long enough for this to be worth a split out. Merge/redirect back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chapter titles are stupendously inane, picayune, [pick your synonym for trivial]. If somebody wants them, buy the book. NO merger to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 5am Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Meets the notability criteria for cities. See this source: Ozuruimo ... Festival Brochure. Imo State Council for Arts and Culture. 1989. p. 50. …HEADQUARTERS: For Administrative convenience, Obioma Ngwa has its Headquarters at Mgboko a town which… Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete Right now this is failing verification. The only source I have is GMaps, which labels the spot given with a different name. I have no problem with recreation given sources that actually locate this and describe it, but it doesn't cut the mustard to say "well it's a town, so we have to keep it." Cough up some basic sourcing and we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mangoe I don't think "the only source I have" is sufficient reason to "leaning delete" especially since you're not familiar with the subject, I think it should be "the only source that exist". Anyway, I have added sources to the article, you should take a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sufficient reason for leaning delete because if I were certain it didn't exist or was wrongly categorized, I wouldn't be leaning. Produce a real source for the location and I'll withdraw my objection. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe Did you check the article back? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: First, does the place exist at all? Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. ... per WP:NPLACE. We're talking about the headquarters of a local government area in Nigeria. Second, Obingwa is a Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Its headquarters are in the town of Mgboko, which has an area of 395 km².^[18] The nominator wasn't correct when they said there's no indication of notability, because according to NPLACE, this is a clear "indication" of notability, unless "indication" now has a different meaning. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but where is it? We need a source for that too, and one that verifies (as best we can) against the Real World(tm). Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of a mayor isn't contingent on the population of the city per se, but on the ability to write and reliably source content about her work: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Content and sourcing of that type is present here — although obviously more would be welcome if possible, this is already considerably better than the "So-and-so is a mayor who exists, the end" approach that's much more likely to get a mayor's article deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find any secondary coverage, only database entries ([19], [20]). 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Agreed that it would be useful to retain it but it doesn't need to be live Dflovett (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPECULATION. This is all based on what might happen based on a private message published by Trump. This seems like a Trump rumor, deliberately leaked just to see the “flattery diplomacy”. It was not an "oops" slip-up event. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 The Hague NATO summit. It is already there and these messages are linked to the event. Dajasj (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Textbook example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The capitalization is an unlikely search term so a redirect doesn't make sense. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is something to be said for any resolution. Hence the opinions here are all over the place. Likewise, still thinking this over. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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]

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

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

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

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

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

The sources mentioned are [21], [22] and [23]. 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. GiantSnowman 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. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, @RossEvans19:, Sources include:

- [24] ("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")

- [25] ("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")

- [26] ("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")

- [27]

- 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. GiantSnowman 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. profile, doesn't confer notability

2. profile, doesn't confer notability

3. same source as 2

4. not mentioned in source

5. not mentioned in source

6. 404 and not archived, no further comment

7. 404 and not archived, no further comment

8. broken link and not archived, no further comment

9. 404 and not archived, no further comment

10. profile, doesn't confer notability

11. profile, doesn't confer notability

12. profile, doesn't confer notability

13. same source as 2

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

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

16. primary document, not in-depth

17. business announcement, not in-depth

18. primary document, not in-depth

19. business announcement, no mention

20. same source as 12

21. list of donors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete: Most of the sourcing is as described in the comment above. I don't see notability ... I suppose the government job would show some notability, but there isn't much besides simple confirmation that they held the post. Gsearch brings up anything and everything, the name is rather common. I have no sourcing to look at that shows notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential sources to confirm notability - I am linking below some articles I have found that I suspect may contain prominent mentions of Gregorio Napoleone. I do not have full access to most of them, so hopefully someone who does could take a better look at them. I'm sure not all of them will be up to par, but I think they could warrant a closer look, and possibly indicate if there is more to be found.
  • https://www.privateequitywire.co.uk/stirling-square-backs-omni-helicopters-international-growth-strategy/
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB927574333996717980
  • https://www.penews.com/articles/stirling-square-invests-in-glass-company-20170719
  • https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/citigroup-backs-stirling-square-capital-partners-3/
  • https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/dlj-phoenix-private-equity-eyes-european-opportunities/
  • https://realdeals.eu.com/article/stirling-square-raises-950m-for-fourth-fund
  • https://www.privateequityinternational.com/stirling-square-nets-e600m-buyout-first-close-exclusive/
  • https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/stirling-square-nella-rete-1272954?refresh_cens
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/stirling-square-invests-in-bulletproof-glassmaker-isoclima-1500481947
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/stirling-square-co-founders-step-down-1526484634

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

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

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

• Delete I suggest that those who commented before Moritoriko reconsider their Keeps GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to remind everyone that the current sourcing of the article is irrelevant to notability as per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Ike Lek (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Moritoriko's source analysis confirms WP:BIO not met. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Keep: I don’t know why this article was brought to AFD but potential editors have viewed this page serval times but didn’t think otherwise, before i decided to create this page, I found reliable sources, why some articles found on google seams to be published in a Fan point of view, I have used only reliable sources and there is no prove of the references used in this article been promotional, article passed through AFC, there are editorial bylines and subject clearly passes WP:GNG, meets WP: NACADEMIC.
  I saw the Old AfD Discussion, deletion log Also Came across this on google (It was nothing to write home about) Maybe it’s the issues previous participants where pointing out on the AFD discussion, so I had to do my research. Also found WP:SIGCOV [28] [29] 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 [30] 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 [31]. 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: [32] [33] [34] 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 [35] [36] [37]. 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 [38], aside this I’m off. Allblessed (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC) 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: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

• Keep: Clicking on the Gnews link above brings up more than a trivial amount of Danish articles, [45] for example, suggests a long career and seems to be well-known by the public. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Close call, but doesn’t seem to definitively meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify- as an ATD, given the article has potential being kept, if more SIGCOV be added as well as some integration from the other language ver. like the Danish ver. for same article to this english ver. .Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep The book Danske filmskuespillere: 525 portrætter has a 5 para bio about him (pp 139-140) [46]. As Oaktree b noted, there are many current news stories about him, eg "Kristian Halken has been called the master of supporting roles. One year he won a Reumert for four supporting roles, and it is difficult to find a weak Halken performance. He is now 70 years old. Has Kristian Halken ever actually been bad on a theater stage?" [47]. This article Kristian Halken fra Sommerdahl: Her er hans kendte søn [48] has info about his wife and his son, also an actor. There is plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG, and multiple roles in films, tv and on stage to meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[49]. 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[50].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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	~ Partial
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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment:

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

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

• Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR, with the reviews added by DaffodilOcean. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment To your second point, it isn't at all uncommon for non-official opposition parties to have pages regarding their spokespeople (e.g. Frontbench Team of Paddy Ashdown). The size of a party doesn't equate to its notability. Kiwichris (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwichris: thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't been aware! I still think WP:NLIST isn't met in this case, and haven't been able to find any coverage that would persuade me otherwise, but can understand more why the article would be in place now. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not meet the threshold for WP:NLIST. As per nom, this information could be included in the main article. Also, the article title is incorrect; in practice this is just a list of Green MPs, and it isn't clear from the article what exactly is meant by "front bench" as opposed to not being front bench. I'd also like to flag that I have a CoI on this subject so take my input with a grain of salt. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete and merge content with Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. There's no reason to have a standalone article, but the content is useful to have at the main party article. Schwede66 05:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. Any relevant info can be in main Green Party article. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep per SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. There is nothing routine about huge fires in city centers of the Netherlands that wipe out a huge block of buildings. 25 buildings destroyed, including a national and several city monumental buildings are major IMPACTs. This article, part of sustained coverage, literally states that the impacts are lasting. Coverage is SUSTAINED and ongoing from March, with the most recent articles published just hours ago.[51][52] 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 [53] [54] (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 [55] [56] [57] [58] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [59]

  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]

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

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

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

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

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

  Thank you for pinging me.

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

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

  How come you decided that the subject is non-notable, given his filmography he easily passes Wp:NACTOR. And all the given sources are reliable sources, kindly let me know which source is unreliable? Zuck28 (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Weak Keep There is a lot of coverage of his death. Searching on his name in Devanagari (सुदीप पांडे), I also find some coverage of his films prior to his death, particularly V for Victor, which could be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RebeccaGreen, Thank you for your advice. I have added some additional sources as citations and expanded the article with his political career. Can you review it again?

  Zuck28 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Improved the article. Given his acting career, which includes lead roles in more than 40 films and notable awards, he easily passes Wp:NACTOR. Given the significant amount of news coverage about his death and political career, he passes Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4.Zuck28 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• weak keep: The controversy section has articles about the person, rather than just match reports. ESPN also has this about him [60]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section seems to me to be WP:BLP1E while the ESPN article is basically an interview with him, along with some comments from the president of the organization he was then fighting for (definitely not independent). I'm leaning towards delete but I'd like to see if any other sources exist. Papaursa (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability, google only turns up trivial mentions Psychastes (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Jamaica, and Virginia. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found this as well as mentions from the 2001 Youth World Cup. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Antigua and Barbuda, North Carolina, and Ohio. Svartner (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The best I could find was [[61]] 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]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Svartner (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep - passes GNG because he is a known young mathematician in Ukraine with significant contributions to fluid dynamics, non-Newtonian materials, and advanced computer modeling. He earned a PhD and a habilitation (Dr. Sci.) from the Institute of Mathematics, NAS of Ukraine, with research focused on nonlinear differential equations and Galilean invariance. He holds a professor title granted by the Ukrainian government for his scientific and pedagogical achievements and currently. General notability also comes from the high profile government awards. --Jars World (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 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]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article about a company/brand. There is announcement-based coverage at launch in 2011, more in 2012 [62], 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]

Airlines Manager 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete - Only reliable secondary source seems to be this news announcement by fr:L'Usine digitale: [65]. Not enough to pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Also a redirection to Paradox Interactive or List of Paradox Interactive games is not appropriate since this game was released in 2013 and Paradox acquired Playrion in 2020, and I don't see any mention that Paradox ever published this game. --Mika1h (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

List of utility cooperatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a "spot-check:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The US also has about 260 rural telephone coops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Keep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Draft? Little bits on the web, Did you see those in your WP:BEFORE? BBC Line-up, BBC gets a mention. Mostly primary sources and databases online atm. Govvy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chang-joo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined PROD. Only three professional appearances in J–League 2 [66] 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. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 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]

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

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

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

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

• Keep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see the table below:

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

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

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

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

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

Lip Service (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FC United of Wrexham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't trust the nominator, I believe they maybe a WP:SOCK. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 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. DankJae 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]

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

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

Does not meet GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm so I'm kind of unsure where to go with this one... On the one hand the topic does seem notable but on the other there do appear to be genuine concerns about promotion with some coverage reading almost as paid (see [77] for example). I would say leaning keep for now with a mind to revisit in a year or two when more editors than just this one have had a crack at the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your feedback @Horse Eye's Back. I created the article because there was a link to this page in red on another page that wasn't working, so Wikipedia suggested article creation. I have made some improvements to it in line with what another editor suggested. I thought that a wider selection of news sources would be useful, which is why that one was used, but I see your point about that coverage reading promotional in tone so I have removed it as I understand the importance of articles being neutral and purely informational. Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with points initially raised, but seems to have improved since in tone and news sources, so probably on balance now seems okay to keep. Leverdusoleil91 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican supercentanarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability for this as a group, there are some online groups like Longeviquest and the Gerontology Research Group who track these, but why we should replicate their databases is unclear. (Also typo in article title). Fram (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Costa Rica. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not a directory nor a free web server. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge with Vulnerability (computer security). Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. guninvalid (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Greatest of All Time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a cleanup issue, this can be a broad-concept article. --Joy (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I do believe that Kan Gao, the games' mostly solo dev, is independently notable, per WP:NARTIST and various sources. [78] [79] However, he is likely notable under his real name for a biography article, not under the studio name for a company article. Thus, it would require a rewrite and has no bearing on this page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect How about RPG Maker? I moved all of the informations from Freebird Games wikipedia article into RPG Maker rather than deletion. GeniusTaker (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were redirected to RPG Maker, it feels like it would run afoul of WP:SURPRISE. While To the Moon would be a better target, he also made numerous other games. So it would be better to delete to let the search function do its job, unless a page on Kan Gao were made. If you want to "rescue" the info, I'd suggest making said page using the aforementioned sources, and you could likely merge some of this into it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, technically, I already "rescue" the info. That'll be important is to delete or merge the article before I'll redirect the page into RPG Maker until Kan Gao appears as a Wikipedia page with reliable sources. GeniusTaker (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if Freebied Games is virtually the brand of Kan Gao, would it not be appropriate to rename and repurpose the article instead? IgelRM (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be guaranteed that someone will actually do that after the discussion is concluded. It's better to start a new article at Kan Gao if you wish to transfer the information, then redirecting there would be a valid WP:ATD. Changing the scope of the article would also be a problem if one day Freebird Games did become independently notable of the creator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this is relevant to WP:NCORP but Kan Gao is not the series "mostly solo dev" as seen here https://freebirdgames.com/about/ on the companies website. Falak89 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but the listing also doesn't show the devs' relative workload. Regardless, even if he isn't the main developer, it doesn't change my point. Gao is notable, the company isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Augusta Eugenie of Urach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What about significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources?

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

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

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

  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]

Campaigns in support of Afghan activists and human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Barr Britvic Soft Drinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Asian American Movement and Black Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Speedy delete: Joan Klein Weidman, Barbara Allen, Dave Brandt, and Nelson Sears are clear WP:CLOP copyright violations - I am going to tag them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is evidence also of copyright violation on the Jeff Werner article, but it is less clear cut. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Comment - I have removed infringing content from Joan Klein Weidman and requested CV revdel. Barbara Allen, Dave Brandt, and Nelson Sears were speedy deleted under {{db-G12}} per The Bushranger below. Dave Brandt and Nelson Sears have subsequently been recreated; I make no comment on their suitability for an article, as my main concern was the copyvios. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Copyright violations are evendent. Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Joan Klein Weidman has been edited and no longer qualifies for G12. @SunloungerFrog: @Nixleovel:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mvcg66b3r:
    • Also Jeff Werner (sportscaster) does not appear to be a copyvio per Earwig search (since no specific page for it being copyvio'd from was mentioned). The other three have been G12'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am surprised at that, @The Bushranger. [80] still looks pretty clear cut to me. Both the Early life and education and Career sections have a good deal of overlap. But I'll remove the copied text and request cv-revdel. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Werner has some SIGCOV, e.g. this. Didn't find anything on Weidman. Sears is notable, but seems to have been deleted already... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -@BeanieFan11 - Sears seems definitely notable from the little research I did. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Do you feel like writing his article up? I don't have the time. Joan Klein is also this woman's more famous name from what I can find, not WeidmanKatoKungLee (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dave Brandt (sportscaster) is easily notable. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've corrected the redlink "Barbara Allen (journalist)", in the "also nominating these pages" list at the top, to the intended Barbara M. Allen (journalist). Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Saylor, more "staff of the same television station" from the same creator but which has been listed separately rather than being added here. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks SIGCOV of her career as an actress; the only significant source seems to be "Casting Might-Have-Beens" book. These ones cover her small business [81], [82], [83]. —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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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]

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

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

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

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

College Corner, Wabash County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thanks. Okay, I see two BBC sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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. GiantSnowman 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. GiantSnowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Number of professional appearances in 2025 should merit coverage if notable - and note that this was likely created by a sock. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Question GiantSnowman Not doing a WP:BEFORE today? How much do you want on the snip bits? [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. Plus the stuff on the article already. Btw, there are interviews by the clubs, but those are primary, I could add about another 50 citations for him on match reports and comments about him. It goes on really, I honestly don't understand why people are so adamant about deleting a footballer who has multiple independent sources of a paragraph here and there, a sentence here and there. It's as if no one gives a shit about WP:BASIC anymore. That's what, 10 minutes, 15 minutes of looking! I wonder what someone will find with a few hours to burn. Anyway I am going to go make some dinner now! Govvy (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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, [92] [93]. 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]

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to Uganda at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. [94] Other sources didn't yield anything that would satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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]

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

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

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

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

  @PamD: It was a disambiguation page until you altered it ([95]). Your position would have been much clearer if that was included with your post. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No significant in-depth coverage outside of local media. Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JFHutson (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - tiny breakaway denomination with all of 27 clergy in 23 churches. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Liberal Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power and Participation Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Merge with Centre for Policy Dialogue - There exists a growing number of secondary sources for the article due to its participation at a conference hosted by a separate Bangladeshi organization, see linked [96]. If the article for CPD is reworked, I think more information about the PPRC could be included there. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Surayeproject3: It would be odd to merge to another organization of a similar type that has no parent/child/sibling relationship to the Centre, just because both participated in the same seminar. What would you think of a merge to Hossain Zillur Rahman (if there's any content that isn't already there). His is the only notable name among the people of PPRC. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worldbruce I don't have an opinion either way of what happens to the content of the article, so I support your idea if you think it's a better merge. It's clear that the subject is not notable on its own, though. Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On My Own Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, they exist, and have been played at least once on BBC Radio 1 per [97]. Apart from that, per the nom, I am unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  Your claim seems to ignore the second paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

  You are not addressing the issue that there is a complete lack of in-depth coverage, nor are you explaining how the article is notable. Hauskasic (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am saying the list is inherently notable because the position and anyone holding it is inherently notable under WP:NPOL. The list also serves a clear informational and developmental purpose under WP:NLIST. Why anyone would possibly want to delete it is beyond me. It is an example of a cross-sectional list of two notable topics, specifically: ambassadors from the Philippines, and ambassadors to Jordan. Having a cross-sectional list serves a clear navigational purpose as well. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm genuinely a bit baffled and trying to figure out what benefits deleting it could have for anyone. Would this still be a problem if more of the entries had their own articles? Ike Lek (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This applies to politicians who have held international or national positions and members of the legislature. This does not include diplomats. Even so, this does not justify a standalone article on the subject unless it meets the general notability guideline. Hauskasic (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is ambassador not a national position? Also, the whole point of subject specific guidelines is for things that might not meet general guidelines but are still notable. I would like to once again refer you to the second paragraph of WP:NLIST for the specific topic of this kind of list. Also, how does deleting it benefit Wikipedia? Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Also, how does deleting it benefit Wikipedia?" This is not an argument for notability. Many articles are deleted everyday from Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of those statements are factually correct, but I fail to see their point. Articles are deleted for reasons, which in theory are about improving the quality of Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103], 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]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete yet another run of the mill road in Australia. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An unnotable 5.7 km stretch of bitumen. TarnishedPath^talk 02:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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