Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 12#Michael Katz (chef)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< November 11	November 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Franz Joseph von Seefried

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

The article's relevance is questionable. Most of it consists of genealogical information and information about his work as a trade commissioner in Austria and a naturalist. One book from 1949 is also mentioned, but this information cannot be verified. In my opinion, the above information is insufficient to substantiate the article's relevance. RobertVikman (Talk) 20:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was able to verify the 1949 book using WorldCat, and discovered a book chapter with the same title in a book of lectures at a university-level forestry school published a few years later. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caligosexual

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Found zero results in g-news, g-scholar, g-books, newspapers.com, or PressReader. All existing sources appear to be self-published and/or hosted on forum-style sites. I was unable to find a mention of this term in a reliable, independent source; otherwise I could support a redirect to asexuality. Zzz plant (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zzz plant (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also unable to find any reliable sources about this neologism. The sources used in the article do not support notability. I agree with Zzz plant that there isn't a good redirect target, with no reliable sources even supporting mention of the term elsewhere. Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I do like the metaphors though! jolielover♥talk 04:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect How about a redirect? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Katz (chef)

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

non-notable, advert, no coverage in reliable sources about Katz. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any coverage about him, mostly confirmation of where he's worked. This reads like a resume. The food writer could be notable, but besides columns he's written, there isn't much. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note The article is tagged as potential UPE. I can affirm that it is paid editing, and that the paid editing was declared, but that declaration was lost in a deletion. The paid editor was Anya Rubstein. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Tag removed. Polygnotus (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. I have added sources that further strengthen this: Makor Rishon profiles his culinary achievements, the Jerusalem Post highlights his founding of the Attilio culinary school, The Israel National News sources detail his international representation, Ynet notes that he taught at the Cordon Bleu in London, and Walla! Food explains his previous role as head chef of Edom (Adom) restaurants in Jerusalem. Combined with earlier coverage including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times of Israel, these sources demonstrate Katz’s notability through his professional accomplishments and influence on Israeli cuisine. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just found two additional sources from a previous deletion discussion about Katz that ended in Keep: Dining: A Gourmet Experience, which notes that he is a member of Belgium’s Association of Master Chefs, and Israeli Cuisine with Chef Michael Katz, which describes him as one of Israel’s top chefs. I also added links to the books Israel: The Complete Guide with Biblical Sites, Desert Adventures and Seaside Resorts (Abdou et al., 1999) and The Chef’s Kitchen (Aner & Rabin, 1999), which are reliable, independently published sources from recognized publishers, and provide verifiable coverage of Michael Katz’s professional work, and therefore further support his notability on Wikipedia.” Orlando Davis (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis Can you show me the WP:BESTTHREE? Katz does not (yet) meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure which three sources are the absolute best because I haven’t read them all yet, but these three are definitely solid:

The Jerusalem Post — a well-known English-language Israeli daily with a reputation for editorial independence — provides independent coverage of Katz’s career, including his training in Michelin-star kitchens, teaching at Le Cordon Bleu in London, and his role at Adom/Edom restaurants. This is not an interview, as it is a review of the food he prepared.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s lifestyle section, part of a major broadsheet with editorial oversight, reviews Katz’s cuisine and gives meaningful coverage of his professional work. (Philippine Daily Inquirer – Wikipedia) This is also a review, not an interview.
The Times of Israel is a reliable independent source that reviews Katz’s food rather than interviewing him, confirming his role as a chef and highlighting his professional prominence. It also notes his membership in the Belgian Association of Master Chefs and his teaching at Le Cordon Bleu in London.

All three sources are independent, secondary, and not self-published, meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:N). You can see how Wikipedia evaluates the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel here: (Wikipedia: Reliable sources – Perennial sources)

Thank you for your time and input! Orlando Davis (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis No I mean sources that provide significant coverage about Michael Katz. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail.

jpost contains 7 sentences about him, hardly in-depth.
lifestyle.inquirer.net is a lifestyle blog. Sure, it is hosted on the same domain, but it isn't a reliable source since it is a lifestyle blog; not a reliable source of information. Interviews are where journalists write down what people say, not an independent source of information. It contains 6 sentences about him.
That ToI link contains 4 sentences about him, if we are generous. So that doesn't meet WP:INDEPTH.

Polygnotus (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have a COI or do you get paid to edit? Because dude worked at a booth at a tourism fair (according to the source) for 5 days and you describe that as him being "an ambassador of Israeli cuisine". Polygnotus (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have no conflict of interest; I’m taking part in this discussion because I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. The article also passed a deletion review in 2019, which further supports its long-term notability.

To help address the sourcing concerns raised here, I’ve added three additional reliable secondary sources, including the books The Jewish Kitchen, and The Foods of Israel, and an article from Haaretz. I initially thought the existing sources were sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but since questions remain, I’m happy to continue improving the article. I’ve already identified several more high-quality sources that can be added.

I’m committed to working collaboratively to ensure the article aligns with policy and is supported by strong, verifiable sourcing. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis Are you saying that people who have a conflict of interest/are getting paid must be editing in bad faith?? Are you sure ? The rules are quite clear: paid editing is allowed, although disclosure is required. COI editing is allowed, and advice is provided how to do it properly.

I object to you characterizing all paid editors and all people with a conflicts of interest as bad faith editors.

People keep showing up on Wikipedia to passionately defend some obscure chef who never really achieved much in the culinary world. That includes multiple accounts by paid editors but also the username "Chef Michael Katz". And since you write about builders of scale models of ships and Michael Katz builds scale models of ships it is difficult to not see a connection.

The fact that a book contains a recipe by him doesn't really do much for notability. What we need is significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Polygnotus (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mean to imply that COI editing is bad faith, and I apologize if it came across that way—that wasn’t my intention.

Regarding The Jewish Kitchen: the book mentions Katz’s recipes on pages 18, 35, 157, and 158, and also notes that his restaurant, Michael Andrews, was highly acclaimed. Please give me a bit more time, as I’m still working through several additional sources I’ve found. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I collaborated with a paid editor, and have helped a bunch of COI editors. As long as they are willing to follow our rules they are welcome.

Bad faith edits are vandalism, hoaxes, trolling et cetera.

WP:RELIST says In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice but we are not in a hurry and there is no deadline so I don't have objections to relisting for a third or fourth time. Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we lack is reliable sources with significant coverage about Michael Katz. All these sources that just mention his name, but aren't actually about him, do not contribute to notability. Polygnotus (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to note that I have added 28 sources to the Michael Katz article, most of them after my last edit. While many of these sources were recently removed by another editor (you can verify them in the article history), I’ve listed some below to provide context and help other editors evaluate them. I believe these sources further support the article’s case for notability. It’s also worth mentioning that there has been additional coverage since the last AfD on this article, which resulted in a Keep.

Haaretz – Multiple articles describe his restaurants’ impact, challenges due to local conflicts, and recognition as a culinary leader. (Most of the Haaretz sources can be found through the Wikipedia Library for free)
Ynet – New and Noteworthy in Jerusalem – Highlights that Katz has one of the most impressive credentials in Jerusalem’s culinary scene and is the only Israeli to have been a Cordon Bleu instructor in London.
Ynet – Lists Katz’s restaurant as one of the “must-see” destinations in Jerusalem.
Israel Eats (book) – Describes Katz’s international career as a chef and culinary consultant in over 20 countries. By clicking on the preview button on the top of the page, and typing Katz on the search engine on the left bottom, you will find the information I provided.
Israel TV 13 – Reports that Katz taught many of Israel’s greatest chefs and details his reinterpretation of Michelin-inspired dishes.
TV13 – Reports on nationwide competitions he launched to promote street-food cooking in Israel.
Timeout Magazine – Discusses his charitable initiatives through Attilio, including volunteering to prepare and deliver meals nationwide.
Shavvim – Notes that Michael Katz is “world renowned” as a chef.
Foodis – Highlights the Attilio cooking school he owns, its mission, and its educational initiatives.
Walla Food – Highlights his role at Aluma, a gourmet kosher restaurant, emphasizing his classical European training and creativity within kashrut.

Orlando Davis (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to post again — I just thought that anyone interested in checking the Haaretz articles through the Wikipedia Library might find these helpful. They offer additional context and may be useful for evaluating coverage:

Palti, Michal. "It's a War on Fine Food in the Capital." Haaretz, 23 Oct. 2001.
Katz, Michael. "What Does It Really Mean to Be a Chef?" Haaretz, 22 Nov. 2015.
Wissenshtern, Elkana, and Rina Rozenberg Kandel. “Security Situation Hits Jerusalem Business Hard: ‘Mahane…’” Haaretz, 14 Nov. 2014.
“Retail Sales Continue to Slide, Especially in Jerusalem.” Haaretz, 21 Oct. 2015. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.
“The Temptations of ‘Trattoria Haba’ in Jerusalem.” Haaretz, 10 Jan. 2014. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.
Vered, Ronit. “Winter on the Mount of Olives.” Haaretz, 3 Feb. 2012. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

Again, sorry for taking up extra space — there are just so many articles that seem relevant, and I hope this helps anyone who wants to look into them. I’m going to step back from the article for now. Thanks so much, everyone! Orlando Davis (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize, feel free to post as much and as many times as you want. Did you manage to find any that provide significant coverage about him? I was unable to. See WP:BESTTHREE WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV for the kinda stuff we are looking for: 3 reliable independent sources that provide significant in-depth coverage. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would highlight Haaretz, Ynet, and TV13 as strong sources, though there are many others that also provide meaningful coverage. As explained in Wikipedia:Significance is not a formula, “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. See also Wikipedia:Notability. Many of the sources I’ve added are documented in the article history and are available on this talk page for review.

This article is clearly notable. I believe further debate on this is unlikely to change that. Even if the article were deleted, I am confident it would be quickly accepted through the Articles for Creation process, as Michael Katz clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I will now step back from this discussion. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting a chef for recipes isn't really enough. Reviews of his restaurants isn't enough. Awards that aren't themselves notable isn't enough. We need lengthy discussion of the chef himself. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he (Orlando Davis) just copy pasted random links in an Afd page of Yana Molodezki. I think user needs to read policies before jumping into voting in an Afd page. zglph^•talk• 06:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Lots of mentions, but I'm not finding much sigcov, so if someone can point me at something I'm missing that isn't just a bare mention or isn't just him being quoted at length, I'm kind of stumped. With this number of mentions, I'm a bit surprised we aren't finding a lengthy bio in Israeli media. Israel has food journalism. This article has the distinct feel of a folder of clippings of every time he's ever been mentioned being handed to a not-very-experienced editor-for-hire, so I feel like if there were actual sig cov out there, we'd be seeing it. Transliteration makes things difficult, but I'll try to do some more research. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally finding nothing via a Google search and filtering by 'News'. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet Symphony (album)

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

Cited to myspace and the subject's website. Not clear this passes WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any discussion in reliable sources. Nothing in g-news, newspapers.com, or PressReader. Top results on google all appear to be user-generated or self-published. Zzz plant (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A New World (album)

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

Unreferenced article. Couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wreck of the Number Nine

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

Unreferenced article, the topic seems to fail WP:NSONG. No proper sources can be found. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carson Robison, the song is mentioned there. Best source I found is this CBC article: [1] but I don't consider it WP:SIGCOV. --Mika1h (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's terribly obscure, but I won't object to it being turned into a relevant redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a substantive amount written about it here [2], which also includes referencing which could lead to additional sources. Given the age, most sources are gong to be offline here. Given the number of artists who have covered it, could arguably meet WP:NSONG#3. Nil🥝 22:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also getting some Google Scholar hits as well, such this analysis of the Robinson's composing style in reference to the song [3] (and again quoting an earlier scholarly publication from 1969). Nil🥝 23:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's being rescued. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it's being rescued, withdraw my previous comment. PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being rescued, woo-hoo! KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed solar wind

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

Appears to be an LLM-generated page without human review (WP:G15). User:0xReflektor's high article-creation frequency and the basic factual errors and referencing mistakes in this article (see also User talk:0xReflektor#Reference mistakes) seem to point toward this page being generated by an LLM without review by someone familiar with the topic. Additionally, there is significant overlap with Solar wind, and I do not believe this topic warrants a separate article. (COI disclosure: S. R. Cranmer, who is quoted in the lead, is my supervisor at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics; my association with this person does not impact my nomination in any way, and I am making this nomination in my personal capacity.)

Comment: I concur that the editor almost certainly used LLM but I cannot agree about human review as I do not see evidence for AI hallucinations. I do not know enough above the topic to judge accuracy, but I have to question whether the nom has provided valid grounds for deletion. I would think editing to find a consensus on the topic is probably better than a jump to AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 The caption "CME erupts, generating high-speed solar wind" for the last image is very wrong and contradicts the article. (High-speed solar wind originates from coronal holes, not CMES.) If the editor could not catch this obvious hallucination, I would not trust them to catch hallucinations elsewhere in the article. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not qualified to judge whether the topic is notable or this article is worth keeping, but I will say this is a very nice illustration of why LLM use for articles is such a problem. Some say "it doesn't matter, as long as the sources are real and there are no errors." Well, here we are, a glaring error, and if the article creator didn't catch it then what else didn't they catch? Trust is easy to break. LLM's are a problem because they eliminate the effort barrier to making an article without significantly decreasing the effort barrier to making a useful article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these level of extensive use of AI is a bad thing and especially when users directly copy paste everything without a responsible review. But i think by doing extensive clean up and rewriting the problems can be solved without deleting the article. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I don't know if Wikipedia has an official policy, but I'm very strongly in the "no LLM-generated articles or text on wikipedia" camp. Too many hidden errors, and incorrect details and references that would only be caught by an expert, but won't be because we don't have enough subject matter experts to read every new article. How many people do we have with deep knowledge of the solar wind and many hours available to go through an article like this to do "extensive clean up and rewriting"? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revertive case

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

I cannot find evidence of this noun case existing, let alone being used in Manchu. Has been unsourced since creation. A PROD was declined and a source was added, but the source is on a conlang and does not mention it. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

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

Per WP:CFORK. The content on this page is completely redundant to the information featured on the main article (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor); it's essentially a word by word copy. So either this page needs to be redirected to the main page or a huge chunk of information needs to be removed from Andrew's page. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Keivan.f^Talk 22:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The title is more appropriate for the royal family. If there might be some info tidbits in this one that are not in the original article, it would be easier to later just add the missing info to the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor article. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Sexuality and gender, United Kingdom, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this subject is independently notable and warranting of a page. As you said, since this is a fork, the appropriate action would be to remove the similar content from Andrew's page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remove the excess material from the main article. Consider folding Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal and/or Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew into Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. meamemg (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather keep those two separate because even if we avoid having all of their contents added to this article, there will still be a large amount of info left to be contained within this new page. Not to mention that both subjects (the Panorama episode and the lawsuit) are independently notable. Keivan.f^Talk 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient sourcing to show this is independently notable and worth a separate article and instead of deleting we should remove the similar content.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Linden

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

Fails WP:GNG. A former councillor who was leader of a council for less than three months isn't inherently notable. Most coverage is WP:ROUTINE about what happened at the council and not necessarily about him. Although he is subject to active criminal proceedings, most people who face similar allegations do not have Wikipedia articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." — Maile (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Stuckey

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

Not seeing any SIGCOV for this indoor football player. Just passing mentions. Appears to have only played in four games at UNLV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searches also failed to turn up SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Brothers

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

Not a particularly notable company - almost all sources are either from the company itself or simply notice of contract awards or distribution deals - very little coverage of the company itself.

Does not seem to meet the threshold of notability to me. Elshad (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- obviously WP:PROMO article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Jahangir Kabir

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacking significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Promotional gibberish. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 20:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 20:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 06:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America Bangladesh University

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

Fails GNG also significance coverage. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 20:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 20:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchu Collective

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

A noble organization no doubt but the cited sources apparently do not mention it at all, aside from the archive of their website. I tracked down the ones that I could on JSTOR and found no mention of Kuchu Collective. There is also no results on Google Books/Scholar, and seemingly no non-Wiki results on Google web search. The organization just doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG and honestly not even the more basic WP:V. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and Africa. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Economic Freedom

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

I PRODded this article for atrocious sourcing. It's basically a primary-sourced summary of the Heritage Foundation's views on what constitutes economic freedom, with very few secondary sources. The CiteUnseen script finds 17 blacklisted (and also "advocacy") references out of 39. Those 17 are mainly references to the Heritage Foundation's own material, i. e. they're primary sources from a blacklisted source. (The Ludwig von Mises Institute is in there once too). Pertinently, an IP asked on the talkpage in 2024 (getting no response), "Why Heritage foundation is presented as some sort of neutral party? Heritage foundation has a specific agenda, especially when it comes to economic issues." The PROD has now been removed without any improvement to the article, but with suggestions for sources. It seems to me that out of those sources, only this one does anything much to provide an independent perspective on the Heritage Foundation's "specific agenda", but that's me. Taking it to AfD, I'm hoping for wider input and/or perhaps actual improvement, even though that is not what AfD is supposed to be for. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 11:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Index of Economic Freedom is widely referenced also outside of the US and clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The nature of the sources used does not appear unduly biased: when describing the methodology and results it would be unreasonable to require use of only third-party descriptions. The editor proposing deletion talks about "blacklisted" sources without a link, presumably referring to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which emphatically is not a "blacklist". And in any case the idea of "blacklisting" major politically affiliated think tanks instead of verifying their claims would be detrimental to open society and freedom of information. Most participants in political and economical discussions are "biased" in one way or another, whether openly or not. If there are objectively incorrect claims, misrepresentation or undue bias, the correct approach is to edit the article, add section on well-source critical views etc., not delete it. Stca74 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "blacklisted": yes, I was referring to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Quoting it: "Due to security concerns, The Heritage Foundation is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist: there is evidence that the group has planned to doxx Wikipedia editors, and links to it should be bypassed or whitelisted." Further: "The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank; editors have found that it promotes disinformation. Heritage and its then-publication The Daily Signal were found generally unreliable due to the presumption of unreliability for think tanks and reporting such as climate change denial; the 2025 RfC deprecated Heritage." Bishonen | tålk 13:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not opposed to deletion, but at a very minimum I support purging the massive primary sourced tables and any other content that does not have an independent source. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the non-primary supported parts to The Heritage Foundation. Articles should be mostly based on secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a number of sources mention or use this index, there's a distinct lack of sources about the index providing in-depth coverage that justify an article. The Heritage Foundation article already covers the index as well, and while some material could be transferred to that article, 99% of this article just reproduces Heritage Foundation material, is unsourced/poorly sourced, or both. Cortador (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disregarding the latter half of this article, which is sourced to the Index itself and largely undue as stated above, there is very little that discusses the index directly in the references. There are references to organizations using the Index to make decisions, and independent publications that plainly state what is written from the Index, but little actual analysis. the Heritage Foundation article already makes mention of the Wall Street Journal having a stake in the Index as well, which is more of a point towards merging any relevant information from this article to those ones (WSJ and Heritage Foundation), if there is any independent discussion not already there. -- Recon rabbit 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC - It seems this nomination pertains more to article quality rather than an actual rationale for deletion. The index meets WP:GNG and doesn't appear to be blatant promotion as defined under G11. As for The Heritage Foundations alleged attacks on Wikipedians, we have articles on atrocious topics like Kiwi Farms and RationalWiki which were basically created as harassment think tanks, not to mention things like 8chan, Metapedia, Conservapedia, etc. and consensus has been against deleting articles on topics just because they are critical of Wikipedia or dox Wikipedians (we just don't link to them). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't seen anybody above suggesting this or other articles should be deleted because their subjects "are critical of Wikipedia or dox Wikipedians", and that certainly wasn't the reason I nominated it for deletion. What I and others are saying (and what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources said as per my quotes from it above) has been that Heritage shouldn't be used as a source, as it so copiously is in this article. (Specifically, as a source about a Heritage publication.) There's a woeful scarcity of reliable secondary sources in the article. That was "an actual rationale for deletion" last time I checked. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
WP:DEPS actually allows tge use of a deprecated source as a primary reference about itself, usually. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allows the use of a deprecated source 17 times, does it? Compare my nomination. Bishonen | tålk 15:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment ~~in support of my Keep:~~ There seems to be a line of argument that articles on WSJ and Heritage Foundation should be enough to cover (any?) index and other data they publish. This kind of position would not be very generalisable: no separate article on any index or similar published by the United Nations or a government agency or a university? The question of whether the Index of Economic Freedom should have an article is one to be decided on notability of the index, not on its being mentioned in the articles on its creators. And here I reteiterate my original comment: the index is widely reported, referenced and used in and outside of the US, and if it does not meet WP:Notable criteria, then very few existing articles do. Again, the issue the editors favouring deletion seems to be with the article's quality, and thus the correct measure is to improve it, not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stca74 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC) . Striking duplicate bolded !vote: rest of comment stands. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contra the "keeps" I see no evidence that the topic meets GNG. There is coverage of the topic, but it is generally not substantive or not independent. The WSJ is a perfectly reliable source, but is not intellectually independent of a product it helps produce. The Heritage Foundation is similarly not independent. I don't see sufficient coverage from other sources. I am not opposed to a merge with the Heritage foundation page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMPIN Energy Transition

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article’s tone is promotional, with sources consisting mostly of routine business announcements such as funding rounds and partnerships with Sumitomo, etc. It also touts statistics and targets (e.g., 25 GW by 2030) sans criticism, and features images scattered across the page (e.g., “CIP Meet” and “Siemens tie-up” promo shots), reinforcing an advertorial feel. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Pandit Deendayal Energy University study provides notable depth and analysis that supports WP:NCORP. though a single analytical source can't establish notability. Most of the remaining coverage appears routine. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio giuliano

18:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Company AfDs are tricky because it's not uncommon to see press releases regurgitated in what appears at first glance to be WP:RS. Nonetheless, I'm seeing sources like this one that I'm not seeing any obvious indication of being written directly by the company (the author is listed as "BL New Delhi Bureau"). I've seen other AfDs close as keep or no consensus with lower quality sources. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:INDIANEWSORG. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Helena mayoral election

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

It appears only one editor has written any substantial content for this article - without that editor's involvement to update this page with the results (of either the September primary or the general election), this page is left to rot among the many US election articles. I notice that this city doesn't have articles for any past mayoral election year. Is this notable enough for a dedicated article? – numbermaniac 18:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep

I think that it can be kept for some time with maintenance tags which will attract some attention. But if that does not work then i say it is deletion time.- Theknoledgeableperson‬18:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Helena, Montana; stand alone article fails WP:GEOSCOPE. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Helena, Montana: per WP:GEOSCOPE. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic species of Montenegro

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG. 0x0a (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I boldly moved this to List of endemic species of Montenegro per WP:LISTNAME. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Log 9 Materials

(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) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. subject is a prominent Indian business. Sources include:

Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try that now with reliable sources describing actual things that have been done, not blatant PR run through the 'Reputable Indian News Source PR Washer 4000' promising things that may not happen. Nathannah • 📮 19:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a "prominent" business in India. As stated in the nomination, sources are just routine business coverage primarily in sources that are unreliable (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Article mainly consists of routine business transactions. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very bog standard WP:SERIESA article which doesn't actually talk about the product they offer in action, just promises of a future existence with said product. Nathannah • 📮 21:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Farkas

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

Not the production manager of Dune, this Daniel Farkas fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Not notable as a businessperson, no enduring impact or coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Romania, and Chile. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in multiple reliable, secondary sources as an important businessman in the development of iron mining in Chile. He is also one of the main characters in the chapter "Húngaros en la industria minera de Chile" in the book Encuentros Europa-Iberoamérica en un mundo globalizado published in Budapest. Daniel Farkas is also repeatedly mentioned in sopurces as a link between the booming iron mining of the 1950s and 1960s and the more recent mining entrepeneurship of his son Leonardo Farkas. Ingminatacam (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a promotional cruzade. Also delete Hacienda Atacama and other creations by Ingminatacam, obvious COI. --Bedivere (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kissflow

(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) 09:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is met. Forbes [4] old article over 10years ago gives some good coverage on the company (it had the name Orangescape in 2000s). Citation HP engineers Suresh Sambandam and Mani Doraisamy, co-founders of Orangescape, also hit the magic $1 million mark in 2009. Orangescape is a cloud-based platform-as-a-service (PaaS) company from India that facilitates business application development. Orangescape is.. Hindu, Techcrunch also are covering well the company during different time spans. Never-ending string (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single paragraph in Forbes, a passing mention in The Hindu, and routine coverage in TechCrunch don’t satisfy WP:NCORP. I hope the closing admin takes note of the sudden reappearance of dormant account(s) in these AfDs. Yuvaank (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Entertainment

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

I do think that this film financing arm of the private investment management firm Domain Capital Group is particularly notable for its own article. The "key people" are Pete Chiappetta, Andrew Lary, and Anthony Tittanegro. There are two sources that list the studios that partnered with Domain for financing. This is different than a similar company (Access Entertainment) that has a long verifiable/reputable history and notable people that own it. [Red links left in intentionally.] Mike Allen 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. Mike Allen 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two decent sources used, the article could use more, but it would seem to be notable. Involved in the production of many large movies from major studios. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a production company and not involved in the films they fund. They are a private equity firm that fund films, since 2022. Those are really the only two sources about this company. Mike Allen 14:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, RatPac Entertainment only financed movies, and yet it has its own article. TSG Entertainment also only finances movies, yet it has its own article, too. I don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST? Mike Allen 02:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 companies do–or in RatPac's case, did–the same thing, finance movies, and yet no one complained when the other 2 companies got their own pages. I still don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are more notable than Domain (looking at their articles you can see this). Same with Access, like I noted. We are going off of 2 sources from the last 4 years. You have been one of the users that has spammed this and other companies into film info boxes for years. So your !vote is not surprising since it seems you still have not grasped Wikipedia’s polices and guidelines. Mike Allen 13:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This mentions Domain Entertainment in a paragraph, but otherwise, I don't see the trade papers mentioning Domain Entertainment beyond just naming it as one of the companies involved with a film (like in a review). I think Domain Capital Group should just be created and Domain Entertainment redirected to that, seeing more substance here and here, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codimg

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. no SIGCOV. This article was previously nominated and deleted. Equine-man (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO CabinetCavers (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaread Special Education Corporation

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

Pretty obvious self-promotion/conflict of interest article written by the company's CEO. It cites a bunch of references but almost all are obviously unacceptable - Linkedin, directory listings, or articles that don't mention Dynaread at all, such as the NYT review of a film. The only one that is plausibly WP:SIGCOV is this article in the magazine of the BC Principals' & Vice-Principals' Association, a voluntary professional organization. This is not disclosed as paid advertising but it includes language like "For more information visit www.dynaread.com or call 1-800-449-1588 and ask for a free school demo account." Combined with the nature of the evidently self-published nature of the publication I do not think it rises to the level of an independent, reliable source. Since it's far and away the best source in evidence, I do not think this article meets WP:CORP. Searching WP:BEFORE I see nothing to add, just directory listing sort of things. Here2rewrite (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is everything the nominator said true, the article also cites a dead link and is a minefield of ^{[citation needed]} tags and CabinetCavers (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Companies. jolielover♥talk 17:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is Wikipedia, not a billboard. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brooks (wrestler)

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

Completing AFD nomination for IP user. The deletion rational given on the talk page was Not a notable wrestler. No substantive coverage of in ring career. It's all promotion checks, and all the titles he's won are not notable. All bar one are Australian. Many refs are Cage Match. ~2025-32464-30 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Here2rewrite (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 2 (Fox Sports) and 5 (Newshub) seem to fulfill SIGCOV and performing for Ring of Honor, Pro Wrestling Guerilla and MLW seems to cover GNG. Also Australian titles in any activity, let alone one such as pro-wrestling when results are pre-determined, are as valid as those from anywhere else. As an aside it is somewhat strange to randomly submit an AFD on behalf of an IP who left a comment on an article talk page. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aforementioned two sources don't substantively cover career in detail, and that's not enough anyway. Notes on promotions are not substantive. Number of caps AKA titles are nothing in notability (previously consensus on that but I can't remember where otherwise I would link it) along with none of the titles being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. ~2025-33203-39 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer There seems something decidedly strange about this entire AFD. First off it is put forward on behalf of an IP and now someone has made an account and immediately came to this discussion to vote delete citing terminology that a brand new user is unlikely to know. The article itself has been edited by many similarly named, and little used, accounts and IPs too. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not unusual. Plenty of IP editors have been on Wikipedia over the years who simply don't want an account. By the way I'm the user above and I also seconded the prod and alerted the talk page of the AfD procedure to the incomplete AfD as the nominating IP didn't maintain SOP. My temp account changes because my browser is set to delete all cookies when I close it. ~2025-33325-10 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MetCC

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

Not a particularly notable entity in its own right - simply a department of the Metropolitan Police, and unlike most of the others who have their own articles, this one has very little notable coverage of MetCC *itself*. Very few external sources which cover this entity itself, most are internal Met Police documents or FOI requests.

Some external sources also only mention it in passing, and there is very little coverage of MetCC itself.

Article itself is also very poor and full of trivial details. Elshad (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, it doesn't actually matter whether the article is (in your personal, subjective opinion) "very poor and full of trivial details".

You have nominated this for deletion on the grounds of it being a subunit of a larger entity. Why are you suggesting deletion instead of a WP:MERGE to the article about the larger entity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above CabinetCavers (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and England. jolielover♥talk 17:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep per above, Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Eyes

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE. Sure it's the first episode of the long running Arthur series, but that means nothing other than being a curiousity.. Either way, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV about the episode, not to mention it reads out like a Fandom article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reception is nonexistent; no evidence of notability. It's almost entirely a plot summary and should be merged into a list of Arthur episodes. Gommeh 📖 🎮 18:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was a book once (ISBN 0-316-11069-8). Should we refocus on the source material once WP:NBOOK is met? (PSA to past and present viewers: Visit your local library!) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verofax

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacking significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United Arab Emirates. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article that lacks RS. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promo, no reliable sources, relies heavily on primary sources. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is either primary, trade magazines or PR items. We used to see the crypto people using wiki for PROMO, I hope this isn't the start of the AI people promoting on here... Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Happy Gilmore would say, "We've only just begun". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very obvious WP:PROMO, and clearly fails WP:NCORP. There are some WP:MOS issues here as well, but those are not reasons for deletion. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superman/Tarzan: Sons of the Jungle

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

The article only sources a few questionable reviews and the book itself, which is about the same quality of source as anything I could find. It doesn't seem to meet GNG. The whole article is in such a poor state that I feel that if it were to be somehow improved, that would involve completely rewriting it from the ground up. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metrobus Route 400

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

Route 400 is not notable as almost all the sources on the page are primary (from the operator Metrobus). The others are ether not significant coverage or don't mention the route. The connections part of the page is just travel guide content. DAmik001 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. DAmik001 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. No, I'm not salting it. Salting will just drive these socks to start creating it at "Jose Bernal (disambiguator)" instead. asilvering (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Bernal

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

Fails WP:BIO, with zero coverage found in independent secondary sources. Sources are press releases, WP:CRUNCHBASE and mysteriously named documents like "Comtech Systems Corporate Records (Archived)." Article was G11'd twelve hours ago at Jose I. Bernal, and since 2022 it's been from Draft:Jose Bernal to Jose Bernal (Businessman), to Jose Bernal (Technology Executive) to Josè Bernal to Jose I Bernal, all by the same single-purpose account. Probably eligible for speedy db-bio and db-spam, but it'll just be back again under another spelling variant, so it's time for an AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pennsylvania and Washington. Wikishovel (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. Given all of the shenanigans, a WP:SALT is in order.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current version of the article adheres to WP:NPOV and uses independent, verifiable trade and business sources including Bloomberg, BusinessWire, Channel Insider, PPAI Media, and ASI Central. These are standard sources for coverage of technology-sector executives and satisfy WP:GNG, which does not require mainstream media coverage when reliable trade publications exist. The earlier promotional issues have been corrected; the current draft is factual and neutrally written. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject and its existing sources, both documented on and undocumented from the article, prove this person to be non-notable (i.e., fails WP:NBASIC). Additionally, per the nominator's information, additional action may be required to subjugate such past behavior. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 15:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Under WP:NBASIC, a person is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The subject has been featured by multiple independent industry outlets documenting his leadership at INNO4, Polyconcept, and OnForce — companies that have themselves been covered for acquisitions and technology innovation. The sources go beyond passing mentions and demonstrate continuing coverage over time. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Primary sources, and a bunch of press releases fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While a few corporate announcements are included for verification, the article relies primarily on independent trade journalism (Channel Insider, PPAI Media, ASI Central, Service Industry Association PDFs) which meet WP:RS as industry-specific news. These are not primary sources. The content about patents and leadership positions is publicly verifiable via USPTO and Bloomberg entries — both accepted references on other executive biographies. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Business person with patents... This reads like a resume. Has been deleted, five or so times now. Pull out the SALT please. I find nothing about this person that would show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User RH Steven has been at this since at least Dec 2022 [5]. Let's be done with this already. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Earlier drafts did read like a résumé, but the current text was fully rewritten per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It now follows the structure and tone of comparable executive pages focusing on verifiable career history and publicly recorded patents. Re-deletion should be based on current content, not prior iterations. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history of earlier drafts should not prejudice evaluation of the current article. The present text and citations were built independently, with neutral tone and clear sourcing. WP:SALT is typically reserved for persistent recreation of promotional or unsourced material — this draft now meets sourcing and style requirements under WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:V. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a side of SALT per nom IsCat (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: The current article meets the standards of WP:GNG and WP:BLP and should not be salted. Earlier deletions were based on drafts that did not include independent coverage, but this version includes multiple third-party trade and business sources (e.g., Bloomberg, BusinessWire, Channel Insider, PPAI Media, ASI Central, and Service Industry Association archives).

A WP:SALT (creation protection) is intended for pages repeatedly recreated with promotional or unsourced material. The present draft has been rewritten in full to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, with only neutral, cited facts about career and patents. The subject’s verifiable history as CEO of INNO4, and prior executive roles at publicly traded firms such as Flex Ltd. and Staples Inc., demonstrate clear notability in the business and technology sector.

Salting the title would prevent good-faith editors from improving or maintaining a legitimate biography that now complies with all relevant policies. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC) — ~2025-32993-39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Wikishovel (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The current version of the article complies with WP:BLP, WP:GNG, and WP:V. It includes multiple verifiable independent trade and business sources such as Bloomberg, Channel Insider, PPAI Media, ASI Central, and Service Industry Association archives. These are recognized reliable sources for coverage in the technology-services industry.

The article no longer depends solely on press releases or Crunchbase entries, and all corporate citations are used only to verify employment or patent information, not as evidence of notability. It has been fully rewritten to remove any promotional tone per WP:NPOV and follows the structure and tone of similar biographies of executives in comparable industries.

Regarding the naming history, earlier drafts were repeatedly recreated by multiple editors and merged into this neutral, verifiable version. A WP:SALT is not appropriate because the present article now meets Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards. The past deletions reflected tone and formatting issues, not absence of coverage. This revision directly addresses those concerns with proper sourcing and policy alignment. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back in. We only get to make a recommendation once, change a recommendation, or comment further, so I'm striking your second "keep". Your assertion that "earlier drafts were repeatedly recreated by multiple editors and merged" is utter nonsense. Wikishovel (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve struck the duplicate keep to keep things clean and appreciate the reminder.

That said, I’d encourage keeping the discussion policy-focused. The comment above characterizes earlier statements as “utter nonsense,” which isn’t really helpful under WP:CIVIL or WP:FOC. What matters here is verifiability and independence of sourcing, not speculation about editors’ motives.

To clarify with evidence: the current article version cites multiple independent secondary sources — Channel Insider (2007) covering OnForce leadership, Service Industry Association eNetwork News (2010) documenting Bernal’s participation at Flextronics events, PPAI Media (2022) and ASI Central (2022) on Polyconcept’s expansion, and Bloomberg’s executive listing for INNO4. These are standard, industry-reliable references used across comparable executive biographies. The only press releases (e.g., BusinessWire 2014, BusinessWire 2023) are included to verify routine corporate announcements, which is permitted under WP:RS when clearly identified as such.

This draft has removed promotional tone, added neutral structure per MOS:BIO, and complies with WP:BLP. Its existence isn’t about praising executives — it’s about documenting an individual with verifiable impact on the technology-services sector, which by definition “keeps technology running” for many enterprises. Whether or not one finds executives interesting shouldn’t affect the application of WP:GNG.

In short, this version fixes the issues that led to prior deletions. Judging it on policy grounds rather than personal impressions is the best way to reach consensus ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't struck the duplicate: I already had. Please log back in, and read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry before posting here again. Wikishovel (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fully logged in and editing under a single account. I’ve reviewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and am aware of the requirements under WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. There’s no alternate account involvement here; edits have all been made transparently under this username.

I’d appreciate if we can keep the discussion focused on the article content and the application of WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:BLP to the current version. The policy questions around accounts have been addressed, so further comments should ideally return to whether the article’s sourcing and neutrality meet inclusion standards. ~2025-32993-39 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's our friend the sock, blocked... Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Alex26337. Get out the SALT shaker! I think this person will try resubmitting it under a different name if we don't. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: resume of unnotable director of unnotable company. . .Mean as custard (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Court Martial (1978 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I was unable to locate sources on this film other than databases. Not clear if this meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @4meter4: FWIW, this one also had an older AfD that pointed out the archiving at the Croatian State Archives to potentially meet WP:NFO #4. -2pou (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It would have been good if these archives had been added to the article so that people would see them. I never looked at the talk page to see that there had been an old AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akis (TV series)

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

Resoundly fails GNG. Most references are unreliable and/or WP:PRIMARY. When I did a Google search for "akis TV series" I was unable to find a single reference from a reliable source that talks about it. This makes me think that there isn't a whole lot of coverage on the show, although it's possible said coverage may be in Malaysian. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Malaysia. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few press releases/announcements in media about its upcoming release but not anything that would clearly count as WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Gittard

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBIO. There's no biography or career section as well, only a section for filmography (which only has one entry) and their TV work. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, and France. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep. He is the director or creator of multiple works which we have stand alone pages on (such as Mr. Baby, Hubert & Takako, Mr. Magoo). This is a strong indicator that he passes criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE. All we would have to do is find multiple reviews of works he has created or directed and he would meet that WP:SNG. Unless for some reason those topics aren't notable as well, it's unlikely he wouldn't meet our guideline for creatives.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All we would have to do is find multiple reviews of works he has created or directed and he would meet that WP:SNG. Fair enough, but I wasn't able to find much when I looked. Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Li

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

Page on an entrepreneur without significant coverage or indications of notability. Articles mentioning him are blogs, nothing major that I can see and page has unsourced claims. He has an adjunct professor position which was used to claim that he is an academic employed by Columbia University; I removed this as highly dubious. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, Technology, and New York. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a fictional character that has coverage, not much for this person. CEO magazine would be a trade magazine, so not a RS. Rest are confirmation of employment, primary and some crypto stuff. I suspect this is PROMO for the crypto venture, but there isn't much of anything to show notability. I can't find any sourcing we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see coverage in trade magazines, but these are often paid and lack independence. Fails WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Li meets the notability guideline. He has multiple independent sources covering him such as Forbes. He is the founder of OORT and a professor at Columbia University.

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

The result was keep. Consensus has been reached to keep the article under WP:HEY and with the new sources provided by @Mika1h. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mama's Bad Boy

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

There is no indication of notability per WP:NALBUMS, therefore suitable for deletion. Alternatively it could be merged into the artist article Master P since it is essentially just a track listing per Wikipedia:Notability (albums). Hzh (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hzh (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets minimum notability criteria with two reviews by AllMusic: [6] and RapReviews.com: [7], both reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC. --Mika1h (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a review in this book: [8] and Rolling Stone Album Guide has a rating and a brief description: [9]. --Mika1h (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although there's not much to work with, sources found by @Mika1h: should be enough to meet WP:NALBUM criteria. paintdvd ☎ 23:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there further consensus for keeping the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Sources demonstrating both WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are met were added to the article by Paintdvd since the time of nomination.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets minimum WP:NA, but needs expansion. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Artist is notable enough that this warrant's an article though it's unlikely to get past stub status. Beast from da East (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foreign language

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

Whatever this article might have once been, it's been rendered a useless slop puddle by LLM-crazed editors. Essentially the entire article is duplicative of Language acquisition, Language education, and Multilingualism, plus likely a couple of others in the "see also" list at the bottom, and those articles at least don't have "In summary..." at the end of every section. Get rid of the duplicated content and you have a WP:DICTDEF. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is just so much wrong with this article it could also even fit the criteria for blowing it up and starting over. CabinetCavers (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be OK with WP:BLAR'ing it if we can't figure out how best to start over. Thoughts? Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LLM, delete. We can't/shouldn't verify each and every citation given to even see if it's true or not, that is a waste of the editor's time here. No inline citations either, which doesn't help. Easiest is to delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a longstanding article since 2004; the very beginning of the encyclopedia. We have years of article history since before LLM editing was even a thing. Simplest thing to do is revert the article to the time from before any LLM content was added. What we shouldn't do is delete the lengthy history of contributors over the past 21 years in an article that is clearly on a notable topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and LLM cleanup shouldn't be done through deletion in articles that have lengthy editing histories prior to LLM editing. That would set a very bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to restore several sections that were marred by LLM editing, but unfortunately this article has not been in a very good state since before 2022. -- Recon rabbit 18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a duplication of several articles anyway. It serves no purpose. Drafting a 20 yr old article doesn't fix the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. As an ATD, we could restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop, but I'm not sure how practical that would be. We'd need way better sourcing, and I haven't done any research on this so I can't say whether or not it would work, but it may be good to look into. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LLM additions have already been removed. The article is not a duplicate, it is a broad-concept article that should provide an overview of language acquisition, language education, multilingualism, and other topics. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated by myself for deletion back in June this year due to it being completely unsourced, and the result was a weak keep. However, in the time since, I have been unable to find any sources to verify the content, other than unreliable sources, and the only contributions made have been unsourced changes. I would not be against discussing other similar aircraft lists, as this does seem to be a widespread issue. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Lists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No good sources to speak of. Maybe you could propose the similar articles under a group nomination. CabinetCavers (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to hold my hands up and say I've no idea how group nominations work...! :D Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed. It's still source-able. There are several websites with complete lists, I'm not sure which are considered reliable. There have also been at least three non-technical books directly on the aircraft. The Arthur Pearcy book from 1999 has a list of customers. And a simple search for "Aeronaves" "MD-80" - the first one on the list - shows there are a number of sources showing Aeronaves TSM fly the MD-80. I've spot checked a few operators and they are very easy to verify. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except I don't have access to this book, and a spot-check of the results that that google search gives me are Planespotters and Airfleets - both unreliable. If they're verifiable as you claim, why haven't the sources been added in the multiple months since the last AfD - indeed it was yourself that said you knew of sources, why haven't you added them in, because I can't find/don't have access to them! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST the sources don't have to be accessible to you for them to count to notability. Keep. Katzrockso (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - but where are these sources? I can’t add them because I a) can’t find them and b) can’t access these books - which means I can’t verify what’s in the book and therefore can’t use the contents to cite content of the article… and nobody else is adding them… so right now the article is completely unsourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first because it seems to not pass WP:NLIST, but also per WP:NOTDB type of concerns. Also telling here is the sole opening prose of this list: "The List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators lists the current operators of the aircraft, and any of its variants. As of June 2024, a total of 123 MD-80 aircraft (all variants) were in active service. " Any list that requires frequent updating to avoid going out of date doesn't pass the smell test. Airlines add and remove planes from their fleets; this is routine, and it doesn't call for WP lists to track the current statuses. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This was the subject of an AfD that was closed less than 4 months ago with a Keep result, not sure why there's another one so soon afterwards. Sourcing definitely exists, although it needs to be added. A very quick Google search found at least partial sourcing here, here, and here (the latter being from Airfleets.net, and there seems to be no consensus on its reliability). Couple of additional comments based on the nomination and some of the discussion above. Just because one person can't access a source, be it a paywalled article or a rare book, it doesn't mean the source should be automatically discounted. Now, if there's a serious concern as to whether or not the book would reasonably contain the information cited (say, a nuclear physics textbook being cited to support a claim that Mongolian invaders introduced chocolate cake to France), or if the existence of the source itself is in question (no mention of a particular book can be found in library databases, for instance), that's a different story, but that does not seem to be the case here. On the other hand, hand waving "sources exist" without providing citations, linking to them, or including them in the article in question isn't a good practice either. I'd encourage @SportingFlyer to take this first step and add at least some citations from the book they have access to. nf utvol (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed on the basis that the sources exist… in the time since that AfD nothing has been done to add them. I can’t find any sources that I can access… so I would suggest that either someone who can access sources adds them, or we delete or draftify. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you couldn't find any sources at all if you did a WP:DILIGENCE search. I found three sources by doing an extremely cursory Google search for "McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators" and listed them above. I added a couple of citations to the page and tagged that which I didn't immediately find a source for. It quite clearly meets the bare minimum criteria for WP:NLIST and should never have been brought back to AfD following the last dicussion, especially when it was so recent. Per WP:BEFORE: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. nf utvol (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication in WP:BEFORE that WP:N is met for McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators as a topic, and as such there isn't any reason to have this list. McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a notable topic, the individual operators (may) be notable, but the intersection of the two is not notable, just database information. Any commentary / analysis would be more relevant for either the specific operator (e.g., why they chose this aircraft over others), or for the aircraft as a whole (e.g., who the major customers were). Articles on other aircrafts' operarators may or may not pass WP:N but should not weigh on this decision as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shazback (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my reply above, there's an article in Aviation Week from August 2025 discussing remaining MD-80 operators, found by doing a quick Google search. And again, as noted above, here's an article from Aircraft Commerce in 2005 discussing the remaining operators in-depth at that time. And another from 2023. nf utvol (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are two sources, but I'd like a third one. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a third one to the article that I'd already linked above. nf utvol (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouango Fitini Airport

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Ivory Coast. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Single sentence of content, three infobox parameters, and zero sources. Not notable or sourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non-notable tiny article likely made by some kid who wanted to make an article but didn't read a single guideline. CabinetCavers (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a seed that hasn't sprouted. But "some kid who wanted to make an article but didn't read a single guideline" is not an accurate or fair characterisation of User:Dr. Blofeld, who is responsible for 37 featured articles, 202 good articles, and 1667 DYK articles and has been contributing to WP for 19 years... Furius (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the FR wiki article is a single sentence. It seems it's not really an airport, but a landing strip, and not much else. No sourcing found, in FR or EN. Lack of sourcing and a lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airports in Ivory Coast as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StackBlitz

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

nonnotabkke software tool. Refs are routine PR coveraage --Altenmann >talk 09:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article with promotional tone and promotional sources. Also, I would recommend fixing your spelling to make your nomination more convincing. CabinetCavers (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Ganesh

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject has no lead roles in multiple notable productions. Most of the cited sources are routine event-based mentions, announcements or generic entertainment write-ups, and do not provide any independent, in-depth or bylined coverage about her. Based on available credits, the subject appears to have had only one lead role from which she was later replaced. There are no reviews or critical analyses that discuss her individual work or performance. Fails WP:NACTOR Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; the sources, while they may provide information, are unable to establish proper notability, and following a reference search, I couldn't find any existing secondary sources on the subject (see WP:NBASIC). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 08:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More of a promotion for the shows she acted in CabinetCavers (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no detailed independent coveraage, no major roles.. --Altenmann >talk 09:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant roles in serials and shows. Acted 3 films in 2 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32093-13 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: with leading roles in Ninu Veedani Needanu Nene, Lakshmi Vandhachu (TV series), and Priyamanaval, the subject passes WP:NACTOR.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Divya Ganesh isn’t mentioned in the two reviews on Ninu Veedani Needanu Nene. The Hindu only mentions Sundeep Kishan, Anya Singh, Murali Sharma and Vennela Kishore in the cast. DesiMoore, if you have sources that discuss the subject’s performance in Lakshmi Vandhachu (TV series) or Priyamanaval, please share them. If not, your argument holds no value. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV, none of votes to keep has yielded new sources or demonstrated that the current ones have in-depth coverage. If something new appears, I will reconsider my vote. Svartner (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant roles in multiple films, sources are routine coverage - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Airways

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG – I'm unable to find secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the airline, or any WP:SIRS-passing sources. I was only able to find a single-line mention of the airline in a list of airlines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Transportation, and Haiti. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a reference search on my end has also resulted in a similar absence of reliable, notable, and independent sources. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 08:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One single sentence of content and six infobox parameters, without a single source in sight? Yeet on sight... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Haiti as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom Series

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable self-published book series from a non-notable author. Nothing here to indicate it warrants a page. Previous AFD was a decade ago and had no consensus. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Archived sources from previous AfD: Grand Forks Herald: [10], Focus on the Family: [11], The Old Schoolhouse Magazine: [12]. Two reviews could be just enough for notability but I don't know if those sites are considered reliable for book reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some stuff as well. They're hidden behind a paywall on Newspapers.com and with the current issues with renewals (via Wikipedia) I am unable to verify if they're about this series. Unfortunately a lot of it looks to be from local newspapers, so they don't really hold the same weight as they would if they were from more major outlets. I found: Rapid City Journal [13], The Dickinson Press [14]. As for the other sourcing, Focus on Family would not be a reliable source given that one of its controversies centers upon them deliberately misrepresenting research to suit their purposes. The Old Schoolhouse Magazine probably isn't usable. I initially looked to see if they were cited in any scholarly/academic sourcing, but only found this book by Greenhaven Press/Cengage and this one by McFarland. They're mentioned in this book by Palgrave, but the only part I saw was that the magazine is mostly ads. I then checked the website and they offer paid reviews. Their content creator package offers buyers the ability to have their products appear in an influencer's videos and so on. Now, they might not have been doing paid reviews/articles in the past, but none of this really helps foster confidence in them as a RS on Wikipedia. I'll keep looking, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Garrigan, Mary (2004-10-10). "Action series tell biblical story". Rapid City Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: "Chuck Black wanted to get his children excited about reading the Bible, so he wrote them a story about Christ, sort of. Black, a Williston, N.D., father of six home schooled children, had the idea to set his story not in biblical days, but in medieval times, and to fill it with all the action and adventure that kings and knights and swordfights can provide. ... Encouraged to share the story with other families, the Blacks launched into a family book-publishing project that has resulted in a four-book set, The Kingdom Series. The first book in the series, "Kingdom's Dawn," is followed by three others that use action, adventure and intrigue in medieval allegorical novels to teach scripture and biblical characters to young people. The first two books take the reader from creation through the Old Testament. Book three, "Kingdom's Edge," was actually the first one Black wrote, and tells the life of Jesus through dramatic symbolism."
2. Sanderhill, Cheryl (2007-06-08). "Children lead father to pen Christian book series". Williston Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: "Chuck Black has written six books since 1999, which form a series that sets the Bible in allegorical form, as a Christian knight's tale. ... "Kingdom's Edge" ended up becoming the third book of the series because when he was done with it he turned to the Old Testament, and produced two more books set in the same mythical kingdom of Arrethtrae. They are called, "Kingdom's Dawn" and "Kingdom's Hope." Black continued to write to bring readers, young and old, fresh insight into Christian love and compassion. Next he did a fourth book called "Kingdom's Reign" that covered the story after "Kingdom's Edge," through the book of Revelations. The Blacks self-published the books through a Web site they created, and they also placed the books in all the Bible bookstores in North Dakota."
3. Gurfinkel, Kathryn (2002-12-12). "Black releases second 'Kingdom' book". Williston Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: "Williston native Chuck Black recently released his second book, Kingdom's Dawn, published by Perfect Praise Publishing. Black's books are Christian allegorical novels, the adventures including swords, knights and battles are based on the Bible. In the recent tradition of prequels, Black's new book, Kingdom's Dawn, is the first in the series and his first book, Kingdom's Edge, is the third in the series. Kingdom's Dawn, begins with the story of Adam. The book tells the stories of the Old Testament through allegory."
4. Kliner, Kate (2008-06-18). "Williston resident to release book". Williston Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: "After self-publishing four books of Christian tales, Black was signed to Multnomah Publishing out of Colorado to complete the series and given a contract to write another series of six books. These books are now available in all Christian book stores as well as many other chains, and the first book called Kingdom's Dawn was in the top ten best-sellers list, according to the Christian Booksellers Association for Christian Youth Literature for the month of December."
5. Spaulding, Sara (2013-07-12). "Free concert, teaching this weekend". Williston Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: "Chuck is a published author of two Christian fiction youth series. The first, the Kingdom Series, comprises six books and is a chronological allegory of the Bible set in a medieval kingdom. This series was in the “top 10 for youth literature,” said his wife Andrea."
6. "A Kingdom in the Hands of a Boy - Williston Man's Book Series Full of Action, Adventure". Grand Forks Herald. 2002-12-15. Archived from the original on 2025-11-10. Retrieved 2025-11-10.
  The article notes: ""Kingdom's Dawn" by Chuck Black of Williston, N.D., is a Christian allegorical novel full of action and adventure, where swords, knights and battles are biblically symbolic. It is a classic good vs. evil story for all ages, told through the eyes of Leinad and his faithful companion, Tess. Black, an electrical engineer, created the Kingdom series of books with his family, he said. "Kingdom's Dawn," though just being released through Perfect Praise Publishing, is actually the first book in the four-book series."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Kingdom Series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are all local news based on interviews with the author. It's very hard to tell whether they result from independent journalism, or whether they are the result of the author canvassing the newspapers. They're mostly not reviews, but summaries of interviews and statements by the author's close family. It's not clear whether anyone who wrote the articles actually read the books; one of them quotes a bookseller who explicitly states he hasn't read the books but expects them to appeal! We need real reviews by people who independently read the books to demonstrate notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers chose to write these articles because they thought their readers would be interested in the topic. There are quotes from people affiliated with the book series, which is expected since reputable journalists always attempt to seek input from those involved directly in the subject of their articles. The sources contain plenty of independent research, reporting, and synthesis of information about the book series. These are meant to be newspaper articles about the book series, rather than reviews. There is no requirement for there to be "real reviews" of the book. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says (my bolding): "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."

The book series has been "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works" in multiple newspaper articles. There is no requirement in the notability guideline for books that the sources must be beyond local news. However, the book series did receive significant coverage beyond a single region since it was covered by newspapers in two states: North Dakota and South Dakota. Rapid City Journal is in Rapid City, South Dakota, Williston Daily Herald is in Williston, North Dakota, and Grand Forks Herald is in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our Country Palestine (book)

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

Having issues in my WP:BEFORE actually finding WP:SIGCOV and not just passing mentions in any of these, also some source question about which of the provided are reliable and for WP:PIA subject area. Overall, the book appears to be not quite notable nor fully verifiable in RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Geography, and Palestine. jolielover♥talk 02:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently this was a geographical encyclopedia that some pro-Israeli organizations claimed was used in some schools and there was some controversy over the material [15] [16] [17]. From what I can tell, this is a very highly cited work too ([18]) Katzrockso (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete Coverage seems minor and passing mentions. No real reviews of it and even the Arabic article doesnt have much. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this book (or rather: books), are an important part of Palestinian history. Mustafa Murad Al-Dabbagh spent years going around in Palestinian refugee camps, asking people to tell him about their home villages. Unfortunately, they are (still) only available in Arabic (which I don't read/speak), otherwise I would have linked it more, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fully agree with Huldra but even the current sources seem fine. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 23:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why delete? Why not simply merge it into Mustafa Murad Al-Dabbagh? That page is not busy and it is very relevant there. 2kbfloppadisk (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable secondary sources or book reviews. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all I find it hard to believe that if anyone had devoted 18 years of research to painstakingly creating a gazetteer of Guyana, or Bhutan, or Myanmar, that we would be considering deletion of an article about it. The work is plainly regarded as authoritative in Palestine studies, it is held in the collections of the National Library of Israel 1 and when a new edition was published in 2018 it was covered by a number of mainstream (and non Palestinian) titles in the Arabic language press - Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), Al Arabi Al Jadid (Qatar) and Al Arabi21 (UK).

2012 IIHF U18 Challenge Cup of Asia

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Entirely sourced by primary sources. This is a junior competition of minnow ice hockey teams. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Ice hockey, and Asia. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an international-level junior ice hockey event. It is poorly written at this time, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. English-language sources are limited, and a merger to IIHF Asia Cup is an alternative to deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not nominating this because it is "poorly written", it is because it lacks third party sources. LibStar (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning delete, but if this is being AFDed, the whole series probably should be. ←Metallurgist (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 18:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone fulfill LibStar's request for third-party sources on this topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIHF Asia Cup#Men's U18 as an WP:ATD. I found one source that confirmed the winner and the gold medal match, but haven't found anything on the tournament as a whole. [19] Conyo14 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flibirigit. IIHF events are generally assumed to be notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find any third party sources? LibStar (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Estrada

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

Perennial candidate with no substantial solo news coverage, violates WP:BIO Scuba 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should see when election night coverage comes out. I agree, but let's postpone it a little bit. There is the theoretical possibility of a surprise boost. Actually, nevermind. That was meant to be a thought experiment in how irrational the defense will be. There will be no leading of major candidates, no boost, only a few precincts at the best, even that being unreasonable. No media airtime, no debate stage, only a deleted article. Delete. Jayson (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt it, I wouldn't hold your breath for Estrada getting enough votes to get any substantial coverage. Scuba 01:57, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO; [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] all provide varyingly levels of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Some articles contain quotes from interview, but also all contain significant independent analysis of those quotes in a way that makes it "independent of the subject", cumulatively contributing to notability per WP:BASIC "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Bronx Bulliten nor Norwood news nor City limits are notable sources. Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election, so there goes the NY1 and NYT articles, the latter of which isn't even a stand alone article about her. Scuba 02:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have notability. "Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election" is not factually accurate, there is no such aspect of the WP:GNG that mandates that a person must have coverage from outside of an election. Katzrockso (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre statement to make in direct contradiction with WP:NPOL, to quote to save you the data;

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the WP:GNG.

The key point here is that they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office. General rule of thumb to cross the notability threshold is 3 WP:RS

I loath citing WP bylaw, please don't make me do it again. Cheers! Scuba 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the words in WP:NPOL state anything remotely similar to "they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office", they merely describe that an unelected candidate is not automatically notable by virtue of standing for election. Katzrockso (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view personally is that this case clearly does fail NPOL here. They are not an elected figure in any national or state legislature, and they are not a major local political figure - they won just 0.1% of the vote for mayor. As for GNG, this does not seem to be met because the coverage is highly localised and routine local election coverage (which is warranted to many hundreds of thousands of people who put themselves forward for elections to local authorities globally), not significant and sustained coverage that shows individual notability. Greenleader(2) (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Subject does not pass WP:NPOL. Local news usually cover all candidates of a local race at least a few times, especially if there are not that many on the ballot. Estrada has never been elected to a public office, so her notability rests with her status as a perennial candidate, to satisfy the second point of WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I disagree that local coverage of her as a fringe candidate is "significant press coverage". Yue🌙 04:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the person who created this article, I acknowledge this is a bit of a close call. WP:NPOL establishes inherent notability for certain classes of political figures and judges (which Estrada is not in), and clarifies that being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability. Estrada would not be notable were it just for her myriad runs for office prior to 2025, and I think she probably wouldn't be notable with solely her run for mayor this year. But with these factors combined, I believe she meets WP:GNG for the coverage of her as a candidate for political office. Katzrockso has already mentioned sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, which I'll repeat here. I think the Norwood News source, from a local Bronx newspaper, provides useful biographical information as well as broader coverage beyond quotes, NY1 contains a blurb on her campaign and background, and The Bronx Bulletin has an analysis of the finance of her campaign and how she came to stand. I can understand why some are dismissive of the article, but I believe the small coverage Estrada has recieved adds up to meeting WP:GNG. --LivelyRatification (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article just crosses the minimum requirements GNG and NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the sources provided pass GNG. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's run in several elections now and has gained minor notoriety. The previous elections were not enough to establish notability, but given that she was the Conservative Party's candidate in 2025, I lean towards keep. Ageofultron (talk 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning weak delete as subject has only received coverage as a political candidate and it's my understanding that Wikipedia consensus is that until elected one doesn't meet the notability guidelines even if there's significant coverage in local sources, because candidates are often receive coverage when they run for office. If elected WP:NPOL would apply. I have some sympathy for the perennial candidate notability argument. Would be good to have clarity if a perennial candidate with only local sources crosses the notability threshold. Nnev66 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any aspect of policy that could justify excluding local sources of a perennial candidate. Perhaps on a case by case basis when evaluating the sources (i.e. all sources are non-independent or paid coverage), but that's in virtue of the content of the sourcing itself but in virtue of the type of sourcing. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the perspective I shared isn't stated explicitly in policy but it's the opinion of experienced editors I've encountered here when discussing politicians, which is why I stated leaning weak delete. However, I personally am more neutral about this one which is why I didn't !vote. I'd like to better understand the consensus around articles for candidates who were never elected. Nnev66 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has run in more than one race in New York and has received news reporting in more than one ocassion, she is notable enough to have her own article. SuperGion915 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject clearly fails WP:NPOL, and their notability and coverage is only derived from running for local elections, two of which were primary elections, two of which were local, which does not confer notability, otherwise almost every local candidate would require a Wiki page (additionally, two local primaries and two local general elections to me does not indicate someone is a notable perennial candidate by itself, and no sources acknowledge her as a perennial candidate). In the two general local elections, she's received a vote share of 0.1% and 0.4%, please let's use WP:COMMONSENSE here. There is no precedent for a non-notable local election candidate having a page, and I would argue that this page currently fails on WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE because it falsely gives the impression of notability in New York politics when the sources and facts do not evidence this. Greenleader(2) (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:NPOL Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see No consensus but I don't believe in closing an AFD discussion as NC on its first week of debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPAGE and our pages on event participants and whether a stand alone article is appropriate. She has never finished in the top half of any of the multi-candidate elections in which she has run. She is simply not a major enough participant in any of these events to be warranted a stand-alone article. --Mpen320 (talk)

Cleto and the Cletones

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Band lacks individual notability for own article as it's solely connected to Jimmy Kimmel Live!, plus the bandleader (Cleto Escobedo III) already has an article. If deletion is not an option, should be merged into either CEIII or JKL page. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Television. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want it merged, why did you bring it to AFD? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common practice in order to prevent revert wars and to get a solid consensus. Edited nom to include this. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cleto Escobedo III: per nom, nearly the entire article is about him anyways. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but with Jimmy Kimmel Live! Hyperbolick (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cleto Escobedo III - A merge can straighten out a few group-level activities like their guest appearances, but there is very little to merge otherwise because (as stated by a previous voter) the article is almost entirely about Cleto and there is already more robust info about his career at his own article. The group as a whole has not achieved notability in their own right, beyond their leader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cleto Escobedo III with selective content mergers to both Cleto's article and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix. It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

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

Blatant failure of WP:GNG. It's a rare feat for an academic paper to be notable by Wikipedia standards, and this one is no exception. After trimming out a lot of unrelated and poorly-sourced material, we're left with essentially nothing. All that's here is the contents of the paper itself, a WP editor's observation that the title is a pangram, and some grad student's blog mentioning it. After that it's more unrelated material about the topic of the topic, and not the topic itself.

Its only real claim to fame is its absurdly long title and absurdly short body, which if it were so clearly notable, would find clear in-depth mention in multiple, reliable, independent sources, but we don't seem to have that here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Biology. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AFD page name differs from the article name due to its very long title (250 characters). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sourcing is fine and meets GNG, please take a longer look (an unintended pun). The full title is notable as an early use of appropriate satire regarding names of academic papers. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my nomination, I went into detail about why I thought the sourcing was wholly inadequate and the topic of this article fails to meet GNG. A flippant response of "it's fine" isn't adequate. If you think the article should be kept because it passes GNG, perhaps you can offer some sources that discuss it in depth. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It's only claim to fame..." is incorrect, as the author of the paper, Reid Venable Moran, is one of the most distinguished and praised botanists in his field. I find GNG in the sources, such as the journals and texts of the California Botanical Society and San Diego Natural History Museum, and because Moran had a sense of humor and used it in this appropriate setting this seems a unique and notable paper from one of the great botanical researchers and explorers. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. Also note that a citation to the paper is not sufficient for notability, as most any academic paper would then qualify. Instead, sources should discuss something about the paper itself, such as its the history around its publishing, its legacy on the field, etc etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find GNG in the sources, such as the journals and texts of the California Botanical Society and San Diego Natural History Museum I find this a very confusing interpretation of GNG. Moran's article was originally published in one of the California Botanical Society's journals while he was actively employed by the San Diego Natural History Museum - even if they provided significant coverage, and I would argue they do not, these are not independent sources that can meaningfully contribute to notability. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing broken here sums this up rather succinctly, in my view. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very funny scientific paper, but:

Source 1: Casual lecture notes

2: Blog

3: Obituary

4: Self-published source

5: Obvious

6-8: Species-related sources, unrelated to the article itself.

9: Blog

10: A usage form a Thesis

11: Obituary

12: Same as No. 5

13-15: Not very relevant to the article's theme

It does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. Ghren (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, i see the sources order are different now. Anyway,I just couldn't find a suitable source. Ghren (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghren Thank you for your source assessment. I'd like to recommend using Template:Source assess table next time, since it's much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did we pick-up this one somewhere here? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been mentioned on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, I don't now how to add it to the sorting list. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only is it notable, but it's also damn funny. We need at least a modicum this sort of curiosity in these pages or our readers will fall asleep. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't helpful. Also, see WP:ITSFUNNY, another bogus keep rationale. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that we're here to decide if the article is "kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet [my] subjective view of humor [however] unintentionally funny articles are welcome", etc. I also appreciate your opinion about what isn't helpful, what is "bogus", and of course, the links – which are always helpful.

My point was not that our article is itself intended as a gag (nor, for that matter, is it intrinsically funny in and unto itself), it's the article that is the subject of our article (i.e., the Moran piece) that's funny (because, as one of the sources that was deleted stated – the author "had a dry sense of humor"). Also see WP:UNUSUAL.

There are plenty of tattered weeds that should be culled from our pages, this just ain't one of 'em, (in my view, of course). Sourcing seems fine and the article meets GNG. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis on sources --Saimmx (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not put that here on the AfD page rather than on the article's Talk page? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's huge and cost most of my attention at the time. If you want, I can put it here now. Saimmx (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put your vote here? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I vote a natural here. Saimmx (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, clearly meets GNG. Also, restore the content that was removed from the article by the nominator, immediately prior to this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is removing content just prior to an AfD nom standard procedure? Seems sort of like a reverse WP:HEYMANN or something. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed material as part of normal editing cleanup. After getting partway through, it became clear that this thing wasn't notable, so I nominated it for deletion. This is normal, yes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pure WP:ITSNOTABLE vote, without any indication of why it's notable, or attempt to address the sourcing and notability concerns raised. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable either as a scientific paper or as a humorous item. No SIGCOV in RS. After reviewing the source assessment from @Ghren and @Saimmx and my own search for sources, I believe the article should be deleted. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reid Venable Moran. Not enough significant independent coverage for a separate article, but probably worth a few more sentences in the author's article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's already mentioned there (added by the same editor that authored the article up for debate here), so there's probably nothing to actually merge. And even then, it's only sourced to 1) the primary source, and 2) a grad student's blog, so I'm not even sure it warrants a mention. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge to Reid Moran: I am not sure which one I would support more. Regardless the article obviously meets GNG. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were so clear, we wouldn't have several editors saying otherwise, so this doesn't really help without some sort of explanation about why you think it's so clearly notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reid Venable Moran as per User:Pi.1415926535; a very sensible compromise MPF (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reid Venable Moran. This is interesting and worth mentioning on the author's article, but very clearly does not meet GNG. I'm somewhat puzzled by the keep votes asserting notability in light of the source analyses by Ghren above and by Saimmx on the article's talk page - unless there's something I'm missing, and please do correct me if that's the case, I see no indication of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. For a humorous scientific paper like this to be notable I would expect some level of news coverage or analysis by other scientists, neither of which seem to be present here in any meaningful way. Compare with the coverage of notable satires in publishing that we have articles for: most famously in my opinion would be the Sokal affair, but others of interest include A Modest Proposal, the grievance studies affair, and the cello scrotum letter. Even the shortest of these articles, the cello scrotum one, cites three news articles about the hoax and several more independent academic articles that mention it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethmostigmus, each one of the articles you compared this paper to is a hoax. This paper was not a hoax. And it is not primarily a satire, it is only secondarily a satire. It's main and prime purpose of pubication was to report an extension of known territory for a species of plant. None of the articles you linked to compare with this article for that reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moran's article is not a hoax, but the reason I chose to bring up those articles is because they are all academic publications which are only of interest to those outside of their fields because of their humour, rather than the actual academic merit of the publication - not to imply that there's anything academically problematic with Moran's paper, but most people who have heard of it will know of it because a it's funny thing a relatively famous botanist did, not because they care deeply about the distribution of Cneoridium dumosum. If you know of any Wikipedia articles about a paper that is funny and unusual but still scientifically sound, as Moran's is, that would of course be a more appropriate comparison, but I couldn't think of one, and I think my point regarding significant coverage still stands even with the differences in content. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is listed on WP:UNUSUAL, so if this ends in deletion, it needs to be removed from there too.

~2025-33140-42 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be yet another reason to keep the article. Also see WP:SNOWBALL, WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:1Q – all of which seem to provide even further credence to the foolish notion that we should probably keep this article.

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article being linked and mentioned on a project space page is not an argument against deletion, and this discussion certainly has not hit snowball point - I count 5 merge votes, 4 keep votes (counting Gommeh's vote as both keep and merge so as not to diminish either position), and 2 delete votes, not including the nominator. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natural: I am not sure about some of the sources. I will list them here at the request of some editors:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Saimmx
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://studylib.net/doc/5581072/how-to-write-a-taxonomic-paper		A powerpoint slide by Yves Samyn. May reliable.	No further discussion besides "Making a taxonomic publication - title... A parody"	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190915000450/http://scienceblogs.com.br/hypercubic/2013/05/em-sntese/		A work from ScienceBlogs. Looks like a scientist, I'm not sure.	I guess it has a coverage based on machine translation	? Unknown
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/name/reid-moran-obituary?pid=139291325		Online memorial by San Diego Union-Tribune	Unrelated	✘ No
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2013/05/17/in-brief/		Personal blog		✘ No
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/185084#page/312/mode/1up	I am not sure if it is a repeat or a primary source.	I will give a pass to Madroño	I am not sure if it is a repeat or a primary source.	? Unknown
https://sdplantatlas.org/pdffiles/BajaChecklist2016.pdf		San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of Botany	More than mentioned: "Cneoridium dumosum (Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray) Hook. f. ex Baill. {BC: Moran 30437 (SD 111054)} This common native shrub occurs mostly in nw BC but ranges into the northern CD region and is disjunct to the SBOR in s BC. Ecoregions: CSS, CHA, CSU, CD; Wider distrib.: CA CoaSt SpiCe BuSH, BuSH-rue; HierBa del zorrillo"	? Unknown
Moran, Reid. Relictual northern plants on peninsular mountain tops. Cody, Martin L.; Case, Ted J. (编). Island Biogeography in the Sea of Cortéz. University of California Press. 1983: 407–409. ISBN 9780520047990.	Reid Moran		I don't read, so I don't know	✘ No
https://bajaflora.org/MoranPageDisplay.aspx?P=6073	I am not sure if it is Reid Moran or a primary source.		Memtioned only	✘ No
http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/blog/2013/07/10/i-got-it-there-then-reid-moran-1962/	Morgan D. Jackson	Personal blog from an expert		✘ No
https://hdl.handle.net/10150%2F274684		I will give a pass to a thesis, which is reliable to me.	Citation only	✘ 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}}.

--Saimmx (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reid Venable Moran. I am not convinced that this meets WP:GNG (although not strongly convinced that it fails it) but that's not the only relevant consideration in whether something should be a standalone article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable. Currently, the paper is the subject of a one-sentence paragraph in the biography. There is only about two paragraphs of actual content in the article we're discussing here, about half of which is background to necessary to make it understandable why this is a joke. All that background context is really just a piece of the career of RVM. Expanding the one-sentence paragraph in the biography to a medium-sized paragraph, and incorporating the background on the paper elsewhere in the biography, would make the biography better, would preserve the humor, and would resolve the issue of forcing this article to rely on marginal sourcing to try to establish a case for GNG. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about this unique satirical academic topic, if merged, would have to have its own section with the proper name as the section title. I said above that there is nothing broken here, and have become more aware of that reading the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a question for the normal editorial process at the target article (assuming a merge happens), it cannot be dictated here and doesn't have any real bearing on this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eleven citations is enough for GNG, supported by the existence of other perfectly notable articles with even fewer citations. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The number of references in an article is completely irrelevant out of context. People have explained above why those sources don't demonstrate notability, so if you disagree, you should address those concerns. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Corgi Company

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Sources are first party, passing mentions, or pure fluff. Smells like promo but not to the level of G11. —Rutebega (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Artificial intelligence. —Rutebega (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created from a redirect by SPA with likely COI fails GNG and NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG based on significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources:
- The Wall Street Journal (Bindley, Martinez, Picciotto; Sept 2025) – a national publication providing a full-length feature on the company and its founders, discussing its work practices in depth, not a passing mention.
- Forbes (Nieva; May 2025) – an independent article profiling the company within a broader piece on AI startups and their work culture.
- Tekedia Capital (Ekekwe; Aug 2025) – third-party analysis describing Corgi’s use of AI in insurance technology.
- The Business Journals (Yuan profile; July 2023) – background coverage on one of the founders, independent of the company itself. Best Iluvdog (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is from the article's creator, a single purpose account with no disclosed COI. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the exception of Forbes, all sources cited above are primary sources based on press releases and publicity material issued by the company. The Forbes article mentions Corgi three times as an example of its topic, it's not obvious whether this material also comes from Corgi press releases but it might. Andrewa (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely citing WP:SERIESA on this one; the company has existed only for a year (so it couldn't have really built a work culture to speak of) and most of its press coverage comes from notes about how they force people to work beyond a normal work schedule and fails to talk at all about the actual insurance product they actually offer, instead yapping pointlessly about the founders with peacock terms. Also Iluvdog, please at least try to hide your LLM usage and COI, because that vote from that obvious user name was embarrassing to read. Nathannah • 📮 17:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Howell

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

Created by a single purpose account. This article is based on a lot of primary sources. I don't see coverage to meet WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Comics and animation, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Businesspeople. jolielover♥talk 04:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Australian comics creators as an WP:ATD. I too didn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources or indication that this comic artist meets WP:N. Tag me if you find anything otherwise. Katzrockso (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Needs more research and independent references. She is more than a cartoonist, does textile art and graphic art for advertising as well and is known in the tattoo art world. She has had residencies in various places where she has also worked as an educator. She was involved in a group exhibition/education and been revieewd at the National gallery of Victoria (one of Australia's major state galleries). Here are some references.

Residencies, education, events https://www.mlmc.vic.edu.au/news-articles/issue-14-1-september-2023-book-week; https://weteachme.com/classes/1045367-comic-and-cartoon-drawing-with-sarah-howell?srsltid=AfmBOoriQx7EedcDD2NZ9UQW_nK88Zi5aETPyTq5aPR01AhXUEhDfwSg; https://cityofliterature.com.au/explore/education/squishface-summer-workshop-day-with-sarah-howell-lily-mae-martin-and-ariel-ries/; https://www.pozible.com/project/205466?srsltid=AfmBOopTQfTKdGUcWd24KCvgYM8pXEbvoR6wCVGwTLVek__a3m5nai3C; https://www.yprl.vic.gov.au/articles/connecting-with-creatives-artists-in-residence/ Recipient of Australia Council funding (won't let me share link but it's shown in a submission to Australia Council inquiry); Author and illustrator https://bookshop.nla.gov.au/p/squishbook-make-comics-with-squishface-studio-and-friends

General bio

https://www.directoryofillustration.com/artist.aspx?AID=2434; https://newsletters.naavi.com/i/y50bl1J/issue-2/page/9; Judge of Comic Arts Awards https://comicartsaust.com.au/2022-judging-panel/;

Reviews

https://matthewkirshenblatt.ca/2012/06/04/without-words-sarah-howells-untitled-squishface-booklet/ ; https://chrisbmarquez.medium.com/art-prints-by-sarah-howell-on-society6-artist-cc660d26161b; https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/cartoon-connections-20130726-2qpao.html; Inherent Vices at NGV https://neoskosmos.com/en/2011/08/12/features/cartoon-connection/; https://www.th-ink.co.uk/tag/sarah-howell/; https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Inherent-vice-media-kit.pdf; The Australian https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Farts%2Fnonstop-day-in-the-life-of-comics-creators%2Fnews-story%2Fe5b8fb994e2dd1996718a4edc8727000&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=LOW-Segment-1-SCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append#:~:text=Nonstop%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20comics%20creators&text=Eight%20established%20Australian%20comic%20artists,and%20inspiring%20young%20comic%20creators. LPascal (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this coverage is bare passing mentions or unreliable SPS. Being a resident at an exhibition doesn't qualify for notability under WP:NARTIST. Katzrockso (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly primary sourcing. WP:BEFORE is not bringing up reliable sources to show notability. Teaching workshops etc do not show notability. See source assessment below for review of current sourcing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://sarahhowellprojects.com/?page_id=2	Primary source, dead link	✘ No
http://www.au.timeout.com/melbourne/art/venues/1129/squishface-studio	rotten link	✘ No
https://www.wheelercentre.com/people/sarah-howell	2 sentence boi for the Wheeler Centre venue	✘ No
http://caravanofcomics.com/2012/artist/sarah-howell.html	dead link	? Unknown
https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/comic-artists-pursue-the-american-dream-20120522-1z318.html	~ Article about "a convoy of 11 local artists starred at comic-focused museums, festivals, universities and stores across Canada and the US."	~ Partial
https://squishfacestudio.tumblr.com/	Primary source tumblr account for Squishface Studio	✘ 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}}.

The Four Seasons (1979 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced film article. I was unable to locate sources other than databases. Not clear if this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @4meter4: Did you happen to see the previous deletion discussion? I was going to !vote delete, but then noticed the previous discussion. Apparently it meets WP:NFO #4 as something noted for preservation at the Croatian State Archives. -2pou (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. Thanks for letting me know.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be my reason for keeping offhand. As someone who volunteered for a state archive, I'll just say that while archives can be big, they're fairly exclusive in what they actually keep in their collections. At some point they will exclude items and even remove them from their archives if they're not deemed important enough. At the very least it implies that there should be more coverage out there. We would really need someone fluent in Croatian (assuming none here are fluent) and probably someone with access to newspaper archives for the country, since they may not all be available online due to the age of the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to have put in the archive link on the page at the time of the last AFD. It would have demonstrated some form of sourcing and notability. I'm neutral on this now.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Arts Council

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails GNG SpragueThomson^talk 02:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and California. SpragueThomson^talk 02:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we merge this some place as an ATD? Bearian (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lake County, California. This is the official county government backed arts council (it is funded by a state program). It would be reasonable to cover it in the article on the county. Newspapers.com has plenty of sources and the internet archive has some coverage. It's too local in scope to pass WP:NONPROFIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroqueer theory

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

The reason for nomination is that Neuroqueer theory duplicates:

There is substantial coverage for this topic, but this standalone article is a redundant synonym to "Autism and LGBTQ identities".

To align with the guidance of WP:RFORK, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:COMMONNAME, it would be advisable to delete this one and make way for the others. Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and LGBTQ+ studies. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are related concepts but I wouldn't say they are identical. This publication defines neuroqueer theory as a theoretical framework. Google scholar has many publications on the topic. Neuroqueer theory is the framework from which researchers study Autism and LGBTQ identities and Disability and LGBTQ identities. In other words it would be the umbrella or parent article of these two other articles. I would say that both Autism and LGBTQ identities and Disability and LGBTQ identities are semi WP:SPINOUTs from neuroqueer theory. Given the article sizes this seems fine. On a side note deleting this as redundant would be like saying we should delete queer theory because we have an article on queer people. 4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have concerns relating to WP:COMMONNAME of the term neuroqueer theory since it was made up very recently in 2015. It would better be recreated under a generic name like "Autism and neurology". Historyexpert2 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4. Also, your suggestion that the article is a "synonym to Autism and LGBTQ identities" is absolutely not true ~~and, frankly, shows a very ignorant understanding of the subject~~. There is more to neurodiversity than autism. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 09:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, autism isn't a synonym for neurodiversity, and neurodiversity is increasingly recognised as difference, not disability, so neither of the proposed duplicates is a duplicate. Elemimele (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and per the above. Neuroqueer is an academic theoretical framework that goes beyond the identity of being neurodivergent and queer. It also refers to how individuals may push back against neuronormativity and cisheteronormativity in similar ways, and relatedly, how neuronormativity and cisheteronormativity may have overlapping injustices, among other concepts. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by 4meter4 show that this is a sufficiently distinct topic with its own WP:SIGCOV. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see more engagement with the policy WP:NEO which is part of WP:NOTDICTIONARY provided by the OP. On a quick look, I see two sources using the term, but does it meet the criteria: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term" "QueerAF" I would disregard for notability all together (thought I don't object to it's use otherwise). Outside of that... it looks like one book that uses the term, and none of the other sources do, so it appears to fail WP:NEO. Denaar (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing plenty of sources (probably the two strongest ones here [25], [26]) satisfying the use-mention requirement of WP:NEO. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As creator and emerging scholar in an adjacent field, I would argue that the "Prevalence of neuroqueer identities" section isn't quite appropriate in this particular article because it presumes that people who are both neurodivergent and queer are automatically neuroqueer, which isn't the case. The concept of neuroqueer as an identity came after the development of neuroqueer as a theory, merging ideas from neurodiversity theory and queer theory, recognizing them as overlapping in many respects. If we merely saw neuroqueer as a neologism for an identity, I may agree with your sentiment, especially if unsourced. However, it is not. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Neuroqueer theory#Split?. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 & Significa liberdade - This article covers a distinct concept that doesn't cleanly fit into either mentioned articles. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 176 results on Google Scholar for "neuroqueer theory" and 2290 results for "neuroqueer". LogicalLens (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As several others have pointed out above, the available sourcing is robust enough to justify a standalone article. Do the other two articles cover related subject matter? Sure, but neither renders this one redundant. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wu (soccer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently in the article are primary to the leagues and clubs Wu has played for, and all I could find elsewhere was an interview at [[27]]. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dahi puri

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

I have done a search for reliable sources about this subject. At least in English-language sources, I can only find one that contains more than one paragraph of useful information: [28]. Without more reliable sources, this subject is not a notable topic and should instead be discussed on the article Sev puri as part of that topic. However, merging would not be useful as the Dahi puri article has no useful contents—there is only one RS cited (The Hindu), but it doesn't even verify the statement. Therefore, I think deletion is reasonable. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, India, and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 04:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I had this dish (SPDP) at an Indian restaurant recently, it was terrific. But with the similarity in recipe with Panipuri and Sev puri a separate article doesn't seem necessary here, and those pages ought to be able to explain variations without splitting similar content across multiple pages. Reywas92^Talk 05:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sevpuri: Dahi puri has a reasonable "standalone" recognition based on online sources. I think a merge would be of an appropriate encyclopedic value here. WeWake (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Derschang

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references in the article as of now are primary and the best I could find was an interview at [[29]] and a blog at [[30]]. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time Austin Aztex FC roster: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV but can redirect to FL class list. Demt1298 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this subject is not listed at the proposed target because that list as of now only covers players who played for a different iteration of that club than the one this subject played for. I have no opinion regarding if everyone who played for the other iteration should be listed at that list, but I oppose a redirect until he is actually listed there.Let'srun (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kunzig

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

Does not pass WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV. Notability issue has been tagged since 2013. No major improvements. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST for winning the Walter Sullivan Award for excellence in science journalism from the American Geophysical Union. His win is covered in this journal article from Physics Today. Passes WP:NAUTHOR for winning the Aventis Prize for Science Books. There's lot's of reviews of that book such as [31], [32], [33], [34], etc.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. jolielover♥talk 04:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 4 is absurdly vague but this still doesn't pass that – if this prize was significant, there would be more than such a brief mention in a topical magazine about it. Same of NAUTHOR – this is a prize, but not a "significant" prize that garnered substantial coverage such that GNG can be thrown to the wind. Since all of those reviews are of Mapping the Deep, perhaps that book is notable, but there should be some sort of biographical sourcing to justify a biographical article. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 18 published reviews of three books, enough for an easy pass of both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG (these are 18 reliable and independent in-depth sources about Kunzig's works). There is no requirement in GNG and no reasonable expectation that the sources need to detail his life story; the sourcing for authors should mostly cover their works of authorship, just like we would expect the sourcing for sports figures to mostly cover their sports accomplishments and the sourcing for politicians to mostly cover their political accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That is a lot of reviews. WP:NAUTHOR pass Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable. Lots of reviews of his books, and he was the winner of the Royal Society Science Book Prize, which is definitely a big deal. (Not that this proves it's a big deal, but the person who won it the year after him was Stephen Hawking...) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonald's marketing campaigns

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

Chronic lack of reliable sources. Apparently the main source (from "TV Acres") no longer exists and has been delisted from the Internet Archive as well. The other sources either only discuss the WcDonald's takeover, which isn't relevant to the vast majority of slogans and content, or are archived or live copies of online videos, which are likely copyright infringements. audiodude (talk) 02:30, 12 November 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 November 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator; there is not enough notable sources to warrant such a list. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 02:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 04:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of it is sourced. What isn’t can be tagged, removed for being not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So much of this is unsourced that it would be more productive to make article on the few slogans that have references (WcDonalds, You Deserve a Break) and delete the rest, invalidating this as a list that could ever be complete. Most of the references in this article point to Youtube. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist. Thus I lean delete. I already removed the lists of media tie-ins and promotions because they completely lacked sources. -- Recon rabbit 18:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes I tried to do exactly that in the lead of McDonald's advertising, since the list of reliably sourced slogans doesn't seem large enough to merit a full article. audiodude (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm sure sourcing exists for a lot of this, even if people have been lax about adding it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked newspapers, magazines or journals, but the online sources seem sparse and extremely weak (some guy's blog saying, "remember these slogans??") audiodude (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's relevant and editing can fix the weaknesses of the article. Most slogans could probably be sourced in contemporary magazines. You can't just delete relevant articles just because nobody is working on them and they make the project look bad. This is Wikipedia and not Google. TigerFromEarth (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeen and Western Railroad

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

I cannot find any evidence that this is an actual operating railroad, or ever was. It does not appear on the Illinois DOT railroad map. There is an utter lack of any secondary sourcing of this company. The most I can figure out is that it's a 0.2 mile long spur serving an Ameren facility. Reporting marks "CAEG" clearly imply Ameren Energy Generating Company. A Branford Steam Railroad this is not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OpenCorporates confirms that the company exists this link, and Amaren's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirm that Coffeen and Western Railroad was a subsidiary of Ameren Energy Generating Company on December 31, 2008. It is unclear whether the railroad's ownership changed when Ameren sold Coffeen Power Station to Dynegy in 2013. Dynergy was later acquired by Vistra Corp., which closed the power station in 2019. On the basis of "once notable, always notable", I think the article should be kept, even though I can't tell who owns the company and whether it still operates trains. I don't know whether its fleet of hoppers were sold or are leased to some other company, but at least I was able to find some relevant information. Addresses shown on OpenCorporates are often those of an agent rather than a company's real headquarters. https://renewillinoispower.com/community-scorecard-energy/coffeen/ says that Coffeen Power Station has been replaced by a solar energy facility, but I can't tell whether it uses the rail facilities. Dun & Bradstreet has a listing for Coffeen and Western Railroad under D-U-N-S number 623794992. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that an entity by this name exists or did exist, I'm disputing that it was ever an operating railroad and that it has been the subject of any secondary coverage. Your sources which are exclusively primary just prove my point further. You just want the article kept because you want everything kept, policies and guidelines be damned. WP:N doesn't cease to govern just because you don't like it. You really want to argue with the guy who writes all day about long since gone railroads that "once notable, always notable" is a policy? You know I wrote a FA about a railroad that shut down in 1947, right? This is a sad response to the deletion nomination and makes it hard to even take your vote seriously.
Let's go source by source and refute everything in your response:
- OpenCorporates is a glorified database, and there's nothing at the link you provided that gives even the slightest amount of detail on the subject. Obviously not a source meeting GNG.
- Dun and Bradstreet is the same sort of thing as OpenCorporates. There's no significant coverage, or even anything close. Clear GNG fail.
- You're speculating about the fleet of hoppers and if the facility was replaced with solar. I don't care, and neither does GNG. We need coverage of the supposed railroad and you have failed to find anything usable. Don't you think I checked before making this nomination? Railroads are my bread and butter. I looked in all the usual places. Any operating or formerly operating common carrier railroad will meet GNG 99% of the time, easily. I can't find anything even close to meeting GNG and I looked extensively. This is not notable, it never has been notable, you made no effort to even try and prove it is notable, and it's exhausting to spend so much more time refuting your policy-ignorant arguments than it takes for you to generate them.
Eastmain, do you even know what GNG is? How about WP:N? Your response is so extremely out of line with community consensus it makes me wonder if you should be allowed to participate in AfD at all. "I think the article should be kept, even though there's basically zero verifiable information about any aspect of it, because I don't want anything to ever be deleted" would at least be honest and let me respect you a bit more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now has multiple citations to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think source #2 establishes notability, your understanding of notability is entirely at odds with the Wikipedia community to the point I question your competence to participate in AfD. At least look at the two sources before voting. Both are WP:PRIMARY, but source 2 is egregious because in its entirety it is just a list of subsidiaries which confirms an entity by the name Coffeen and Western Railroad exists. It says zero about the subject. Not a single sentence. I'm losing my mind here. Has AfD always had everyone just ignore policies, guidelines, and reality, or is this a recent development? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything worth keeping in this article, merge it to either Amren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Coffeen Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There's not enough reference material on the Web or on Newspapers.com to indicate notability of this railroad, other than discussion in some railfan forums. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Ameren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I meant Ameren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I should have been paying attention. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Company exists but too many WP:PRIMARY sources, searching it up yields no secondary/independent sources, making a it WP:SIRS/WP:ORGIND fail and notability fail. Its a company only on paper. x2step (lets talk 💌) 06:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffeen Power Station, perhaps with one sentence added in the target article. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffeen Power Station. Lacks secondary coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ameren where a cited mention of Coffeen and Western Railroad (and Coffeen Power Station) would be an improvement and a preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Redirect to Coffeen Power Station? Or merge to Ameren?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I did find some sources (e.g., [35], [36]) that could supply information to this subject, they don't seem notable enough to warrant this article's existence. Additionally, since this subject falls as part of a company, the article, at the very least, requires reliable secondary sources, and I could not find any supplying useful or valid information (see WP:ORGCRIT). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 03:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I get hits on several British railways, nothing about an American one with this name. None of the sources used are acceptable, mostly government filings, which are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj–Cardi B feud

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

Nominating for deletion on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8 and WP:DEL-REASON#9.

This is not an encyclopedic topic, it is largely gossip-driven trivia, and grossly fails the policy of WP:Biographies of living persons. It violates several other WP policies and guidelines as well, including WP:NOT (WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH.

Much of the content and celebrity media reporting used as sources is based on gossip, speculation, social media-derived sensationalism about high profile celebrities who individually draw a lot of run of the mill speculatory coverage from entertainment media on virtually anything, including social media posts and exchanges with other celebrities. This article is at the core of WP:SENSATIONAL: "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." Specific significant events that are pertinent to an artist's career or life are mentioned in their respective articles. There is also no musical back and forth between these artists to warrant an article like Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud, which is about a notable rap feud (musical disses). Lapadite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this page, I'll just express my two cents without leaving any sort of vote since a "keep" would be redundant.

Yes, celebrity coverage can be excessive, meaning that customarily trivial things tend to get covered when they normally wouldn't. However, in this case, I would highly implore you to actually look at the breadth of the sources and the depth of the coverage therein:

There have been timelines of the feud as a whole published by BuzzFeed News, Slate, NME, Billboard, The Cut, Vulture, People, Uproxx, and W, all ranging from different points in 2018 to now, and two primers on everyone involved in the feud from Spin and Billboard.
Most of the reliable sources cited in the article (and some that were not) have offered continuous coverage of the feud and each of its specific developments since its beginning, both music-focused—Pitchfork (1, 2, and 3); NME (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9); Billboard (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10); Rolling Stone (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); The Hollywood Reporter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5—and non-musical—BBC News (1, 2, 3, 4); The New York Times (1, 2); Associated Press (1, 2, 3); ABC News (1, 2, 3, 4); The Los Angeles Times (1, 2, 3); The Guardian (1, 2, 3.) Even The Hill has an article that references the feud here.
Multiple sources have called it some variation of "the biggest feud" in hip-hop, regardless of the lack of diss tracks: The Root called it "rap's biggest feud" just this year; E! News called it "music's biggest feud"; TMZ called it "hip-hop's biggest feud"; Good Housekeeping included it on their list of the 20 most famous celebrity feuds of all time in 2020; the Evening Standard wrote that it was the "feud of the year" in 2018.

Also, it would be good if you could cite examples of the gossip-driven trivia you reference or the numerous policies that you say this article violates, because, as yet, you are just just pointing at policies without linking any of them to anything actually in the article. The article does begin with mentions of rumors, but it is largely about how both rappers directly responded to them, much like in the page for the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. The lack of diss tracks also does not make it less worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia than the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud—there is no guideline stating that feuds with articles must also include artistic works or diss tracks. This feud has more than been confirmed at this point based on the above coverage, which is far more extensive and continuous than frivolous "silly season" reporting. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lucrative celebrity news cycle driven by gossip/speculation is very prevalent and countless reliable sources participate in it; as such many articles can be linked to "support" the notion of a longstanding fued between many celebrities. The existence of sources, or mere verifiability, does not dictate the inclusion of content and is not the mere standard for the creation of an encyclopedic topic. The quality of the information matters. You can link to countless articles off a Google search, but can you cite sufficient factual, substantive, relevant information in reliable sources that buttresses the encyclopedic need for a standalone topic on a celebrity dispute, as opposed to noting a relevant individual incident in their respective articles? The "depth of coverage" you allude to is largely selective speculation. WP:SENSATIONAL should not be inherent to the content of the sources supplying your topic: "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking".

To my knowledge, there is only one factual event pertaining to these two individuals, and that is in 2018 when Cardi B threw a shoe in Minaj's direction at a fashion event reportedly due to the assumption of a social media "like"; this is mentioned in their respective articles. Neither that one-time factual incident nor the 2017 reported misunderstanding about their collab "Motorsport" (trivia that is relevant to the song's article, which cites that both artists denied the rumors of a fued between them) warrants an encyclopedic topic about a supposed fued spanning 7+ years. There is nothing factual since 2018 pertaining to a "feud" between the two. Individually throughout their careers, both of them are constantly a source of entertainment media gossip and speculation, as are many other high profile celebrities in and outside of their musical genre. The existence of this article topic inherently blows out of proportion a few unrelated, disparate interactions or comments from these two artists based on, chiefly, gossip churned by celebrity news media.

- The lead alone is telling, such as "rumors of a feud between her and Minaj began circulating ... alleged to be disses toward one another, which they both denied". Most of the content is derived from rumor/gossip/speculation from social media via entertainment media, and much of the article has to use terms like "alleged", "implies", "rumored", which speaks to the un-encyclopedic nature of this topic and how it lacks sufficient substantive, quality information to support encyclopedic inclusion.

WP is not a newspaper or a tabloid. We don't run with any and all celebrity news and gossip the media churns out 24/7 and create topics on it because there's a lot of sources. Editorial judgement is intrinsic to this, driven by WP's policies and guidelines. For the reasons outlined, this topic fails the aforementioned, and the quality of content, relevant and factual information, isn't there to justify it. Lapadite (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already shown that there is more than enough relevant and factual information, not just pertaining to but entirely about this feud and addressing it as such—even just the titles of the references explicitly call it a feud between them, not an "alleged" feud or a "rumored" feud ("Nicki Minaj and Cardi B's feud is spilling over into Cuomo and Nixon's gubernatorial fight" from WaPo, "Cardi B and Nicki Minaj feud escalates with series of lengthy, angry rants" from NME, "50 Cent Weighs In On Cardi B And Nicki Minaj Feud With Concern" from Vibe, among many, many others.)

This assertion that there were no factual event[s] between them is strange—was their back-and-forth on Twitter earlier this year (which was widely covered from start to finish, including by USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Complex, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc.) not a "factual event"? Was Minaj selling merch directly referencing the feud not a "factual event"? Was Minaj's interview prior to their fight about feeling a lack of "genuine love" from Cardi B, which was cited by many sources as a precursor to the escalation of their feud, not a "factual event"? Was it not "factual" that Cardi posted a series of videos addressed directly to Minaj after their altercation, which received direct responses from both the girl group Little Mix and former Wilhelmina Models CEO Bill Wackermann? You can make the argument that what's in the lead is centered more around rumors than the "confirmed" events of their feud, but that is a surmountable problem solved through editing and discussion, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And saying that much of the article ... uses terms like "alleged", "implies", "rumored" to suggest the whole thing is speculative and based on gossip is not only false for the reasons listed above, but also contradictory to your own assertion that the article for the Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud—which, as it stands, uses the words "allegedly", "allegations", and "alleged" a total of 12 times, and the words "rumor", "rumors", and "rumored" 6 times—warrant[s] an article. Lines like "Multiple outlets interpreted the first verse on 'The Language', the album's fifth single, as a response to Lamar's 'Control' verse, with Drake insinuating that Lamar's music was 'not that inspiring' despite popular and critical acclaim," and "Hip-hop fans and outlets alike speculated Drake's verse on the remix was a diss targeted towards Lamar," are exclusively about interpretations of the feud rather than factual event[s] but are still important to understanding the history of the feud. Not every notable aspect of a feud involves a thrown heel. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a lot more to the Drake-Kendrick Lamar conflict than alleged music disses before it took over the industry. It is a factual and longstanding hip hop clash in which they addressed each other by name in music and it enveloped popular culture (outside of just hip hop) including the Super Bowl, other celebrities involved, countless celebrities addressing it, award shows hosts commenting on it, television programs referencing Not Like Us, countless analyses on its effect on both artists' careers, "Not Like Us" winning a Grammy, and a major lawsuit that involved the industry. Trying to equate the culturally and industry consequential Drake-Lamar hip hop feud with a personal incident 8 years ago and a twitter spat between Minaj and Cardi B is false equivalence.

You're showcasing some of the issues. "Minaj selling merch" nowhere does Minaj mention Cardi B there, and the article links to several memes about that "bag" joke she posted. Much of the rest of the content is in this vein - again, gossip and speculation attributing specific things to posts that don't state such. You keep linking a bunch of articles to again reinforce quantity, but reading the articles gives the real picture of the nature of the content; for instance, you said "which received direct response from the girl group Little Mix", which implies that they were involved in the fued, but in actuality Little Mix simply responded to Cardi B claiming something about them, they did not comment on a Minaj and Cardi B argument. The content of much of the sources is misrepresented. Again, the substance, relevance and veracity of the content is essential. Media reports and makes narratives on anything. Here's a recent example of Billboard reporting on a trivial exchange between Minaj and singer James Blunt: [37]. Is this of significance or relevant to anything? No. But that is the nature of entertainment media and celebrity. There expectedly being many Google search results on high profile celebrities with speculation about them and their posts in relation to other celebrities doesn't itself determine or necessitate an encyclopedia topic.

There are no factual events between them since the 2018 incident you're referring to. And then recently - 7 years later - there was a twitter argument after Minaj tweeted some joke about sales; a since-ended twitter spat that's irrelevant to the 2018 incident. Are we creating encyclopedic articles for any of the many other twitter arguments with/about other celebrities or on other topics that either of them have engaged in over the years? Do we create encyclopedic articles whenever celebrities post jokes/memes or make vague posts or get angry at someone and the click-seeking media reports and speculates on it? There is no verifiable real-life consequence or cultural impact to the 2018 shoe throwing or unrelated twitter spat 7 years later to warrant an encyclopedia topic. Relevant trivia is included in their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does Minaj mention Cardi B there—the title of the article is literally "Nicki Minaj Mocks Cardi B With New 'Nicki Stopped My Bag' Merch". Not sure how much clearer it could be. And [Little Mix] did not comment on a Minaj and Cardi B argument—again, the title of the linked article is "Little Mix dragged into Cardi B v Nicki Minaj feud" and the quote from them is "Sorry Cardi hun but this is the T. We've always wanted the Queen [Minaj]."

I am done adding to this thread after this because it is starting to overtake the actual discussion beneath it. It seems useless to keep retreading the same points over and over again. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're again illustrating an example of an article and title not being substantiated by the content itself and being driven by gossip and speculation. "Much of the rest of the content is in this vein - again, gossip and speculation attributing specific things to posts that don't state such. You keep linking a bunch of articles to again reinforce quantity, but reading the articles gives the real picture of the nature of the content" Lapadite (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Gossip and nonsense. Mag2k (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination fails to provide any valid deletion rationale. The first two reasons provided (notability and BLP policies) fail on multiple grounds. The feud has been covered extensively in reliable sources (e.g. WP:LATIMES [38], WP:NYTIMES [39], The Cut [40], etc). That these eminently reliable sources chose to run media coverage of this ongoing feud is extremely good evidence the topic is notable. Appealing to WP:BLP similarly doesn't work; no aspect of the BLP policy is violated by this article that wouldn't be fixed by editing. That some of the content may violate guidelines is not a rationale for deletion, as WP:Deletion is not cleanup.

The nominator claims that there is no musical back and forth between the artists, but this is not how reliable sources report the music. Similar to how the disses in the Kendrick-Drake feud usually don't directly implicate each other, songs like Ganja Burn, Backin' It Up have been reported as containing disses.

There is academic coverage of this topic as well, in the books The Sociology of Cardi B: A Trap Feminist Approach [41] and Moving Blackness: Black Circulation, Racism, and Relations of Homespace [42] that would permit further expansion that involves critical introspection of the coverage on the topic. It is certainly more than any run-of-the-mill rap feud, of which there are a multitude. Katzrockso (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benmite and Katzrockso, who show compellingly that this subject is treated as a distinct and notable topic by a variety of trusted news sources, i.e., that the article topic is notable and does not depend on SYNTH. I don't find the BLP concerns particularly convincing either—while the feuding parties certainly said a lot of insulting things about each other, the article seems to cover them in a dispassionate and attributed fashion, which to the best of my understanding should sufficiently address those concerns. To the extent that any BLP issues do exist, editing is a better way to resolve them than outright deletion of the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Benmite and Katzrockso. The feud has been significantly covered in a multitude of reliable sources (not just trashy gossip rags that we wouldn't rely on for BLPs). Nil🥝 04:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While initially I was going to go with the argument WP:NOTNEWS but if there are academic articles on this topic and has been extensively covered by news publications which it has it should stay. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, sources are simply linked but the content in them informs and determines substance and relevance. Two books were linked above, the titles of which are The Sociology of Cardi B (published in 2024) and Moving Blackness: Black Circulation, Racism, and Relations of Homespace (published in January 2025); no demonstration of these books having anything to do with this topic of a Nicki Minaj and Cardi B fued/twitter argument. As asked of entertainment media articles, is there substantial, non-gossip information in them that pertains to this topic? An issue is that the mere existence of sources that reference these two celebs is used as justification for this as an encyclopedic topic. The content of the sources, its relevance and legitimacy, needs to be taken into account as per WP's policies and guidelines to determine whether there's enough legitimate, non-speculatory info to warrant this topic; otherwise, a specific incident can be and is noted in the artists' respective articles. An example given above of that often not being the case, is an article titled "Nicki Minaj Mocks Cardi B With New 'Nicki Stopped My Bag' Merch" while the content in the article doesn't have Minaj even mentioning Cardi B and implies a "bag" tweet from the artist was part of a meme on Twitter. Lapadite (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both books discuss the disputes between Nicki Minaj - Cardi B and criticize media coverage of it. Katzrockso (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS CabinetCavers (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in RS exists, so I see no reason for this page to be deleted. paintdvd ☎ 02:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, I see no reason to be deleted. Dinitrify (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the former users. Not a reason for the page to be deleted. WP:GNG.Franco el estudiante (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, can’t merge exclusively into either person, and this is the stuff Wikipedia is made of. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Polling

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing any coverage even close to meeting WP:NORG. Only one source dedicated to the subject which is a "local students make website" article and doesn't convey any notability. The rest, aside from passing mentions and WP:ABOUTSELF or social media sources, are either an interview (see WP:INTERVIEW), just one paragraph worth of content about them not being reliable in an article or dedicated to debunking one individual poll result the company released. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think current sourcing is enough to meet notability guidelines though others may disagree. I think it's important for a neutral party like wikipedia to shine a light on intentionally biased polling operations. There should be some editing to remove more promotional/subjective material (e.g. "accurate prediction" of 2024 election as a coin flip chance says very little about overall accuracy --- what were the margins? state by state?). Page protection may also be advised if the article sticks around given it's notoriety in US politics. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources are about coverage of their polls, rather than about the company and some primary. No additional reliable sources found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find this article in particular difficult to assess, because while it has some good sources, many other sources are unreliable. If kept, it needs significant copy editing. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s important that Wikipedia maintain a public record of a well-known, biased political operation that regularly garners millions of impressions on social media. Article has several good sources, though the article likely needs additional editing. Tilden1876 (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but requires further polish and a promo tag until the content is fixed. The CBS News and New York Times coverage establish borderline notability in my opinion. Social media references need to be removed. Silvymaro (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I agree with Silvymaro social media sources need to be removed and the page needs some work. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could any of the keep voters explain to me why the CBS News and New York Times sources define notability? Is there something I'm not seeing in them? The CBS piece is a local news piece, finished with "Know an outstanding high school senior that deserves recognition? Let us know by completing the form below and we may select the student to be featured in our "Focusing on the Future" series." This is simply "local kids done good" coverage which I do not see as defining notability at all. The New York Times sources are either one paragraph in an article about low-quality polls, or a short few paragraphs in an article about a poll they ran, which is borderline at best, but even taking it at its best it's one source and that alone isn't enough to establish notability imo. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I would agree that the CBS coverage, being marked as local coverage from a local affiliate, would not meet WP:AUD as I would interpret it. I'm also disinclined to consider either it or the NYT articles to meet ORGDEPTH, and yet they are from what I can tell the most "direct and in-detail" coverage there is out there. Importance is not, as far as I am aware, currently considered an accepted notability guideline for organisations and companies, and I don't see how cleanup has anything to do with anything at all. I do not see a way for this to meet NCORP. The article should again be deleted. Alternatively, this can also be redirected to an anchor created for this purpose in § Public opinion of Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, para. 3. I would not object to such a redirection as an ATD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. While borderline, Patriot Polling meets the general notability guideline (GNG) through multiple instances of coverage in reliable national outlets.

The New York Times explicitly referenced the organization by name in its analysis of low-quality polling and its influence on election discourse, coverage that constitutes non-trivial, critical examination of the subject’s role in shaping public perception during the 2024 election cycle. This satisfies the depth expected under WP:ORGDEPTH since it engages directly with the reliability and methodology of the organization’s polling, rather than treating it as a passing mention.

Moreover, under WP:NOTABILITY, an entity may merit inclusion if it has “received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources,” even if limited in number, provided those sources discuss the organization in substantive, analytical, or critical terms. This threshold is comparable to several other articles on polling firms that have nonetheless been retained due to their public visibility and impact on political discourse.

From a public-interest perspective, the article’s preservation also serves a legitimate encyclopedic function. The organization has played a notable role in shaping online and media narratives about U.S. elections, and its results have been cited, debated, and debunked in national forums. Wikipedia, as a neutral record, has an obligation to document such entities to contextualize misinformation and political data.

Substantial cleanup is indeed necessary (removal of social media material and citation tightening), but these are editorial issues, not grounds for deletion. Deletion would erase a verifiable record of a politically visible organization that meets notability criteria and has demonstrable coverage in multiple independent outlets. 37.135.62.170 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While it requires significant improvement, CBS News and New York Times does qualify for keeping it here. Mag2k (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source with notable coverage I can find is the NYT article, which dedicated seven paragraphs to the firm and included a photo of its founders. The coverage of Greenland is focused on the poll, not the company, so fails sigcov. The coverage from CBS fails a criterion for content independence. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Notwithstanding that the article's lede does not, in my opinion, appropriately summarise the rest of the article, there are insufficient references that meet NCORP. For example, this NYT article appears to be pretty detailed, until you realise that the same information appears in this interview in the Delaware Valley Journal - so clearly the NYT article is not "original content" and fails WP:ORGIND and the Delaware Valley Journal relies entirely on an interview, so that also fails ORGIND. So its a no from me, nothing here passes NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as more of a news story than a NCORP. Their polling has been analyzed and criticized in a number of reliable sources. There are sources about the founder, some that address the bias of the polls. The article does need work: copy editing and removing some of the unreliable sources. I don't know what to do about the tweets as sources - if you are making a statement that an important person tweeted about their polls you basically do need to cite the tweet. Lamona (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're... not really here to cover news stories. We could potentially try to change that, but I expect it would require reworking a lot of our other editorial policies to do things properly. There are room in some articles for what is in news stories, and redirecting to an anchor on Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland would probably be the best way to do that, but I really don't think we can effectively do so now with how we're set up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"News" was not the right word, but I couldn't come up with one. What's interesting about this "company" (if it is one) is that they have been accused of turning out badly biased polls. The founder of the polling group has been vocal about his political preferences, which seems to align with the skewed polls. That's what's notable, and it is reported in a good many sources. So the company qua company is of little interest (market value, etc.). But there is a fair amount of reporting on their polls. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the purpose of AfD to decide whether a company is "interesting". It is very simple. We look at the sources to see if we have multiple sources that meet our guidelines for establishing notability. If you want to make a solid arguement (and not just voice an opinion) to "Keep", it is best to point to particular paragraphs in particular sources which you say meet GNG/NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My god, if I thought my posts would be so misconstrued ... I might as well have written them in Klingon. (Actually, that might have worked better.) I said "notable" and I referred to "sources". It's no more of an "opinion" than any other posts here. And I notice you didn't jump on others who !voted Keep. Am I special? CBS news (full article), The Hill (full article), Newsweek, at least half about the Greenland poll, GB News, based on the Greenland poll, Nyheder, Denmark, full article about the mess the Greenland poll created, Berlingske.dk, another long article on the Greenland mess that Patriot Polling created. Then there's the company founder complaining about getting death threats based on a WSJ op ed that he wrote. That's him, not the polling group, and I do think that we may eventually get enough about him for an article. Lamona (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment because it came closest to providing a !vote based on our guidelines - the other !votes are unlikely to be weighed as heavily as yours (so that's a compliment, not a criticism) and most are unlikely to be weighted at all. But simply listing links to articles without providing an explanation as to why they meet the criteria for establishing notability doesn't address the criticisms of those sources. Our guidelines look at two aspects, the first aspect is that the publisher is a reliable independent source, the second is that the *content* must meet certain criteria. None of the article you've linked to contain that type of content.

CBS News is based entirely on an interview. That is not "independent content", it is regurgitated company-provided content and fails ORGIND.
The Hill contains no in-depth information *about the company* and therefore fails CORPDEPTH
Newsweek is a mention-in-passing and has no in-depth information either, also fails CORPDEPTH
GB News is [[WP:GBNEWS|not a reliable source], fails WP:RS
Nyheder TV2 relies entirely on a phone interview and contains no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Berlingske also contains no in-depth information about the company, mostly talking about one of their polls, fails CORPDEPTH

If you think sources contain content that meets the criteria, along with posting a list, give an indication as to where that content can be located in the article and why it meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting these sources, but I still believe that they're not enough to pass WP:GNG. (I'll keep this my only comment on the thread as I've already weighed in above, but as some new sources have been presented I want to respond to them.) The The Hill/Newsweek sources are coverage of an individual poll and don't define notability for the company itself. The NY Post (aside from not being about the company) and GB News are unreliable sources per WP:RSP. The CBS News article is from a local affiliate and is just "local kids done good" type coverage. The Berlingske and Nyheder sources are slightly better as there's some sort of analysis in there, but again, they only talk about the impacts of one particular poll. If we're not analysing it through WP:NCORP as you say above, and instead as a mass polling shock event, this fails notability guidelines by a lot. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wording is fine. I read your comment as the company having been involved in notable events, which we could cover if they meet WP:NEVENT. I do not believe the events they have been involved with meet such a criteria to the extent that we can write a suitable standalone article, and not every newsworthy event would do so. The Hill, for example, is pretty clearly routine coverage to my eye. A redirect to a broader event (the Greenland mess, as aptly put) is the normal solution in those cases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused at the keep votes in this thread; until Lamona's vote above, there was very little attempt made at engaging with policy and included a vote of "Keep" with no further explanation, a vote from the creator of the article itself and votes vaguely referring to "sources" being enough without any assessment of them. This is almost definitely heading towards a NOCON close, but I just find the lack of engagement more than a little frustrating. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burihati High School, Mirzapur

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

Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Similar or even more notable articles were deleted. See ~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College. Also, let me add: Excluding citations 1, 2, 3, and 10, all other citations are from the institution's official website. So, obviously not Independent. Sources of the citation 3 and 10 themselves say the info on their website may not be accurate. So we can't consider it as reliable, can we? Same for the source of citation 1, though this one contains some extra info. And citation 2 is just a basic website that mentions the location and EIIN only. (Sorry for the bad grammar) ~ Raihanur (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The school is a government-approved secondary institution registered under the Dhaka Education Board with EIIN 114509, and it is officially listed by the Bangladesh Ministry of Education and the Department of Secondary and Higher Education (SHED).^[1]

Additionally, independent news coverage from national and regional media — including Dainik Shiksha, Amar Campus BD, and U71 News — has featured the school’s achievements, community involvement, and educational development, which are reliable and independent of the institution’s own publications.^[2]^[3]^[4]

The article also provides detailed historical and administrative context, including the school’s community-based founding, educational motto (“Education is Power”), and MPO (Monthly Pay Order) approval in 2024 — showing long-term community impact and verifiable institutional growth.

Overall, the article satisfies Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards for educational institutions, supported by multiple independent sources.

— Shuvomzr (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC) Shuvomzr (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Official Notice for Burihati High School". Department of Secondary and Higher Education (in Bengali). Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
^ বুড়িহাটি উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়. দৈনিক শিক্ষা. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
^ "Burihati High School News Coverage". Amar Campus BD. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
^ "Burihati High School Report". U71 News. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

Redirect non-notable school to Mirzapur Upazila, where it is located. The article cited several indiscriminate, self-published and/or user-generated websites that parrot the government's statistics database. Dainik Shiksha is a reliable source, but the cited piece is a job circular placed by the school. Neither the Amar Campus BD article nor the U71 News one mention the school. Searches in English and Bengali found no sources that would establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rechcigl

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on an academic administrator that was not rigorously checked for accuracy. No evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF, with relatively low publication record. Too many claims (such as selected publications) that fail verification, and evidence from his image of COI. Note that his "research professor" appointment is not a "distinguished" chair, and being a capable administrator does not qualify as a NPROF pass. There is so much dubious information here that I think we must TNT this. Someone can try again later with verifiable information, but my BEFORE suggests this is unlikely to succeed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Environment, and Florida. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 3 of WP:NPROF as an elected Fellow of Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences, the American Society of Agronomy, and the Soil Science Society of America. Also I would say his role as director of two research centers at the University of Florida is pretty significant.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Where are the sources that verify those claims? Just because his site claims these is not enough considering all the other unreliable claims.
2. ASA & SSSA are the same, searches on their site does not find him and the qualifications are not of the level of WP:NPROF#C3 even if he is a Fellow.
3. A search of https://www.google.com/search?q=Czechoslovak+Society+of+Arts+and+Sciences+Rechcigl finds cites for his father (a founder of the organisation), but not him.
4. Only being the top admin of a major university passes WP:NPROF#C6 as stated on the NPROF page and the nom.
Ldm1954 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt the University of Florida website would allow their employee bios to falsify content of that nature. The UF is the #7 ranked public research university in the United States, and has high visibility. That type of fact would get reported quickly if it were falsified and would ruin an academic's reputation and career if they got caught. Doubting the truthfulness of it seems ridiculous.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, this page is an exception. Please check the page history and you will find content removal by myself, Christian Edmundson, Iamnilesh0321 and Timtrent as well as removal of promo by Drmies. Even in what is left there is unverifiable information. For instance the 1st paragraph claims he used AI citing an article without a year or volume and a 1999 award report. Of the 4 pubs, the ISBN of the first is to a book by someone else (see recent history wrt Bobby Cohn), while my searches failed to find 2 & 3. Note that the page used to claim that he edited the "Agriculture and Environment monograph series", a series which does not come up in a search. The books all had two editors, he co-edited. I view omitting a co-author as academic dishonesty, but then I have a zero tolerance policy. Last, but not least, note the obvious undeclared COI of the original editor uploading a picture of Rechcigl taken in his garden. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would not trust any post-secondary institution in the US at this moment, given how they've had to comply with the whims of Mr. Trump in order to keep funding coming through, and the State of Florida in particular. That would be considered a primary source regardless; even in the best of times, we wouldn't use it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish I chose to accept it from this draft and allow the community to reach a conclusion. I reman steadfastly neutral when any AFC acceptance ny me is discussed at AfD. This diff shows how much the article has been edited since acceptance. I'm grateful to the nom for alerting me to this discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to go by what we know. I find no evidence of the honorary/fellow claims. I cleaned up the publications, which were hopelessly incorrect and perhaps misleading, and found he is the co-editor of five of those books (yes, the "Agriculture & Environment Series" exists, though there is no evidence that he was the editor-in-chief or whatever, and three of the books were indeed edited jointly) and has some journal articles to his name. But a search through JSTOR revealed no reviews of those books so it's hard to establish whether #1 of WP:PROF actually applies. Sure, one may feel like being the director of that soil program is a notable thing, but again, that's a feeling (without evidence) and there is no secondary sourcing that supports that. I mean, there IS no secondary sourcing as far as I know. So going by the book, I have to be a Delete. I'm setting aside the other things mentioned here--possibly misleading citations and resume info, COI creation, etc., since they don't really matter for a deletion discussion. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be some confusion here. As the infobox shows, his legal name is John Rechcigl and a search under that name (or just Rechcigl) shows he was elected a Fellow of the ASA in 1998 and of the SSSA in 1999. These are separate the societies with separate boards. The qualifications for these honorary fellowships are similar to those for other societies even if not worded exactly the same, and limited to 0.3% of the members. As a delete vote said in the 2008 AfD, High level recognition by the Soil Science Society of America or International Union of Soil Sciences would tip the balance to notability. He had been made a fellow in 1999, but searching for Jack rather than John makes it hard to find. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or not so hard to find. The fellow awards in the 5 September 2025 version of this article were sourced to an archived ASA web site. So I am am even more confused. @Drmies, any academic's article can be criticized for sounding like a resume since the material covered is the same. They can be rewritten rather than taking facts out. It is not appropriate to remove the fellow awards and the society references that support them and then say you can "find no evidence of the fellow claims". I know we get swamped with promotional articles, often by admiring students or university PR people. But nobility of a person is independent of the state or origin of an article, and "wonderfulness" can be tossed out as you capably did. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I retrieved the much earlier sources for his being elected as a fellow.
The one from ASA is a real source. I checked the numbers for the fellows of ASA as of about 2012. Counting the list gives ~1,800 total fellows and their membership (from Board meeting minutes) was ~8,000.

The source for SSSA does not have enough information for verification. I even joined SSSA to look at his member profile, and it has no information beyond his name. I therefore tagged that source as unverified.

I have reservations about the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences as this is an organisation founded and run for many years by his father Mila Rechcigl.
N.B., I do not have access to the version of the page that was deleted in 2008. Since his being elected as a fellow predates that deletion by 10 years it seems plausible that they were not viewed as notable then. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gscholar shows he has 2400 something citations, but the discussion above doesn't seem to indicate much else is notable. I can't find any book reviews or news articles about this person, or any confirmation for the followships (besides primary sources), so it's a !decline. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added better sources for the ASA and SSSA fellowships, and both are available through WP:LIBRARY. The ASA one, in Agronomy Journal, contains a good page of significant coverage for a biography, though I haven't woven this into the article yet. For me, these fellowships together meet WP:NPROF#3. I agree with Ldm1954 that the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences one is rather dubious in terms of independence, and can't contribute to notability. I also improved some of the existing references with online sources and added an archive-url link for the CV. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Band

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

Non notable defunct bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I am seeing multiple returns even from casual searches, however the focus tends to be more about the closure of this long running company, than about the bus company specifically. Willing to change votes, if reasons can be pointed out why the sources would be SIGCOV. Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, WP:ROTM run of the mill not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Bus Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: NOPAGE. topic is small and everything on the page is not enough for an encyclopedic article. Can be merged to McGill's Bus Services. DAmik001 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start merging individual routes into McGill's Bus Services page and it will quickly get unmanageable - this is why a separate page makes sense. Garuda3 (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but it is only just 2 short paragraphs. DAmik001 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 Glasgow Airport Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is unreferenced. Notability not clearly established by those sources given as most only detail the introduction of new buses on the route. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After a search for possible references, I could not find any reliable sources; there does not seem to be any valid secondary sources on this bus route, and the majority of the sources I did find fail independency from the subject (see WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 03:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bus service, not an organisation or company, so ORGIND does not apply. Garuda3 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

38 Glasgow–Johnstone

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 Ratho–Chesser

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D1 Denby Darts

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welland Wanderer

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W8 Wellingborough–Bozeat

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T7 Bristol–Chepstow

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T1 Bristol–Thornbury

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources cited, copy/paste nomination that doesn't discuss why these sources are not valid.--Garuda3 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are a single local news outlet. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Express

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hertfordshire bus routes 614 and 644

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

280 Preston–Skipton

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

216 Cardiff–Bristol Airport

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

178 Bristol–Radstock

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

159 Coalville–Hinckley

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

141 Nottingham–Sutton-in-Ashfield

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. WP:ROTM not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

126 Wells - Axbridge

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. Possible WP:ATD - merge or redirect to First West of England. Orange sticker (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't got time to look for reliable sources now, but this is a woefully incomplete article. A service numbered 126 ran between Wells and Weston-super-Mare for several decades prior to 2021 when the article starts - it was well established when I moved to Cheddar in 1991. A minute of searching found [43] has a photo from 2003 for example - which doesn't demonstrate notability, just incompleteness of the article, so notability is more likely than the article text alone would suggest. [44] from 2022 is a news article that doesn't demonstrate notability on its own but may contribute towards that. This needs a deeper dive to demonstrate notability (or lack thereof) than a single google search. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What aspects of this run of the mill bus route makes it notable? Orange sticker (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking me that question then clearly you either not read or not understood my comment. I'm saying that knowing whether it is notable or not needs more research than has been done so far or that can be done based solely on a simple google search. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. I argue that the sources in the article and those that exist when carrying out a WP:BEFORE search are not significant and are only run of the mill coverage. The onus is now on those saying the article should be kept to show that significant coverage exists that proves that this topic is notable. Just because something exists and has done for a long time, does not make it notable. Orange sticker (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now read what I actually wrote. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The completeness of the article is irrelevant to its notability. This discussion is not about completeness or quality of content, but whether or not the subject of the article meets criteria for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Arguing that there is probably evidence out there, but you can't find it, isn't productive. Orange sticker (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly still haven't understood what I'm saying. I don't think I can get more explicit than "knowing whether it is notable or not needs more research than has been done so far or that can be done based solely on a simple google search.". I am not arguing this is definitely notable, I'm not arguing it's definitely not notable, I'm arguing that the research done so far is insufficient to answer that question.

Pointing out the incompleteness of the article is a pointer regarding avenues of research - e.g. nobody would think to look for sources from the 1990s for a route that began in 2021, but they would for a route that began in (at least) the 1980s. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

62 Lichfield–Cannock

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

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but one independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. Possible WP:ATD - merge or redirect to Chaserider. Orange sticker (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of John Butkovich

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

Same issue with Murder of Timothy McCoy. Article was created by a sockpuppet, and the victim is only notable for being a victim of John Wayne Gacy. There are numerous serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer whose victims have no articles. I feel like this can be a good redirect into the John Wayne Gacy article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Croatia, and Illinois. Zeibgeist (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the arguments presented here are all there are. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or doesn't) isn't a great argument. Is the topic notable? Then keep. This is not an article on the victim but the event, and the main article is massive and the individual murders received distinct coverage. I see no reason why a few of the individual murders, the most notable ones, cannot have their own articles if the sourcing allows for that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM. Simply being one of the victims of a serial killer does not confer notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per below. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: From #Discovery onwards, very little information is presented that is unique to Butkovich. Most of the rest repeats what is already in John Wayne Gacy, just in more detail, but some information about his existing relationship with the Gacy family should be merged in to Gacy's article. In general, the sources do not address this murder specifically, instead discussing it in the context of the rest of Gacy's murders, which is what we should follow. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Wayne Gacy. We don't need to cover this as a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gacy. Isn't the notability of this event that Gacy was a serial killer ? The individual events don't need separate articles. DarkForest7 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 Israeli missile strikes in Syria

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

WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need an article for every airstrike. This is already covered in full at Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war. Redirect there. Longhornsg (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any reason that this month of missile strikes should be considered independently notable. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adds a new angle to the Syrian civil war which also implicates Iran. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know what "new angle" the above comment is referencing. All the information is in Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war except for one sentence on Israel being worried about retribution. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. We cover this already in the article at Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with what's stated above, nothing new has turned up in the 5 plus years since the event, showing this is a notable thing. One of many such attacks, from what I find in my searches. This doesn't appear more notable than any of the other similar attacks from the war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war#November 2019. Plausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (edit conflict) Most of the content of this article is available in Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war. So, we don't need standalone article but redirect also be a good option in my opinion. Fade258 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amyris, Inc.

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

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

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

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

I don't think this company meets the notability guideline. Almost all independent coverage is business news (esp. about their bankruptcy) and company profiles. The article itself has 5 sources, two of which are press releases from the company and another is just the three sentence long Bloomberg profile for it. The article itself has some major issues. The article has been substantially edited this year by a strategy firm that Amyris has presumably hired. They've used at least two accounts, only one of which has a paid editing disclosure. A temporary account that edited it today inserted a bunch of uncited peacock language you'd expect from a strategy firm. In fact, this company has been editing its own article, sometimes undisclosed, for a while now. In 2020, an employee (who disclosed that on their userpage) copy-pasted a press release into the article, leading to a bunch of revs being revdeled for copyvio. In 2019, an editor with "Amyris" in their name completely replaced the lead with a section of a press release (the "About Amyris" section). In 2017, an IP editor replaced most of the article with promotional material for the company. This was noticed 3 months later and reverted. In 2015, an IP editor copy-pasted an entire PRNewswire press release into the body of the article. That wasn't removed until it was noticed 10 months later. Basically, I don't think this company is notable. Most of the sources online aren't independent or reliable and most of the editing activity is half-disclosed insertion of PR material. IsCat (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It is heartening to know that Wikipedia is working as it should, which is to hold those accountable for placing accurate information on the site. The site has been out of date, and it was I that edited the page yesterday and a few times in the past few months. We are not a PR firm. I am a qualified expert in the field and am working with the company to ensure that the page accurately reflects the current officers and updated details of the business, including its new ambitious vision and purpose. DevryBV (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC) — DevryBV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dear Editor, I represent Amyris, Inc. Thank you for flagging the recent edits for review. Please note that Amyris is a legitimate company that has significant business in the emerging field of biomanufacturing. We were founded in 2003 with technology from UC Berkeley, and employ over 500 people today.

Our science is widely recognized in the industry, as evidenced in many peer-reviewed articles including the following:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12051

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.oprd.3c00300

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36797262/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9935550/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37721978/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7695652/

My understanding is that the edits made to our Wikipedia page earlier this year included updating the names of our executive team and removing information that reflected an out-of-date business model which has since been divested by the company. We are happy to avoid language from PR, our primary objective is that our Wikipedia entry is updated to reflect the current state of the business. AnnieETS (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC) — AnnieETS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

[1] "Official Notice for Burihati High School". Department of Secondary and Higher Education (in Bengali). Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

[2] বুড়িহাটি উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়. দৈনিক শিক্ষা. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

[3] "Burihati High School News Coverage". Amar Campus BD. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

[4] "Burihati High School Report". U71 News. Retrieved 7 November 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]