Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 15

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I could not find any WP:SIGCOV regarding this subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Delaware, Indiana, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why this is in the Delaware deletion sorting list? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only assume that, as he played for both the University of North Carolina Wilmington and the Wilmington Hammerheads, the nominator mistakenly assumed one of them — presumably not the university — was in Wilmington, Delaware (the Hammerheads played in Wilmington, North Carolina, and obviously that is where UNC Wilmington is). That's the only plausible explanation; there's nothing indicating it simply being a delsort typo as I've seen (and even committed myself…) elsewhere. (For the record: I only note this for completeness and do not plan to present an opinion here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of sigcov. lp0 on fire () 12:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 23:56, 16 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.

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colorado, Michigan, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence of any existing reliable sources or notability on the subject; the references found only consist of profilic data, database information, and routine coverage (see WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:ROUTINE). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 06:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-lack of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability, additional searches shows much the same so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:12, 19 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Ahamd Hussain Gilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced article consisting of two sentences, one of which does not really make sense. Online search for sources did not yield any results. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: No explanation needed. WareWolf665 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no source here. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My searches in English and Urdu language don't bring anything, not even passing mentions. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 08:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacking SIGCOV sources even with additional searching.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:44, 19 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.

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

The result was merge to Medieval Institute. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Cistercian and Monastic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources cited are independent, and neither Google nor Google Scholar give me any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Education, Religion, Christianity, and Michigan. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Medieval Institute where it is mentioned. Not enough coverage and content for a separate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - and redirect to Medieval Institute is an agreeable ATD, given the current sourcing, additional searches did not help add more standalone notability to the organization.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:51, 19 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.

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG with most sources I found being pure primary or stats websites that have many notable players. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Ice hockey, France, Latvia, and Slovakia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was able to find a lot of coverage from the Latvian national broadcaster owing to him being a national team player almost straight away with a simple Google search. C679 10:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do any of them describe this person in detail by the way? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 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!} 22:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep may meet WP Hockey with the local national sources analyzed and taken into consideration. --Moem-Meom (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These sources look fine to me [1][2][3]. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:25, 22 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Zia-Ur-Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources do not demonstrate notability. Rht bd (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:15, 8 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!} 22:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - 2-star generals aren't automatically notable, and 2 citations are just not enough for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 20 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is no claim to notability per WP:NCORP in the article, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to find any sourcing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Interviews with the founders, press releases, sponsored content, and run-of-the-mill announcements about funding and other everyday activities do not show how the company is notable. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find anything that wasn't a routine announcement, from the company itself, or a trivial passing mention. The only reference in the list that appears non-trivial and independent is Ref. 21 (the Analytics India Magazine piece) which is about as obvious as churnalism gets. And the first paragraph of the "Services and market" section makes me want to vomit all over my brand-new laptop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As one who took the time to research the subject, it does establish WP:ORGDEPTH. It is both the industry-standard Entrepreneur, Forbes, TechCrunch and other publications, which have written rather adequate (in "length") coverages about this corp, as well as the fact that Leena is evidently amongst the world's top handful AI companies in its niche (conversational and/or agentic) in terms of global market reach and product dev. Chelseam5 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Look like after today edits, that the sources on the article are both independent and have a significant coverage, establishing that the company itself is notable. Ovedc (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which specific sources are you referring to Ovedc? Best three please. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it appears to be a clear notability case, with Entrepreneur magazine's full story on the organization in question here, TechCrunch's story covering new company releases new products (Leena AI builds HR chatbots to answer policy questions automatically), and maybe most importantly Gartner Inc's recent mentions of Leena AI in its recent market reports (requires subs.) which are really show the golden standard in the industry. Ovedc (talk) 10:29, 19 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) 20:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article now satisfies WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Reliable and independent sources such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, Axios, and Computerworld offer in-depth coverage beyond routine funding reports or press releases. The company has demonstrable industry significance within enterprise conversational AI, supported by multiple non-trivial third-party analyses. SanneMonte (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of nominator, User:Bonadea after recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not consider Entrepreneur a suitable RS for NCORP per the September 2020 RFC, but it's a CORPROUTINE announcement regardless. No evidence that the 2025 Gartner report is anything beyond a passing mention, and based on previous versions of the same report I'm fairly sure it is, although I don't currently have a subscription. I think HighKing had a Gartner subscription though, based on comments from a couple of years ago, not sure if that's still the case. (If it is and unlike what I think it goes beyond the trivial mention, pretty please may I get the bit that covers Leena sent to me somehow thanks. There's also the Hype Cycle for Generative AI one, I think.) TechCrunch is WP:TECHCRUNCH of course. Overall my assessment is in the negative. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources witHaven't seen sources from forbes though some editors mentioned them above. h 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.

• This seen sources from forbes though some editors mentioned them above. enaai-employees-siri/363925 Entrepreneur article is a regurtitation from this earlier article written by the same author but which more clearly acknowledges that the article relies entirely on information provided by the company and interview with execs. It is PR and fails WP:ORGIND
• The TechCrunch article likewise acknowledges a reliance on info received. It is also PR fails ORGIND.
• Careful reading of the statement by Ovedc that the company has been recently "mentioned" by Gartner is true, but all I can find is that those "mentions" are inclusion as a dot in a graph entitled a "magic quadrant" for an emerging market if "AI Knowledge Management Apps/General Productivity" - there is no in-depth report. So that mentions doesn't meet the criteria because it fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

There are no sources available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reviewing the available sourcing suggests this does not satisfy NCORP as various editors have noted above. The articles from TechCrunch and Entrepreneur rely heavily on info provided by LeenaAI executives and lack independence in my view. With Entrepreneur India it is difficult to tell if the two articles (from the same author as noted above) are independent or paid pieces per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article from Business Standard is in the sponsored section and definitely cannot be used for notability. Can't assess the pieces from gartner or axios. The sources I have identified in Forbes are contributor pieces and being self-published are not helpful for establishing notability here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:03, 22 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFTWARE, and/or WP:NWEB due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cited Newsweek article (ref 6) is clearly marked as a "sponsor" post and the Forbes contributor article (ref 10) is unreliable as a self-published source per WP:FORBESCON. The Mashable article (refs 2 and 11) lists this website as one of "10 excellent platforms for building mobile apps".

As far as French-language coverage cited in the article, I am seeing the same reliabilty issues with those sources. For example, the Nice-Matin article (ref 1) is labelled as "sponsored by Bpifrance" (sponsorisé par Bpifrance); coincidentally, Bpifrance.fr is cited in ref 3. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and France. Bridget (talk) 21:26, 8 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!} 22:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If GoodBarber were notable nobody would have to pay for it to be covered.RandFreeman 20:03, 19 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.

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. On balance of strength of arguments, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has a lot of routine and promo coverage that doesn't justify notability, with some minor achievements like "entered number 88 at Nigeria TurnTable Top 100" or "ranked on NXT Emerging Top Artistes". It has been already deleted a year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eli_Jae and has been recently recreated still without notability WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG in this article or other online sources. Chiserc (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Chiserc (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Eli Jae has received significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, including Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard Nigeria, Pulse Nigeria, GQ South Africa, and Culture Custodian. “Sexual Healing” charted on the official Nigeria TurnTable Top 100 and the NXT Emerging Artists chart, satisfying WP:NMUSIC points. The article could use copyediting for tone but deletion is not warranted given the clear independent coverage and verifiable chart performance.TarynCheese (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is sourced to unreliable media. See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and the issue of brown envelope journalism. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – He has had a record that has charted in a national music chart. TurnTable Top 100 (Nigeria)] — is a recognized national chart that aggregates official streaming, airplay, and sales data, similar in standing to Billboard charts in other countries. Coverage and chart data are verifiable through reliable independent sources such as TurnTable Charts, Pulse Nigeria, Vanguard.

In addition to chart success, the artist has received independent media coverage in reputable music outlets and industry platforms, further demonstrating cultural and professional significance beyond routine mentions.

Therefore, the article clearly satisfies Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines WP:GNG and music-specific criteria WP:MUSICBIO, and should be kept. Vector diehard (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While Eli Jae is a real artist with releases and some recognition, the Wikipedia article as it stands does not clearly satisfy the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for biographies of artists: there’s insufficient independent reliable coverage to establish broad encyclopaedic significance. The article is better suited for merging or redirecting with improved sourcing than retaining as-is. Unless more substantial independent coverage can be found and added, deletion is the appropriate step. Herinalian (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have divided opinion here among participants, a source assessment table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing of WP:MUSICBIO substance here. It doesn’t do the job of telling us why the musician is notable, the charts do not go anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:42, 19 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.

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. Creator is a sock and no other comments were registered. Izno (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreliable article, very poor sourcing. No effort to back up claims in 4 years. Spritor (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. KylieTastic (talk) 11:05, 9 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!} 22:10, 15 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.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

made when guidelines were a lot inclusive than they are today. Doesn't pass GNG or SIGCOV. zglph^•talk• 21:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Serbia. zglph^•talk• 21:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 8 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!} 22:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability, even with additional searches.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:04, 20 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.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

made in early expansion era when notability guidelines were lenient. No indication of notability upon research. zglph^•talk• 19:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Badminton, and Iceland. zglph^•talk• 19:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find enough information about the Icelandic International to judge if the previous keep vote was erroneous but the NBAD guidelines have changed and I don't think she meets the current stricter guidelines. The articles in the article right now are not enough to pass GNG either in my opinion. Moritoriko (talk) 00:29, 14 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!} 22:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete- unable to find SIGCOV sources to suggest notability. Closest hits I find possibly usable are more of rankings sites , but have yet to see sites featuring specifically the athlete.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:18, 19 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid institutions and governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not clearly show that the topic is encyclopedic, and it is unclear if it would ever come to be more than an essay-like not very noteworthy article. The notability is questionable, and little interest to improve it has ever been displayed. BlockArranger (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as I am trying to come up with a decision, Hybrid organization also exists and seems to be affected with similar issues. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it seems like it is a bit more established, but we should perhaps look into it as well. It seems like there is a lot of original research going on there; perhaps it should at least be trimmed to a significant extent. BlockArranger (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nominally, I do not think there is much grounds for deletion, but this is an awful article. I am trying to read it but half the time the link between the topic of the article and the actual content is obscure. For example, the section The designing of Dolly - A clone and a hybrid? is such a weird metaphorical mess where I don't know what the point of it is. This article seems like a WP:TNT situation. I would rather have a gap in knowledge briefly for an editor to write a better, more encyclopedic article on the topic than be stuck with this for another 14 years. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have noted that the article specifically states that "the term hybrid institution is not yet well-established or clearly defined in academic literature". If you refer to WP:REFERS, articles are mostly about actual types of objects or phenomena rather than about terms themselves; thus, articles should not take a term and discuss what exactly it may refer to; but rather, discuss the thing that the title is presupposed to refer to, possibly with disambiguation available in the hatnote. Here, however, the article is not even clear on its topic. I think that if it is still the case that the term is not well-defined and that it is not established, I do not think we should include is as WP:NOTABLE unless the possibly ongoing debates about the term are themselves notable. BlockArranger (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think those issues are more the article being poorly written than the actual topic being bad. I'm not going to go through around forty scientific papers but I am going to assume at least three discuss the topic in detail (though it wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't even true), which means it should pass WP:GNG or should be merged with hybrid organization. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is, however, that this article seems to be broader in scope than the one you propose it to be merged into. However, I do admit that it is rather unclear as neither one is particularly well-written. BlockArranger (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article on a clearly identifiable topic. Neither the tone nor the content is remotely appropriate here. Reywas92^Talk 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, this is not an encyclopedia article but an essay that amounts to original research. It clearly states in the lede that this is not a settled topic, and then goes on as an academic article arguing all sides. Lamona (talk) 21:29, 22 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The current and existing sources of this subject only consist of database, self-published, or otherwise non-independent information, thus failing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTBASIC. Additionally, although this person is part of a UCI category team, she failed to win the top placement in such a competition, so the article cannot qualify under WP:NCYCLING. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Women. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCYC. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- adding these sources 84 and 86 to the discussion in considering the athlete's notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:53, 19 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The existing sources of this subject only consist of database, self-published, profilic, or otherwise non-independent information, thus failing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTBASIC. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Women. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no sources, only passing mentions and one image. Katzrockso (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – lack of enough SIGCOV sources even with additional searches to establish notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC. Morekar (talk) 14:42, 22 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.

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

The result was redirect to OpenNebula. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not clear if WP:NORG has been established and there are also some potential WP:COI concerns here. Amigao (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amigao, I'm bit confused on the concern, could you specify where are the concerns? We can add more resources and information to the page if needed. I don't see the reason to delete it based only on these 2 assumptions that there's no justification behind (at least on this conversation).

Cheers Francjp (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to OpenNebula, the product is notable but the company fails WP:NCORP; I could not find secondary coverage about the company as opposed to the product. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On further review, I found a PhD thesis with some coverage of the company, but a single source is not enough for WP:NCORP. None of the article's current sources count towards NCORP; e.g. this article was written by an OpenNebula executive. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, thanks, I understand it better now.

  Company and product might be seen as similar, but the Platform is OpenNebula, and then it's OpenNebula Systems as company that participates in several initiatives. I'm including some links, since it's my first time proposing links to Wikipedia, feel free to correct me if I'm not in the right direction.

  In any case, I offer myself again to propose a re-edit of the article to make it more neutral and adding more independent resources.

  Also, I'm including the latest news about the company, not sure if you need that I will circle back to a specific date:

  Membership with Sylva project

  • https://www.mediaindustryobserver.com/article/697717843-opennebula-systems-joins-the-linux-foundation-s-project-sylva

  European Sovereign Cloud

  • https://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/europe-unites-to-launch-its-first-sovereign-edge-cloud/

  This might be more product than the company (but just in case): https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/12/company-claims-1000-percent-price-hike-drove-it-from-vmware-to-open-source-rival/

  European Consortium with Caixabank: https://www.caixabank.com/en/headlines/news/caixabank-is-taking-part-in-a-european-consortium-to-define-a-framework-for-assessing-and-certifying-cloud-services

  OpenNebula joins CISPE consortium:

  • https://www.wdhn.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/860767981/opennebula-systems-joins-cispes-working-group-defining-european-sovereign-cloud-solutions/ (Press Release)
  • https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/860767981/opennebula-systems-joins-cispes-working-group-defining-european-sovereign-cloud-solutions/

  OpenNebula joins CNCF:

  • https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201116005640/en/OpenNebula-joins-Cloud-Native-Computing-Foundation-CNCF-as-Silver-Member (Press Release)

  Use case about migration to OpenNebula:

  • https://www.techwrix.com/broadcom-loses-another-major-vmware-customer-beeks-groups-bold-move-from-vmware-to-open-nebula/
  • https://app.daily.dev/posts/beeks-group-migrates-from-vmware-to-opennebula-due-to-price-hike-and-efficiency-gains-2k4bmou2n
  • https://www.heise.de/en/news/VMware-Broadcom-loses-another-major-customer-due-to-high-costs-10187555.html
  • https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/10/a-year-after-broadcoms-vmware-buy-customers-eye-exit-strategies/
  • https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/07/vmware_rivals_ramp_virtualization_efforts/
  • https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/opennebula-update-targets-disgruntled-vmware-users-with-migration-tools/
  • https://www.channelnews.fr/red-hat-et-opennebula-proposent-des-mises-a-jour-majeures-de-leur-pile-alternative-a-vmware-149298

  CISERO Project:

  • https://cisero-project.eu/news/virt8ra-milestone-european-digital-sovereignty-and-innovation

  IPCEI-CIS project (the biggest Open Source project so far, about Cloud and Open Source in Europe):

  • https://digital.gob.es/en/comunicacion/notas-prensa/secretaria-estado-telecomunicaciones-e-infraestructuras-digitales/2024/06/2024-06-07
  • https://aitalks.es/opennebula-systems-lidera-la-mayor-iniciativa-cloud-de-codigo-abierto-en-europa/ (spanish)
  • https://www.eldiario.es/tecnologia/arranca-primera-nube-100-europea-plena-deriva-radical-tecnologicas-eeuu_1_11969488.html (spanish)
  • https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/noticias/gobierno-financia-tres-proyectos-asegurar-soberania-digital-tratamiento-datos-nube-programa-IPCEI-CIS-prtr (spanish)
  • https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/D/decision-of-the-european-commission-regarding-the-ipcei-cis.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4
  • https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/06/european-sovereign-cloud-grows/

  Virt8ra under the IPCEI project:

  • https://www.investinspain.org/content/icex-invest/en/noticias-main/2025/vit8ra.html
  • https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/six-more-european-providers-join-virt8ra-sovereign-cloud-offering/
  • https://www.muycomputerpro.com/2025/05/26/seis-proveedores-europeos-unen-iniciativa-nube-soberana-virt3ra
  • https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/es/noticias/seis-proveedores-europeos-m%C3%A1s-se-unen-a-la-oferta-de-nube-soberana-de-virt8ra/
  • https://revistacloud.com/opennebula-7-0-y-virt8ra-la-apuesta-europea-por-una-infraestructura-cloud-soberana/

  CORDIS Projects involving OpenNebula Systems:

  • https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101092711
  • https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101189589
  • https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101135632
  • https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/880412
  • https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101120688

  Review Platforms/Business Directories

  • https://www.g2.com/products/opennebula/reviews
  • https://sourceforge.net/software/product/OpenNebula/
  • https://www.softwareworld.co/software/opennebula-reviews/
  • https://www.gartner.com/reviews/vendor/opennebula-systems
  • https://www.peerspot.com/products/opennebula-reviews
  • https://tracxn.com/d/companies/opennebula/__SoWRzMteI9-6ihvcMZ-XVVveJk5zKqiI-BhJfrXsQ0U#about-the-company
  • https://empresite.eleconomista.es/C12G-LABS.html

  Francjp (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any source here that counts towards notability under the WP:NCORP notability guideline. Press releases, churnalism, government documents, and business directories are worthless for notability. Routine business reporting of company announcements involving joining consortia or starting projects is also worthless. The sources under "Use case about migration to OpenNebula" do not contain significant coverage of the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - OpenNebula is in fact notable. OpenNebula Systems is not. I cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT in Google News and zero hits in Newspapers.com. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, what if we edit the page to honour neutralism, without adding too many sources like this (the churnalism and press releases)?. The fact that the company participates in the IPCEI-CIS as an european project is not relevant? (I'm honestly confused on this then, if this doesn't have relevance, how smaller companies can have a page in wikipedia since they don't appear on big media?).

  @CNMall41, What you mean with zero hits on google news?, I tried to include the sources outside our blog, and there are many aside of the above, and I even tried to avoid the churnalism (with no success apparently). I've searched on DuckDuckGo, and Google, using OpenNebula only, or OpenNebula+IPCEI.

  I understand that you are trying to avoid self-promotion, but then I see pages from VMware or Red Hat and I'm honestly think there's a different evaluation criteria. Francjp (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When searching "OpenNebula Systems" I found zero references that show up in Newspapers.com. Notability is not about size or relevance. Notability comes from significant coverage in reliable soruces. The relevant guideline here is WP:NCORP and the references need to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing I find meets that criteria. It is the same criteria applied to other pages but sometimes things exist that shouldn't (see WP:OTHERSTUFF which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). --CNMall41 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I want to clarify that my intention is not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I apologize if my earlier comment suggested that.

What I am still trying to understand is whether improving the article by:

• Removing promotional language
• Excluding press-release based sources
• Adding higher-quality independent references

Would be considered relevant to the discussion. If improvements to neutrality and sourcing are not being taken into account, the rationale for deletion feels somewhat subjective to me, so I’d appreciate clarification on that point.

Regarding sources: I have found coverage through Google Search and Google News for “OpenNebula Systems,” and there are two mentions in Newspapers.com (which I cannot access due to the paywall). Some of the Google News results are not press-release syndications, and outlets like Ars Technica and The Register appear to have independent reporting. I understand the concerns about churnalism and the requirements of WP:NCORP, but I believe there are at least some sources that may qualify as independent and significant coverage.

Since the article has existed for more than 10 years with very few edits, I am trying to understand what new information or criteria prompted the nomination now. If appropriate, I would also appreciate guidance on how other companies in the same space have met notability requirements so I can better evaluate whether comparable sources exist for this topic. Francjp (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language is largely irrelevant to this discussion; the problem is that none of the sources that you have proposed satisfy the strict criteria in WP:NCORP. For example, the Ars Technica and The Register sources mainly cover the product, not the company. The essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase may be useful to read for a more detailed explanation of the notability criteria.

There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, so it is very easy for non-notable articles to fly under the radar for decades before someone stumbles upon them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comments and clarifications. As I’ve mentioned before, my purpose here is to clarify and try to solve this situation.

For independent and reliable sources, as mentioned earlier, there are reference articles from the European Union and the Spanish Government, which can be considered neutral and trustworthy.

We have these:

• About the IPCEI, which is by far the largest technology-sovereignty open-source initiative in Europe:https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/noticias/gobierno-financia-tres-proyectos-asegurar-soberania-digital-tratamiento-datos-nube-programa-IPCEI-CIS-prtr (this is an official communication)
• The Company also appears in the Linux Foundation Landscape: https://landscape.linuxfoundation.org/ (Inclusion here recognises the company as part of the European Open Source Infrastructure ecosystem.)
• The links from CORDIS included in a previous message, that indicates the relevance of the company on different European projects.
• Chairs of the EU Alliance for Industry Data, Cloud and Edge: https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/de/cloud-edge-wg-eu-cloud-alliance (This is an official portal operated by the EU (DG Connect))

Could you please let me know if this satisfies notability and neutrality of sources? Francjp (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not count towards the WP:NCORP notability standard, since none of them are independent of the company. It does not matter whether the company is a part of impactful projects and organizations. The only thing that WP:NCORP cares about is whether reliable sources who are completely unaffiliated with the company have chosen to write about it in detail without relying on company announcements or routine business reporting. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:01, 20 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The existing sources of this subject only consist of database, self-published, profilic, or otherwise non-independent information, thus failing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTBASIC. Additionally, the current informatin consisting of her achievement in Single Speed Cyclocross is unverified and, presumably, excluded from the UCI category, failing WP:NCYCLING. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and Law. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 20:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV sources to establish notability, did find this that may have more SIGCOV for the athlete, but is more an interview, possible ATD would be a redirect to the team she rides for. Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very thin claim to notability here. Geschichte (talk) 05:25, 21 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.

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

The result was redirect to Evan Bayh#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Political candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. Coverage of campaign when not about campaign discusses passing of torch from notable father, so WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indiana. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to Evan Bayh, while wondering offhand how this got to be pertinent to Massachusetts, other than that the subject attended Harvard. Ravenswing 21:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not opposed to a redirect, but the subject fails WP:GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore it to the redirect that I created. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an appropriate target, such as 2026 Indiana Secretary of State election or his father's article. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 20 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.

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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}}.

Does not meet WP:BIO. Almost all of the sources serve just to document specific pieces of information and don't mention Mr. Divine at all or only briefly. Most of the personal information about him is not sourced at all, or only a source that is associated with him(like his company website). The information about his language skills is sourced to the people who educated him- just documentation that provides no information(as one example)

It is entirely possible that the Reconnect organization/movement he founded is notable, or even his films(like the one selected by film festivals that merit articles). But when the unsourced information and information about his movement is stripped out, not much is left other than the fact he hangs out with celebrities who support his movement, but notability is not inherited by association(and, again, would be more relevant to his movement than him personally). Some sources are interviews and thus not independent.

This draft was created by an account by the name Cdlosangeles; the Cd strongly implies they are Mr. Divine themselves. They have denied this, but given what they wrote and their comments(most of which are AI written), I still believe it may be. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidence of Reliable Independent Coverage

  Below is a selection of independent secondary sources with significant coverage of Cliff Divine or his work. This list includes more than thirty television news segments across major US networks where he is clearly identified on air.

  Television Coverage (Independent Broadcast Sources)

  ABC7 News San Francisco

  ABC Action News Florida

  ABC News Orlando

  CBS Orlando

  CBS Pittsburgh

  NBC Sioux Falls

  NBC Orlando

  KUTV 2 Utah

  KHON2 Hawaii

  KTVB 7 Boise

  Q2 News Montana

  WKMG News 6 Orlando

  KTVA Alaska

  WESH 2 Orlando

  And many others

  These are full broadcast news reports featuring him as the central on-screen subject.

  Print and Online Coverage (Independent Secondary Sources)

  Orlando Sentinel

  Local and regional US newspapers

  International press outlets

  Film festival programs and award announcements

  These collectively satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

  A complete link to the full collection of thirty plus news segments was provided above and shows verified, on-air identification of the subject by major network journalists. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  His name being mentioned on air doesn't make him notable. I reiterate- his movement/organization may be notable, but not him personally. I suggest that you write about his organization instead. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I would like to clarify several points, because some of the comments above include assumptions that do not match the facts.

1. Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person.

This can be verified through interviews, festival materials, and nonprofit records. Since both names refer to the same individual, all references to him under either name are valid for establishing notability. Several news pieces refer to him as Cliff Divine while others refer to him by his birth name, and they all point to the same person.

2. The article includes many independent reliable secondary sources that focus directly on Mr. Divine.

There is coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and international outlets. These are not small mentions. They are full news stories where he appears as the central subject. Film festivals and award committees have also published coverage that includes him in a principal role.

3. A link has been provided that contains more than thirty television news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air.

These are verified broadcasts, publicly aired, and independent of him. This constitutes significant coverage by reliable independent sources under WP:BIO.

4. The majority of the sources are fully independent journalism.

These materials come from established newsrooms that operate with editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They satisfy the independence and reliability standards required for a biographical article.

5. Notability is supported by coverage of his acting awards and his public work.

He has been recognized at film festivals, appears in national and international news stories, and is repeatedly covered for his multistate public initiative. This meets the definition of significant coverage from multiple independent secondary sources.

6. For clarity, I am not Cliff Divine, the subject of the article.

I am commenting here solely to correct factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia asks participants to avoid personal speculation about editors. The discussion should remain focused on the article content and the sources, not on assumptions about who may be editing.

7. Regarding @331dot

I want to acknowledge that @331dot has been helpful in pointing out technical copyright issues related to images. I am working on those with Commons. However, it feels disproportionate that after helping remove all images I spent hours organizing, there is now also a push from him/her to delete the entire article I spent months building with independent sources. I am raising this only to highlight how important it is to keep the focus on policy and content rather than escalating toward removing the whole subject. The notability question should be evaluated strictly based on the independent sources presented.

In summary, the subject is covered in a large number of independent reliable secondary sources, including more than thirty television news segments and multiple print and online publications. These meet the requirements of WP:BIO and support keeping the article. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)— Cdlosangeles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Copyright violations are not a "technical issue", but a serious matter that puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy if allowed to persist. Most images found on the internet-including stills from TV broadcasts- are not suitable for use on Wikipedia.

Quite frankly, this article is so glowing in its praise of Mr. Devine that if you aren't him or don't work for him, he should hire you. Most of his personal information is unsourced- where did you get this information? The citations in the Artistry section are largely to the website of people who worked with him- they don't provide significant coverage of him or even say what is claimed- such as "Cliff Divine studied for three months at Identity School of Acting in Los Angeles, founded by Femi Oguns, whose alumni include John Boyega and Letitia Wright." The two sources don't even mention Mr. Devine.

As I said, his organization may very well be notable. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section about Memory Studios is only sourced to the Memory Studios website and his IMDB entry on Amazon(IMDB is user-generated and not considered a reliable source) and should just be removed. The other citations in that section just document the existence of his work. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @331dot for raising the copyright concerns. I want to clarify that I have already started working on the image and licensing issues. The process is ongoing, and I would have appreciated the opportunity to address these concerns before every file was removed. I understand the importance of copyright compliance, and I intend to fully resolve that part of the article.

Regarding the content itself, the focus of the AfD should be the independent secondary sources, many of which come from established broadcasters with full editorial oversight. These sources provide significant and repeated coverage over several years. The issues you pointed out about certain biographical details or non-independent references are already being reviewed and can be adjusted. These are normal improvements, not reasons to remove the entire subject.

I would genuinely appreciate support in improving what has taken months to assemble, rather than seeing everything removed in a matter of days. Collaboration is what strengthens articles, and many of the concerns you mentioned can be fixed through normal editing. I am committed to addressing them.

I hope we can focus on constructive improvement instead of rapid removal. If there are specific areas where you believe revisions would be beneficial, I am open to working on them. My intention is to follow policy and build a solid, well-sourced article, and your help in that process would be welcome. Cdlosangeles (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations cannot be allowed to stand for even one second. Wikipedia must make every effort to remove them or it is at risk of legal action, if not in this specific case, in other cases. If you have copyright-compliant images, you are free to upload those. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Entirety of "Personal life and philosophy" section has no sourcing or no relevant sourcing; entirety of "Immigration struggles and the American dream" is unsourced and the sources there aren't about subject. Same with "Recognition and honors" section and those are only the three I looked at closely. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. The whole article reads like an AI bot wrote it, which I know the nom brought up concerns about the user Cdlosangeles being AI - I feel the same looking at this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO for the subject. Also, this is an autobiography. 🦆 Mike Allen 21:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – while there are a ton of sources here, many of them are either primary sources or do not prove anything about the article's subject (for instance, it may look like this source is being used to prove Divine studied under Jack Garfein, but there is zero mention of Divine there). It is possible that Divine is notable, but unfortunately, the flood of irrelevant sources makes it impossible to tell – if that is the case, WP:TNT applies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional autobiography authored by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs)

• Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Everyone else is saying that NewestPiano (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Clearly created by someone who should have at least taken it through AfC, but also should have read some of the policy pages. Most is sourced to his own work, and often on Youtube or his own site "reconnect." They also make the beginner mistakes of saying "he did Y" and then linking to "Y" not to a source that backs the assertion. I removed the Youtube and some other unusable sources. It may be easier to see what reliable sourcing is there, if any. There is discussion at User_talk:Cdlosangeles, the SPA who created this, that makes it pretty clear that there is COI. I'll try to go through some sources to see if GNG can be supported. Lamona (talk) 22:11, 22 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.

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

The result was merge to Jatav#Notable Jatavs. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an unnecessary list / fork for names of only two people belonging to a particular caste that can very well be merged into the "Notable Jatavs" section of the main caste article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Ethnic groups, Social science, and India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Arbitrary/unnecessary WP:FORK. Svartner (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence for Wp:Sal LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is why we have sections and hat notes. Not everything needs a list. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- into Notable Jatavs as per nom, an alternative would be to draftify if the author can still work to expand it further.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: into the Jatav article. I would note that the list used to be much larger before it was reduced to two entries for procedural reasons. Maybe it will be spun off again in the future. I'm not sure it makes any sense of us to have "List of [ethnicity/caste] people", but Wikipedia is somehow full of them (Category:Lists of people by ethnicity). regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:49, 22 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG. A before search shows passing mentions with no SIGCOV. Kline • talk • contribs 18:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and United States of America. Kline • talk • contribs 18:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only existing sources on this subject are database and self-published, which cannot be used for confirming notability (see WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:ABOUTSELF). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one possibly unreliable citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 20 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.

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Full of red links that are unlikely to be created. Notability is dubious at best. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails notability, as existing sources on this subject only consist of profilic information and routine coverage (see WP:NBASIC and WP:ROUTINE). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 19:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Bonar Napitupulu was the head bishop (ephorus) of the Indonesian branch of the Lutheran Church. It has 6.5 million members. I'm traveling and don't have time to research this but I'd say this person is almost certainly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the HKBP, the largest Protestant denomination in Indonesia, he is notable. Article needs copyedit to remove too many red links. — ERcheck (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Also copyediting is done and the red links have been removed. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - bishops of the larger Christian denominations are presumed notable, and there are the minimum three good sources. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES applies to bishops with meaningful responsibilities within major denominations. The nomination's rationale is deficient: poorly written but not substantially compromised articles are not automatically qualified for deletion. Additionally, future noms should provide an indication of why notability is considered dubious. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:57, 21 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.

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. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Hutauruk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Full of red links that are unlikely to be created. Notability is dubious at best. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- J.R. Hutauruk was the head bishop (ephorus) of the Indonesian branch of the Lutheran Church. It has 6.5 million members. I'm traveling and don't have time to research this but I'd say this person is almost certainly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As head of the HKBP, the largest Protestant denomination in Indonesia, he is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - bishops of major Christian denominations are presumed notable, and based upon a cursory examination of the sources, he appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, The bishops of major denominations,..., are typically found to be notable. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 22 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Very thin sourcing; of the two citations, one seems to be a blog. If this does warrant an article it would be more likley to be for the event, not the person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unknown (what is Come4news ?), not accessible (once uve clicked the Waybackmachine link, it answers this: Hrm. The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.). One of the "sources" is "Gates of Vienna", their page says "At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-33910-59 (talk)

Delete per nom basically. I can't find much online, and what I can find is far from reliable. WP:PSEUDO Polygnotus (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'm also unable to find anything reliable. Meadowlark (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Unable to find reliable sources.Sandycubs (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete impossible to add something ..worth adding to the wikipage. not notable. --Moem-Meom (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a poorly sourced news story about a BLP. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 20 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Largely unsourced article about an add-on mission for the role-playing game Spycraft. The sources that are cited do not seem particularly reliable; next to no pageviews. Nothing here that suggests that a standalone article is required; merge to Spycraft. 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources are game magazines (Backstab [fr], Pyramid, Guide du Rôliste Galactique), exactly what I would expect as sources for a role playing supplement – why do you think they are not particularly reliable? The Spycraft article itself lists a large number of supplements, it would become too long if every supplement were included in this article (although currently only Gentlemen's Agreement has its own article). --Cyfal (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Digital scans of old print media magazines may not get many hits, but the original print magazines were and still are RS. Backstab (1996-2005) was a popular well-produced glossy-coated magazine in France that covered role-playing games, video games, wargames, board games, and collectible card games. Pyramid (1993-2018) was a popular American games magazine covering much of the same territory. Board games and role-playing games and their supplements require at least two RS to be judged as notable. This article has two RS. Guinness323 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and will see if I can find more. BOZ (talk) 21:53, 15 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.

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Aloysius Elementary Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable elementary school that is unsourced and no indication it would meet WP:NSCHOOL. My attempt at a PROD was removed. ZimZalaBim^talk 17:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No claim of notability, no sources that I can find that claim it is notable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A quick search doesn’t turn up extensive coverage from secondary sources. Just review/statistics aggregators and the school’s own website. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark - There's nothing here as the article stands now to merit standalone notability, though I would be open to recreation in the event that far better independent sourcing is found. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark per Alansohn. I don't see any claim to notability here, and the norm is to redirect non-notable school articls when there is a suitable target. Meters (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as an aside, why on Earth would an American school article be tagged as using Canadian English? Meters (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jersey City is sorta in the northern part of the state, which is basically the Canada of New Jersey, eh. Best I could come up with as I'm equally baffled. Before you groan too hard, note that the sports teams at North Plainfield High School in New Jersey are known as the Canucks. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - which is what I prefer to do for most school articles, eh. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 20 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has not been meaningfully edited since 16 August 2023 and WP:N, V, NOR Textcurator (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The only book hits I get are four editions of the same atlas. Web hits seem to be completely irrelevant, all about plants. We need something to justify keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- and use any usable info to the Tamanrasset article, in which this location is in, see this.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:50, 20 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List article about a thing that isn't really a thing. "Father of medicare" is a phrase that a handful of Canadian politicians happen to have been tagged with by virtue of having played a role in the development of the Canadian health care system, but existing as a phrase is not necessarily the same thing as being a notable concept -- there's no analysis out there about "fathers of medicare" as a thing in its own right, there are no sources that collectively discuss the five people listed here as a group on the basis of policy-fatherhood per se, and on and so forth.
Instead, each entry in the list is referenced to a single source that ascribes this phrase to that individual person, without ever establishing the notability of the overall concept, or linking that individual person to the other four on a fatherhood axis, at all. And further, one of the five references is a dead link that's been squatted by something completely unrelated to the topic, and doesn't look to have been a particularly reliable or GNG-worthy source even when it was live.
So the roles of these five people can certainly be discussed in Medicare (Canada) itself, but there's no need for a standalone list of the "fathers" of it separately from that. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Category:Fathers of Medicare, as somebody recently tried to pair this list article with a non-defining category for the same five people, which got deleted (although this article itself wasn't newly created, and has existed for many years.) Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Lists, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Martin is missing from Medicare (Canada)#History but I agree this does not need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 15 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Built entirely from primary sources. Same for all foreign language wikipedia pages on this topic. Fails WP:No original research/WP:Verifiability. We probably could have an article on this (although my WP:BEFORE in English turned nothing up), if editors with access to Icelandic language newspaper archives participated in editing the article. That said we shouldn't support event pages using only WP:PRIMARY materials.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. This tournament seems to be well covered in the Icelandic media and there are several significant sources found online both on Tímarit.is and by googling "Iceland International badminton site:.is" [4][5][6][7][8]. Alvaldi (talk)
• Keep It is a continuous tournament and had been so long included in normal BWF season and managed by Badminton Europe (BE are not primary sources in this case as Iceland had their own badminton federations). Same as BWF too. Plus, the comment above already mention about coverage in Icelandic news outlet. This proposal is like you want to deleting Tajikistan League in Association Football even though it is not a major league. Source in Ukraine - 1, Source in Scotland -2 Lowyat Slyder (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The website for the event is absolutely a WP:PRIMARY source for the event.4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sports page in here use primary sources if that what you care about. This must be about SPS and verifiability again. Look, I gave you two sources on athletes from Ukraine and Scotland (which is their Herald, a newspaper there) there being covered on Iceland International quite recently. Alvaldi look on Timarit which are the library that collected published newspaper in Iceland. Yes, it is being covered by other outlets beside those primary sources. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as above. Florentyna (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above. MontanNito (talk) 17:57, 21 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.

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable for stand alone article, as currently presented and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of enough SIGCOV sources to establish notability. Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:47, 20 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP article was PRODed in 2015, recreated in 2016, tagged for notability and sourcing since then. Paradoctor (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, West Bengal, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page reads like it was copied out of the subject's annual work report. Besides, I don't see notability. I recommend deletion. Achintya2023 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability, additional searching shows more of the same.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:14, 20 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.

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

The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires (N-Z)#T. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I do not believe that this page meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. A search for further sources only produced umpire statistics pages which are generally created for every umpire and are not evidence of notability. No other coverage exists apart from his obituary. From the page history, it appears this page was deleted in 2018 for similar reasons only to be recreated. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is actually the first AfD nomination for this article, despite the current subpage name; the first deletion (in 2017, about a year before the recreation) was via PROD. (This does mean that soft deletion will not be considered if that comes into play.) Given that this has been tagged as a potential NSPORTS failure almost since its recreation, it probably should have come here much sooner than it did, though. (I have no opinion beyond that, though.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying! I've not had to pursue AfD before, so I wasn't sure how to find out further information about the first iteration of the page. PunkAndromeda (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have access to a Kentucky newspaper database with the Lexington Herald Leader and other newspaper's complete archives. Searching that I found no WP:SIGCOV sources, just his name in box scores and lots of a few dozen quick quotes in articles about games in which the high school baseball team he coached played. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires (N–Z)#T could be a possible WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires (N-Z)#T per above. I too found no significant coverage in my search.Katzrockso (talk) 04:28, 20 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't even know what language of coverage is expected. Redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Judo, where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Yugoslavia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yugoslavia at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Judo – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per new sources found. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This guy is a Bosnian Serb whose actual name is Dragan Kusmuk (Драган Кусмук), and yes, Olympedia is the source of this mistake, which is yet another example of it being inaccurate. You can read an interview with him here. I see some over passing mentions as having won a Republika Srpska sporting award, and this piece about the setting up of a club, but no SIGCOV in my search. The Serbian Wiki article references an Encyclopaedia entry but this is not open for our consultation and, even if it was, would not meet the requirement for multiple instances of SIGCOV.

Redirection is not appropriate in this case as the name is clearly wrong and creating a redirect under a mistaken name from a low-quality site would only perpetuate this error. If any SIGCOV is ever found it can be used to create an article under this guy's actual name. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Olympedia is not the "source of this mistake", if you call it a mistake – his name was widely reported to be "Dragomir" in reports from the time of the Olympics, see for example this. Searching the under the name "Dragan", there's a good amount of coverage in newspapers of the time, as one would expect for an Olympian, e.g. this (~400 words), this (~300 words), this (~100 words), and many other mentions that clearly are enough to develop a quality article. That newspapers decades after his career are interviewing him for his accomplishments (apparently he's the greatest judoka in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina – and has fought against Vladimir Putin...) also clearly indicates significance. The encyclopedia is almost assuredly SIGCOV as well given that the Serbian Wikipedia article bases over 140 words on it, including, interestingly, that he later became an American football coach. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Svartner: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    These are pure word-counts of articles that mention Kusmuk. That is not evidence of SIGCOV because the articles I found were of similar length but not SIGCOV. You need to show that these actually have any detail about Kusmuk, not just give word-counts of articles you haven't even read. We also have *NEVER* accepted interviews as contributing to notability, because the content is not independent.

    And yes, getting the guy's name wrong is a mistake. Sources don't get to offload their carelessness on to other sources that they carelessly copied. FOARP (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Carelessly copied"? The official Olympic report literally had his name as Dragomir. I'm not "giving word-counts of articles [I] haven't read" – I do have access to those articles and listed the number of words discussing Kusmuk in them. Interviews alone don't grant notability, but it's pretty darn likely that someone who gets interviewed in newspapers decades after their career for being the all-time greatest judoka in their country is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you can tell us what these article actually say about the subject.

    And since when was an official document getting it wrong evidence that every other source didn't have to fact-check anything before blinding relaying its data? Can you see why people say this isn't a secondary source if that's what they do? FOARP (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If every single source gave a certain name, it's not an "error" originating with Olympedia like you claimed it is. We don't even know that it's a mistake – Dragan and Dragomir are similar names and it's reasonable that one may be a nickname for the other. The first source I cited is 400 words about a compensation issue that resulted in his suspension, the next is an in-depth story about his performance and bronze medal at the European Championships, and the third is also about a medal at the European Championships. We clearly have enough to write a quality article with what's available, not to mention the odds of the encyclopedia not covering him significantly are very slim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "it's reasonable that one may be a nickname for the other" - They're only as similar as Robin and Robert, and one is definitely not a known nickname for the other. FOARP (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This profile [9], in addition to the other coverage found by @BeanieFan11, provides more than enough significant coverage for this Olympian to pass WP:BASIC. It's noted in this article that he won 12 national championships, was ranked in the top 5 in Europe in the 1980s, which should indicate more coverage in the native language, some of which was already located. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG per sources listed above by BeanieFan11 and Katzrockso. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources listed above by BeanieFan11 and Katzrockso contain the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 22 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.

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

The result was redirect to Soling European Championship#Medalists. The other suggested target is currently at AfD and looks headed towards a merge, so this is a far more suitable closing option for now. If factors change, feel free to handle editorially or discuss at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG with only non-significant coverage in non-independent sources. I have not found any relevant coverage for the sportsman or the professional in local Dutch sources. Of current sources, 1–3 are result lists, 4 is a passing mention, no mention in 5, and 6 is a database. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even fails the GNG's lower bar. The GNG was also the only hope for keeping the article as careers in and out of sports can add up. Here they don't. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Soling European Championship#Medalists – At least as a measure to preserve the article's history (WP:CHEAP). Svartner (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- to 2012 Vintage Yachting Games – Soling where the subject is also mentioned, as current sourcing and additional searches shows lack of SIGCOV to establish standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:31, 20 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.

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

The result was no consensus. and no indication any input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 00:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't believe this is notable enough. References mostly passing mentions, not enough in depth coverage. Editor has COI with company. Mostly promotional. Equine-man (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Nebraska. jolielover♥talk 09:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write neutrally and put it through the article verification process as per the COI guidelines I found. What changes would be helpful to recommend to help the article be more neutral and notable? Cstills (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's funny, on your User page you stated:

"I am an employee of Orion Advisor Solutions, and as part of my role, I am working to ensure that Wikipedia articles related to Orion are accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. I understand Wikipedia’s policies on COI, neutrality, and verifiability and will not make direct edits to pages related to my employer. Instead, I will suggest changes on article Talk pages for independent editors to review."

49 minutes later your create an article about your employer. Equine-man (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft and submitted it for review. From the guidelines on COI disclosures, I thought that if I disclosed my COI, created a draft version of the page, and then put it through for an editor to review that was the process to help manage the COI. If I misinterpreted that, I apologize — I thought that I was adhering to the guidelines.

Can you advise me on the right way to suggest an article is created when I have a disclosed COI? Cstills (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability front, I was looking at a couple of other organizations within our industry (Cetera and SS&C Technologies) as references for what may have qualified as noteworthy and to get a structure to follow. Cstills (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the process they followed is fine, I don't think the article would have been deleted on BROCHURE alone were the sources better, though the sources are very, very WP:CORPROUTINE, to the point where I think Passengerpigeon maybe shouldn't have accepted it (but AFC only goes by "likely" as the threshold anyway, so we can probably count it in their 50% or whatever likely is supposed to be). I think we can accept that everyone tried to do their best here.

As for what kind of sources, Cstills, it would be probably be best if you could find ones that are not on the list at CORPROUTINE linked above. Also pay attention to WP:ORGIND and WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE, avoid stuff that is based off press releases, and only use trade publications if they very, very obviously meet those criteria. Depth and independence are to be interpreted jointly here, so you need to remove everything your company provided before looking for the detailed secondary coverage, to the point that you can write a whole article on two or three. If you find the best three sources that meet that, copy them here.

Looking at Cetra, I would probably nominate that for deletion if there weren't more sources, to be honest. If you wanted a reference article... hmm, can't really think of anything off the top of my head, Qapital maybe, but that's on an app rather than a company and we tend to look for different things there. Green Dot Corporation is probably a bit too high a threshold. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the content to remove as much promotional material as I could identify and have put it on the article's Talk page for review and consideration.

For the references, I'm not sure how they qualify as passing mentions, as they are articles primarily about Orion. Cstills (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 15 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.

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

The result was merge to CANT 21. Star Mississippi 00:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CANT 38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Suggestion on its talk page that it could be merged with CANT 21, but as this has no verified information, I am unsure. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Aviation, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 1 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!} 07:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived source used by the article on it:wiki. Still not great but it at least indicates that the subject is not fictional. This book may be a better source if someone has access to it. The problem with merging with the CANT 21 article is that article is also terrible (and is largly unreadable).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to CANT 21 as an unbuilt variant. That article may be poor, but that can be fixed (and AfD is not for cleanup anyway). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CANT 21. The 38 article is completely unreferenced, so there is nothing to merge. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:53, 22 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.

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

The result was redirect to 2010 CFL draft#Round six. ✗plicit 14:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG. Best I found was this. He "retired" before ever playing in the CFL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Canada. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2010 CFL draft#Round six – As possible WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it needs to be redirected. If someone types Conor Elliot in the search bar, the draft will come up. And he could be hogging the namespace of a more notable Conor Elliott. It's not that unique of a name. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Redirect is opposed by nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2010 CFL draft#Round Six: per Svartner as an alternative to deletion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for the other notable (which there is not) Conor Elliotts to have this deleted. This redirect can be expanded for any other future "Conor Elliott"-related content and be moved to Conor Elliott (football) or another suitable location as necessary. Kline • talk • contribs 23:46, 18 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.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs and yells of the University of Trinity College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced, I doubt these songs are notable. Maybe could merge into Trinity College, Toronto. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 10:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this can be merged into the article. Lyrics are copyright and we're also not a media repository. Maybe the songs can be mentioned but that requires adding sources. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a current student. I don’t understand well the inner workings of Wikipedia, but many of these songs and yells are indeed notable and this article is the main way for students to easily get them if they don’t have them memorized, and stay in touch with the history of the university. They are of course difficult to source by nature, but it is worth noting that this article has real value to a community of students, where you can see phrases like Niminium Cervisi (the name of one of the songs) on plaques in the halls. If it is a question of relevance, this article should stay. If it is determined for some reason this article needs to be deleted for reasons besides relevance, while I should like the entire article to stay, at the very least there are a number that are still culturally significant and should be merged into the Trinity College Article -housemaster1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housemaster1111 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTLYRICS and various other provisions of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that the College has a series of unconventional chants can be explained at its main article, if supported by reliable sources. For the previous commenter, Wikipedia is far from the only website in the world where lyrics can be reviewed by students. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 17 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.

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

The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: https://www.paulsutinproductions.com/biography" (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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