Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 18#Hycomat

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 The Heritage Foundation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Boothe Luce Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failed to find independent WP:SIGCOV that this award is notable, meets WP:NGNG, and merits its own article. Redirect to The Heritage Foundation, where it's already mentioned Longhornsg (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 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. ✗plicit 06:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. As soon as I got to the line saying the first role of AI in politics was in 1952, when the UNIVAC I predicted the outcome of the US Presidential election, I knew I was reading the work of someone confidently incompetent. We already have Artificial intelligence and elections, which isn't the greatest article but is at least on a coherent topic. In this article, the vast majority of text and sources aren't about AI in politics at all. They're about computation (broadly defined) in polling and politics, or about social issues around AI in general. The degree of OR and SYNTH is breathtaking, as is the degree of overlap with real articles. Take away the content already covered elsewhere and you'd have two em-dash-laden sentences. Delete with prejudice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Artificial intelligence. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT: I don't think the fact this article takes a too-broad scope precludes notability. See this abstract for what this article could coherently address without the OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No surprise, what looks like an essay is more low-quality content from WikiEd! Why exactly is the author suggesting that the use of databases has anything to do with artificial intelligence? What does "meetups and blog-based campaigning" have to do with AI? I don't think even renaming this as The Internet and computing in U.S. politics would be appropriate, with the essay-style synthesis. The mentioned Artificial intelligence and elections – also a student project – isn't very good either. Perhaps merging the regulations section to Regulation of artificial intelligence could be appropriate though. Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do think much of this, especially the beginning, falls under Computational politics and could be profitably merged there. Also a bit to Voter database. I helped facilitate this class which tried some new things that didn't 100% work out, and I'm committed to putting in the work to find a good solution for whatever salvageable content there is.--Pharos (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the merge suggestion above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr M & Revelation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be generated by an LLM. Makes frequent use of em-dashes, the rule of threes, words like "fusion", and some details are suspiciously vague. When I first found this article, it was full of broken templates and was a dead-end page; I've cleaned it up now. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for AI. CabinetCavers (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- checking into the citations does confirm the group definitely exists, some even fairly SIGCOV, additional searches does return a handful featuring the religious music group. Not opposed to draftify as ATD for more improvements be it content or citations.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Heretoforeyou (talk) 08:28, 15 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!} 23:23, 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 redirect to The Heritage Foundation. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failed to find independent WP:SIGCOV that this center is notable, meets WP:NORG, and merits its own article. Redirect to The Heritage Foundation, where it's already mentioned. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Conservatism, Politics, Asia, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect per above: I wonder whether WP:NCORP ought to formally say that subdivisions, faculties, departments etc should generally be presumed not to be notable seperately from the parent organisation? Either way, this one clearly doesn't have the SIGCOV to stand alone, and could be much better rolled into the main Heritage Foundation article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Heritage Foundation. A subdivision of a think tank will have a big hill to climb to become independently notable, and I find no indications that this one succeeds. The content, as it currently stands, is either unsourced or primary-sourced, and so it would be unsuitable for merging. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:23, 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. ✗plicit 14:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of widespread use of this term. I can only find three uses of this term; once from the authors of two books and two other isolated instances. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - just three sources? Bearian (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Further sourcing beyond the three used in the article does exist, however, the term seems not to have picked up much traction and is mostly used by Paul Donovan, an economist who seems to use it frequently. There seems to be a lack of significant independent coverage, and what I could find is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. This term has been used in two books by Paul Donovan, both published by Taylor & Francis: 2011's From Red to Green? How the Financial Credit Crunch Could Bankrupt the Environment and 2013's Food Policy and the Environmental Credit Crunch. The term saw earlier use as the title of a 2008 article in Current Biology. Paul Donovan wrote an article for the Financial Times about the concept in 2011, and a 2017 article in the Jerusalem Post reports on a talk he gave about the concept at a conference in Tel Aviv. I would also accept a merge to Paul Donovan (economist), since he seems to be the major proponent of the term. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:18, 25 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 23:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

None of these references are more than reviews or press releases that would meet WP:CORP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Found an in-depth Forbes reference but falls under WP:FORBESCON. There are some product reviews out there as well but I do not see them adding up to WP:PRODUCTREV. Nothing in Google Books either. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 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 December 2024 Israeli airstrikes in Yemen#26 December. On merits, I see a unanimous consensus supporting the merge/redirect, and per WP:NOTBURO this does not need to be re-discussed on the article talk page when we have consensus here. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to December 2024 Israeli airstrikes in Yemen, where this strike is already covered in better context of the wave of Israeli airstrikes. Coverage is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:SIGCOV beyond the initial burst of news coverage. Not every one of hundreds of airstrikes as part of a broader campaign, even if it did garner significant contemporary news coverage, meets WP:NEVENT. This one did not change the course of the war, lead to the death of someone significant, or generate significant secondary coverage about its WP:LASTING impact. While it won't be forgotten, and there will be passing mentions, its a part of the broader campaign. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, a separate article is WP:REDUNDANT. Same deletion rationale as similar articles like this, this, and this, among others, the community agreed to delete or redirect.

Longhornsg (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Israel, and Yemen. Longhornsg (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with December 2024 Israeli airstrikes in Yemen#26 December – The section can be expanded, but the fork is unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 01:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhat selectively into December 2024 Israeli airstrikes in Yemen#26 December. I wouldn't call it a FORK. It's an unnecessary SPINOFF and excessive fragmentation. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. No proposals or support for deleting the article. AFD is not "articles for discussion"; if deletion isn't being considered, this isn't the place. The article talk page is where to discuss a merge (and I would support such a merge). Stifle (talk) 15:43, 25 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) 22:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese of Coimbatore of the Church of South India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced, almost all info has zero sourcing to back it up. One of the few sources is a Facebook page. Additional citations tag has been in place for 5 years Appears to have been created by someone close to the church and is full of unsourced fluff. Only 3 sections have inline citations at all. More than that, no clear notability to me. aesurias (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. aesurias (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of solid news coverage of scandals in this diocese ([1], [2], [3]), so the article should be updated to reflect this secondary coverage. Coverage thus exists as would be presumed for a diocese of a mainline church per WP:DIOCESE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Article should be improved from its current state but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep: I found several helpful references in The Hindu and added them to the article. The diocese has had more than its share of controversies, and those controversies have been covered by a reliable newspaper. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs clean up, but shows significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as The Hindu, and New Indian Express and added to the article so that WP:GNG is met in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 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 merge to Rigetti Computing#History. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

His company, Rigetti Computing appears notable, but he doesn't seem independently notable from it. I can't see an article with any remote encyclopedic value developing from this as it stands. I want to put it here to see what others think. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Rigetti Computing#History – Simply add whatever is relevant from his personal biography to the section. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Physics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I should have added, as the nom, my preference/!vote is to merge per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON DarmaniLink (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sounds good to me. Founder and the company he named after himself, mutual context and does not appear it would be too unwieldy. WP:NOPAGE and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 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 merge to James Backhouse Walker. Pinging @LEvalyn: as requested. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walk to the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot establish notability Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Royal Society of Tasmania where it is mentioned. I checked ProQuest, Informit, Google Scholar, and a few other databases and came up with nothing useful. The best I've got is that it's mentioned in a footnote here. The one secondary source currently linked in further reading [4] only provides a passing mention of the book. Couldn't find anything else. MCE89 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to James Backhouse Walker per LEvalyn, makes sense to me. MCE89 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to James Backhouse Walker. I was able to find a little more passing and non-independent information, sufficient to improve the article itself a little, but not enough for an NBOOK pass. I prefer a merge to the author because I think there's information worth preserving, which would be undue on the Society's page. Happy to execute the merge if that's the consensus, just ping me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:04, 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. Star Mississippi 02:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Despite acceptance at AFC this is a WP:ROTM transport company, even when using electric vehicles. In 2025 this is not a notable thing. Sourcing is a mixture of corporate announcements and funding round releases, none of which serve any purpse in assessing notability. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: References are all of the type "business did business things". No WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems that the reviewer checked to see if enough citations met WP:42 requirements without actually checking to see if they met the more restrictive WP:CORP requirements that require reporting on more than routine activities. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Anachronist, as the original reviewer, I did check every source currently on the article for qualifications of notability (and under crtiteria-specific guidelines as well); while some weren't necessarily capable, I noticed that others met the borderline. However, I've recently learned that it would be better to have at least 2–3 sources supporting sentence claims in the case of these types of articles and references. While I was looking for further potential sources on this company, I remember finding a little bit more news articles from different outlets that went over the same fact or topic present in this article. While I'll take into account this strategy to improve evidence of notability for future cases, I am unsure if such improvements would be able to warrant the existence of this article, especially since I did not find as much independent sources as it would seem.

I'll let the voters of this nomination take into account all the information provided on this nomination, the article, what I just mentioned, and other existing sources, but considering that I was the original reviewer, I am deciding not to place a vote here; I'll leave that up to you guys instead. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 07:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to accept and it's fine to !vote even if you've previously reviewed the article, but I'm surprised that you decided any of the coverage passed WP:CORPROUTINE if you did specifically analyse it under NCORP, Alex26337 (noting that Supply Chain Digital is published by BizClik Media, a marketing company, thus excluded from other analysis). Not quite sure what you mean by at least 2–3 sources supporting sentence claims, but quality is usually better than quantity. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: Quality is, of course, the priority when I review the sources (current and existing), though I consider quantity when testing for significant coverage. I'd like to emphasize that not ALL of the sources present on the article passed WP:NCORP (e.g., some were self-published, non-independent, trivial or, as you mentioned, routined), though the ones that I feel passed my judgement should be the ones to determine whether the article is notable enough (I wish I remembered which ones... 🙁). Of course, such opinion is always available for others to interpret. Also, I may put my own vote in depending on the state of this nomination in the future. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 10:24, 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 merge to Labor market area. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Labour market area (edit | talk | history | 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 is a WP:DUPLICATE of Labor market area with completely overlapping content. If merged, the Wikidata's will need to be merged as well. मल्ल (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge-to Labor market area to streamline the topic being described by both pages. Agree with Nom s point.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:22, 23 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 Little Goody Two Shoes (video game). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Mirror (video game) (edit | talk | history | 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 only significant coverage from a reliable source I can find about this game is a single review here. It doesn't seem to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Little Goody Two Shoes (video game) might be an WP:ATD given that the game is a prequel to this one, it would make sense to incorporate something about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing my article and explaining everything clearly. I understand now that I should have improved it more before publishing. I really appreciate your feedback, and I’ll move it to my draft space to work on sourcing and rewriting it properly. Thanks again for your time and for helping me understand the process better. MeldyRose (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't move articles when an AfD is in progress. As the banner says, do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. You'd have to actually ask me to withdraw my nomination first.

If you had asked me though, it's unlikely I would have because I believe this is a WP:AKON situation. I don't believe this article would be notable in any incarnation so redirection or deletion are the only potential options for it in my view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge per nom, preferably the latter. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello everyone, I found some published interviews with the developers that might help clarify the connection between Pocket Mirror and Little Goody Two Shoes.

  According to AstralShift in a Siliconera interview, they stated:

  "Little Goody Two Shoes is a direct prequel to Pocket Mirror! With that said, while Little Goody Two Shoes’ story and true ending are tied to the events of Pocket Mirror, it is not mandatory to play one to understand the other, as both games were designed to exist as standalone titles"

  There's also a MonsterVine interview where the developer stated:

  "Both games are directly connected and take place in the same universe, with Little Goody Two Shoes being the prequel to Pocket Mirror! With that said, both games can be played and enjoyed by anyone as standalones"

  Would this information support keeping Pocket Mirror and Little Goody Two Shoes as separate topics, since the developers confirmed they're standalone games despite the shared background? MeldyRose (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest reading the WP:GNG policy in depth. Pages are not merited simply because something exists, it has to also have standalone notability. The merge is being discussed as an alternative to outright deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Little Goody Two Shoes (video game): the article clearly does not meet GNG and there is no reception section. As for the sources mentioned above, they are both interviews with the developer, which is WP:PRIMARY and thus they don't count towards notability. @MeldyRose, thanks for understanding our concerns and what we're doing here. You're always welcome to copy and paste the article's contents and put the copy in your userspace so you can work on it. If you take a look at my userspace, you can see I've done that a few times myself. Who knows, maybe this becomes notable in the future? Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per above; one source with significant coverage is insufficient. IgelRM (talk) 22:31, 23 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. But I will userfy it for Acrom12 Star Mississippi 02:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

RIP, but Wikipedia ultimately is not a memorial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Virtually all sources are about his shocking death a young age of 21. There is no significant coverage of him as a player prior to his death. He was only part of the training pool for the Philippines men's national volleyball team. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Undisclosed cause of death, so it's hard to judge if that's a notable event. A "pool player", semi pro then in the U21 in a few matches. I don't see athletic notability either. Not really much else found, other than about his passing away. Was unknown before the death, which doesn't change notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and lacks of WP:LASTING effects. Svartner (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Userfy – I understand the points about notability. The article was written using reliable news sources like Rappler, ABS-CBN, GMA, Philstar, and Manila Times, and it sticks to verified facts about Ike Barilea. That said, I get that most of the coverage is about his passing and not much about his career before that. If editors think it doesn’t yet meet the notability standard under WP:GNG, I’m fine with moving it to my userspace or to Draft instead of deleting it. That way it can be improved later if more in-depth sources come out. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Acrom12 (talk)

Could copy the content to your sandbox? But personally I do not think we will see any more indepth sources other than the routine "died so young" coverage we had. Also its recently confirmed he died of a traffic accident which is a tragic of course but it does not usually lead to WP:LASTING (such as widespread sports regulations reforms) changes.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:12, 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 redirect to Baruunturuun as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baruunturuun Airport (edit | talk | history | 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'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Mongolia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely unsourced stub and no established notability Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baruunturuun, the community served by the airport (where it is mentioned), as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:10, 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 12:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Online communication between school and home (edit | talk | history | 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'm struggling to see how this is a coherent topic that is notable enough for an article. Specifically, how is "online communication between school and home" more specific and notable than "parent-teacher communication" or "student-instructor communication"? Extremely heavy on WP:SYNTH. And finally, the article is obviously and carelessly AI-generated: Multiple "benefits" and "challenges" sections, meandering text, and hallucinated references galore: Refs. 15 and 16 exist, but the others with links do not. Oppose merge because the article is such a disaster, picking through to find good content to merge elsewhere would be a waste of time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no reason to keep such a specific article, especially if it is AI generated. CabinetCavers (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the page's content pre-dates any publicly available LLM models and the original text (which remains part of the article) was clearly written by an actual person. I behoove nominators to please look at the history of an article (especially one dating back to 2010) before claiming a chatbot generated this, because it certainly did not in this case (and the missing sources are likely hard-copy rather than available online; again, none of the sources were hallucinated by an LLM because said LLM did not exist when the article was created.). Even if an article may be deleted, dismissing it as 'AI' should not be done unless the tells are clearly there and is hurtful to previous page contributors editing in good faith. Nathannah • 📮 17:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not dismissing it as AI, I'm saying the article as it stands is garbage, is inherently heavy on WP:SYNTH, contains nonexistent references, and covers an ill-defined topic. This would be equally true if AI were not involved. It just so happens that AI makes it incredibly easy to make articles like this, or to edit existing articles into useless junk like this. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, please don't denigrate an article as 'garbage' or 'useless junk', especially when it's clear it had multiple contributors. Nathannah • 📮 13:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, I strongly disagree. The article refers to sources that do not exist. That immediately classifies it as garbage in my book. WP lives and dies on verifiability, and if we don't have that, we have no encyclopedia. The number of contributors to the article is perfectly irrelevant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essay-cruft. We already have Distance education and other articles that cover the area. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The source problm only compounds the issue that this seems like a strange encyclopedic topic to begin with. Geschichte (talk) 05:31, 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 redirect to Ansongo#Transport. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ansongo Airport (edit | talk | history | 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'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. The best that I could find was this article that stated: "[UNPOL] a renforcé la sécurité de l’aéroport d’Ansongo lors d’opérations humanitaires." "[UNPOL] reinforced security at Ansongo Airport during humanitarian operations.]" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ansongo#Transport as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ansongo#Transport – Per Bushranger; Svartner (talk) 23:50, 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 merge to Robbins algebra. Selectively, as discussed. Sandstein 09:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equational prover (edit | talk | history | 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 found one independent source (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html), but no others. EQP is already mentioned on Robbins algebra and William McCune and the NYT source can be added to those pages. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Technology, and Computing. Truthnope (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to have been referenced by number of other authors in addition to the NYT article. Kspiers (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exceptionally sloppy work on your part. Have you checked to make sure that these references are not passing mentions? Please read WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ouch. "Exceptionally sloppy work" is kinda harsh. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be harsh, but it is not unfair. Neither you nor Kspiers appear to have actually read the NYT article, because it is clearly a passing mention. Also, the page that Kspiers linked is a collection of abstracts that all mention EQP once or twice at most. Incredibly embarassing behavior for two users with a combined tenure of 30 years: I expect better. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please chill. First, I did look more closely at the papers which is why I edited the page to include one of them. Second, just because my account has existed for a while doesn't mean this isn't my first time commenting on a AfD. Thanks for making it a pleasant experience that I'll want to do more of. Kspiers (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to thank me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Equational prover" is a generic term. The article is about EQP, a particular equational prover. "Equational prover" looks notable based on Google Scholar results. As for "EQP", the prover, the NY Times article looks compelling. Either this article needs to be expanded to cover equational provers in general or it need to be renamed to something like "EQP (educational prover)". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to Robbins algebra: The NYT article is a passing mention. I did find this, which is more than a passing mention of EQP. However, nearly all of the literature that I could find mentions EQP in passing and is related to Robbins algebras, specifically McCune's use of EQP to prove that all Robbins algebras are boolean algebras. While I also don't really have a strong preference on a merge / redirect target, I think it is an uphill battle to claim that we should keep this as a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robbins algebra Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Robbins algebra. WP:GNG stipulates there should generally be significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (with a footnote that Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic). The NYT article is a good source, with the proof of the Robbins conjecture as its main topic but also covering EQP as a secondary topic (starting from the lead sentence of its second paragraph). However, a second GNG source has proven difficult to find. These quotes may help explain why: (Bonacina/Stickel) EQP was written with a specific goal in mind: proving the Robbins conjecture; (Wos) Bill designed another automated reasoning program he called EQP, a program with built-in commutative/associative unification. Perhaps one reason he did so, perhaps the main one, was his intention of answering the decades-old Robbins algebra problem. Multiple Argonne sources are available, which have comprehensive coverage but are non-independent. Hence they can't be used to prove notability for EQP but can be used in Robbins algebra given other sources already establish notability; merging to this article seems an appropriate course of action. (Only difference to redirecting is that I'd like us to add the clause developed by the Mathematics and Computer Science Division of the Argonne National Laboratory to the merge target.) Preimage (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Robbins algebra per above.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 26 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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalyst (American newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG. The article's cited sources are largely depreciated, primary, or otherwise not WP:RS. A search for articles produces trivial coverage ([[5]], [[6]], [[7]]), and a borderline case ([[8]]). Jcgaylor (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, and Colorado. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources about the 2002 controversy [9] [10] - I find that SPLC is a WP:RS.

Sources on the the satirical flyer [11] [12] (less substantive coverage, but still contributes to WP:N). FIRE states [13] that that the Colorado Springs Gazette put out a front-page story about this, we just don't have access to it since the archives are through NewsBank and are costly.

Under the WP:GNG, I believe there was significant coverage in independent reliable sources and so the topic is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Not every college newspaper is notable. It should suffice to merge this into Colorado College and then convert into a redirect. That's what I tried to do until someone else undid it. Eric Schucht (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:43, 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) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was the subject of multiple academic papers[14][15]. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Source evidence presented above presents sufficient WP:SIGCOV to pass our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 00:47, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch and Murray Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Draftify on the basis that, with work, notability may be established. This has been moved too soon to mainspace, and the references are mainly information abut productions, and not about M&M productions. Fails WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Theatre, Business, and Canada. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or Delete, and Extended-Confirmed Protect - An article should speak for itself so that a reader will know, on reading the article, how the subject is notable, meaning that the article should identify what the significant coverage is. This page does not (because the author may have been more concerned with getting the article into mainspace than with completing the article). Protect the page so that it only goes back into article space when reviewed by an neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sorry my previous vote was for a different article and I switched too quickly between windows. I do think this should be deleted, but draftification is suitable and my prior comment doesn't apply. Sorry. SPOOKYDICAE👻 20:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify or Draftify as it can be developed further for the mainspace. Checking the sources, the subject can meet required criteria with more improvements to the draft and a review by a neutral editor.Damiano (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify. I don't see anything in the recent version that ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify This article and draft of an article for Draft:Aaron Craven were created by User_talk:Aaron_Craven, who is named in this article. This is blatant COI. This user needs a COI warning and preferably to no longer make changes to this article. The article reads like an advertisement for the group; it includes reviews of the plays that do not mention M&M. PROMO and COI - it does not belong in main space. Lamona (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC) See below.[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has been revised by other editors, substantially improving it. It should qualify for main space though a neutral editor can check this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianerico (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources are about M&M Productions, although they are about plays put on by that group, and often receive praise. This, however, doesn't meet NCORP or NONPROFIT. There is the added fact that the article was created by the founder of M&M and reads as a promotion of the company's work, including special mention of the plays written by the founder. Ironically, it looks to me like the founder has a better chance of being notable as there are a few sources that are primarily about him. He also wrote an article about himself and it has been draftified due to COI. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A non-profit theatre company whose productions gets routinely reviewed in the press over an extended period of time passes the spirit of WP:CREATIVE. Yes I know this is for people, but WP:ORG is poorly written/not targeted well to performing arts organizations. I would say reviews of the plays are indeed WP:SIGCOV of the company itself.4meter4 (talk) 04:12, 26 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. But merging can be discussed further on the article talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only two sources, one of which is WP:PRIMARY. Notice on page about the article being mostly plot for nearly 10 years. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY - I have greatly expanded the article (with the help of User:JuneGloom07) and there are now 31 sources from various newspapers and website, showing notability. There is now sourced casting, development and reception and meets GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after improvements made by above editors, subject passes GNG. – Meena • 09:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With the improvements made, I think the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:FICT. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have also added some sourced information and looking through news archives there is scope for further expansion. The subject passes WP:GNG and per WP:HEY I do not think it should be deleted.Rain the 1 23:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of One Life to Live characters introduced in the 1980s. The reception doesn't have me convinced; it seems to largely be Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS plucked from wider pieces on the series at a glance, with no strong Wikipedia:SIGCOV that actually focuses on her character. The development does an adequate job of covering both irl development and in-universe story changes and can be merged to the list to retain this content (Where she is surprisingly not listed as of now). I'd appreciate some strong SIGCOV to verify this subject meets the GNG independently of the characters, as otherwise per Wikipedia:NOPAGE I see no reason to cover this as its own article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source [16] talks about the character in depth, as does this one [17] and this one [18] DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is a Wikipedia:ROUTINE news update piece that just is telling us her character is returning; that doesn't give any real notability granting SIGCOV here. Same as the second source, which is just reporting on what her actress said about her return. The first source is entirely plot summary. None of this provides actual SIGCOV that grants notability (I.e, critical reception, impact, analysis, etc). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the first source talks about her characterisation and gives reception DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization is just an official blurb about what their personalities are in the show, and there's literally no reception; it's just a plot synopsis. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree – it's not an official blurb at all, it's the writer's opinion of the character being lustful for money and returning to her wicked ways etc – the show definitely did not write anywhere that she was that way, it's up to critics to write what they believe. It's not an official blurb at all DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of plot synopsis frequently note character traits and are often just recapping what literally happens in the episode. That's not really an author's opinion when objectively that is how a character is acting in the episode. While I'm not super familiar with this series, it's equivalent to saying something like "Video Games Newspaper stated that Mario was a heroic character who can jump". Yes, that is what he is, but that's not really critical analysis moreso than it is just stating in-universe facts. An example of critical analysis based on this example would be something like the authors discussing how "her lust for money and return to her wicked ways" affected her character as a whole, what impact it had for perception of the series or a particular episode as a whole, how the audience responded to it, etc, as examples. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of One Life to Live characters introduced in the 1980s per Pokelego999 - If those are the strongest sources supporting the notability of the character, then I am entirely unconvinced that the character has significant coverage to warrant an independent article. Plot summaries and routine coverage of the actress portraying the character returning to the cast are not enough to justify a separate page rather than simply covering the small bits of coverage in the character list as stated by Pokelego999 above. Rorshacma (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of One Life to Live characters introduced in the 1980s Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Pokelego999 and Rorshacma. Articles about fiction need WP:SIGCOV to build a reception section, in order to meet WP:NOT. Our policies are interconnected so that they serve each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep, as the subject has received a fairly broad range of coverage, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 20:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. The article improvements demonstrate WP:GNG level sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 26 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janta Volej (edit | talk | history | 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 no sources at all and provides no evidence of notability. Searches found no coverage in independent, reliable sources about “Janta Volej” or “Janta Volej Kisela Voda.” Fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the organization notability guideline (WP:ORG). Acrom12 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Volleyball, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero references or even an external link. Ping me if you find and add three good references. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added some sources and a bit more detail to the article RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to be a legitimate team competing in the CEV Women's Champions League this year. I have included some citations in the article, though it is difficult as the coverage appears to be heavily in Macedonian. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Per sources added by Runningonbrains. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:56, 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 redirect to Ringside (band). ✗plicit 23:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Money (EP) (edit | talk | history | 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 cites no sources. I couldn't find any reviews (or any other WP:SIGCOV) so I doubt this is notable. lp0 on fire () 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. lp0 on fire () 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ringside (band) as an WP:ATD for this non-notable release. Although I'm in doubt that the band itself is notable at all based on their present article. λ NegativeMP1 19:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ringside (band): Per Negative – although that article could certainly do with some work Nil🥝 23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringside (band): On its own, this album does not warrant its own article; there aren't even any stand-alone reliable sources that exist on it. Until further notability is found, this article should redirect to the aforementioned page. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, I could not find any notable sources on the Ringside (band) article, and I've placed it under discussion. Due to this, I now consider to just delete this article instead. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 09:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ringside (band) per WP:ATD. ResonantDis_tortion 10:10, 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 withdrawn. Withdrawing to allow time to improve, ideally in draftspace, but pages with zero unique content are not appropriate. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legends (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicative of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars season 7#Episodes, unclear why a separate article that's just a redundant copy-paste is needed. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 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 withdrawn. Withdrawing to allow time to improve, ideally in draftspace, but pages with zero unique content are not appropriate. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Our Country (RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicative of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars season 6#Episodes, unclear why a new article that's just a redundant copy-paste is needed. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recently recreated after being redirected for a couple of years. Previous AFD from 2012 was "no consensus". Lacks for notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one RS to prove. Notability problems seem to have remained the same since the notability tag was added in 2012. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I couldn't find the SF Chronicle piece, but that's a major national-level newspaper; and Ref. 9 (Metro Silicon Valley) is a regional source but discusses an upcoming book focusing on the band's label. I think these two are just enough to pass WP:NBAND. If the Chronicle piece turns out to be bogus I could change my mind but for now I think we have SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the piece is here. It feels weak to me and I don't think it is enough but I will look a little more. Moritoriko (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: After reading both the SFGate/Chronicle article from 1998 and the excerpt of the book about Asian Man Records I think they are enough to barely satisfy WP:NBAND #1. I'd really prefer 2 records and/or a 3rd article but I doubt anything else big exists. If this closes as keep, the notability tag should be removed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also a short staff bio and short EP review on Allmusic: [22] and [23]. Further, Rolling Stone saw fit to include the band in the list of best songs of 1998: [24]. With the above mentioned sources: Agreed and leaning Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#1. ResonantDis_tortion 13:21, 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 Muslim Brotherhood#United States. There is a broad range of policy-based views.

On one hand, several editors argue that the topic likely meets GNG because of significant coverage in reliable sources. This is not persuasively contested.

But on the other hand, there are also substantial (and not persuasively rebutted) policy-based concerns against a standalone article:

• Several editors argue that nearly all GNG-relevant coverage treats the memorandum within the broader context of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, not as an independent topic.
• Several editors argue (with source analysis) that the standalone article is a POVFORK giving UNDUE prominence to the memo and to a specific interpretation (e.g. "civilization jihad"), and that this is better handled by contextualized coverage in Muslim Brotherhood#United States and related articles, in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE.

In my view, there is no consensus for outright deletion, but, weighing the strength of arguments, a rough consensus against a separate article. Redirection allows editors to merge material, as may be appropriate, from the history and to present it in the appropriate context. Sandstein 10:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly WP:PRIMARY sourcing, and a clear Wikipedia:POVFORK of the Civilization Jihad redirect. Not much reliable secondary sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Merge. I think you're right that this doesn't warrant inclusion as a separate article. Some parts need to be removed, as they clash with the line of reasoning in Frank J. Gaffney Jr. and make some vague claims that border on sensationalism. It's presence as a separate article seems to be skewed towards the implication that this was of greater prominence or impact than it actually was, which goes against WP:NPOV. It would thus need to be changed to account.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer, i've made a post advertising this also on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pushing_of_Civilization_Jihad_conspiracy_theory_by_@Boutboul User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I agree that there's "not much reliable secondary sourcing." There are plenty of google books hits, for instance Citizen Islam. The Future of Muslim Integration in the West, p. 101. or The Muslim Brotherhood in America, p. 10. Alaexis_¿question? 11:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first includes about two references to the memo according to google books, passing reference cannot determine notability.

Second source is Lorenzo G. Vidino is called someone who pushes islamaphobic theories and disinformation acording to our own wikiledia article. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Baran discusses the memo in some detail, it's one of the major primary sources in the Islamists’ Bottom-Up Tactics in the United States chapter (pp. 101-104).

As to the second source, it's published by the George Washington University. As the wikipedia article makes clear, his work received both acclaim and criticism which is normal for a scholar. Alaexis_¿question? 15:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that book in Google books or shopping. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the second source, did you see that " Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative has criticized Vidino, , saying that he "promotes conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the United States" that lead to the criminalization of Muslim civil society." Clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For some context, the original article was written by Shlomit Aharoni Lir, the author of the "The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia" report for the World Jewish Congress, in the Hebrew Wikipedia. That was translated to French by user Princepouf who was subsequently blocked for... let's call it the kind over-enthusiasm that is relatively common in this topic area. The French version has now been translated to English. The original article contained errors and shortcomings. These survived their journey from Hebrew to French to English. I have no view on whether the article should be deleted, merged or retained, but if it is retained it should probably be rewritten from scratch to ensure that it meets our standards rather than the original author's standards. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And let me document here, for the record, an error Shlomit Aharoni Lir made. They included Students for Justice in Palestine in the list and labeled it with 'Hamas'. That is a very odd thing to do given that it was not in the list they cited in the primary source. That misinformation made its way to French Wikipedia and then to English Wikipedia. Fortunately, Boutboul has cleaned up the list. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a noob here so if you can please comment on whether I'm using this forum in the correct way or not. From my own research I can see that the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum was a key piece of evidence in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial ^[1]. it represents the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States, I believe a separate value might be needed in order to detail its importance and how it has been used over the years, such as in this testimony: ^[2] --Nordinha (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC) strike through WP:ARBECR Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article and this deletion discussion are covered by ARBECR. Since your account is not extendedconfirmed the only thing you can do is post edit requests on the article's talk page that follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines. You can't edit the article and you can't participate in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commenthttps://x.com/WikiBias2024/status/1982751804040306943 Seems more folks are to be directed here soon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like LLM too. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 1991 memorandum is a standalone topic: it was entered in the Holy Land Foundation case, and the Fifth Circuit upheld admission of the document set that includes it. It has mainstream public coverage (Dallas Morning News trial reporting^[3]; analysis in The New Yorker^[4]) and academic or para-academic coverage (e.g., Vidino’s work and GWU Program on Extremism papers citing the memo). Wikipedia should summarize significant views with attribution, not take sides. Improve wording on the talk page rather than removing sourced content. Also note that commentators on all sides have ties that should be disclosed (e.g., Lorenzo Vidino’s consulting via Alp Services for UAE interests; Bridge Initiative housed at Georgetown and sponsored by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center). Finally, merging into Frank Gaffney makes no sense: it is a biography of an activist, while this subject is a standalone document with its own scope, and merging would create a scope mismatch and undue weight.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker article says of the document (bolding added by me):

"Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as is, keeping even half of what is in this article, and the redirect link to Civilization Jihad, or even including info from the other articles here would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. we should not keep folks who are essentially considered centerpieces of the islamaphobia movement with equal regards to academics who heavily dispute the docs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivially fails the WP:GNG; the article is overwhelmingly cited to non-independent primary sources and a single non-WP:RS report by Lorenzo G. Vidino, who is at the absolute bare minimum not an WP:INDEPENDENT source when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood (from his article, According to Thijl Sunier, professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, although Vidino claims to be an independent scholar, leaked documents show that he was paid by a private intelligence service to scientifically substantiate allegations against the Muslim Brotherhood.) The only other sources people seem to be able to dig up are passing mentions. Even if that weren't the case, the level of extreme focus given to a single report here is unreasonable; it's unlikely to be WP:DUE in any case. A single sentence summarizing Vidino's views might be defensible on Muslim Brotherhood (although I'd want to take things to RSN if we can't find additional coverage, since I don't think the report passes WP:RS), but devoting an entire article to a single report he wrote, as we functionally are now, is not appropriate. EDIT: I made some effort to clean up the sources in order to get a more clear look at what's actually usable. Most of the sources were different links to the memorandum itself; one was incredibly vague but I finally tracked it down; it appears to have been an article by the Center for Security Policy (The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a US far-right,[5][6] anti-Muslim,[7][8] Washington, D.C.–based think tank), which is clearly not an WP:RS. One of the external links was also to a doctoral thesis, which wouldn't be a good sources anyway per WP:THESIS but also doesn't seem to have mentioned the memorandum or its author as far as I can tell? It really does seem like Vidino is the sole non-primary source for the entire article, which all else aside means it fails the WP:GNG even before we get to the problems with that source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there are plenty of secondary sources out there, including NYTimes, and having copies of actual documents is not a reason to delete an article as important as this one, if for no other reason than its historical significance. Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The document has no historical significance. What is that NYT source you shared? It's not an article and it appears to be just the document itself with a one paragraph intro. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but second the motion for a full rewrite to weed out translation errors. ––Scharb (talk) Scharb (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , the topic is important enough. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a vote on the merits of the document, but whether it meets WP:GNG. Use in conspiracy theories aside, the document routinely cited by WP:RS as a key document driving the sustained (serious) policy discussion in the United States around the Muslim Brotherhood: ABC, NPR, Washington Post, The New Yorker, Congressional testimony. It's notable, but should be written in the proper context. Longhornsg (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively merge/redirect to Frank Gaffney#Civilization Jihad Redirect to Muslim Brotherhood#United States (see below) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, where the topic is already mentioned with appropriate accuracy and detail. The only source provided thus far that contains significant coverage of this topic is the New York Post article, explains why this document is of questionable reliability and explains it in the broader context of anti-Islam movements. It might also fit at Counter-jihad, since the invocation of this document seems to be explicitly linked to anti-Islamic groups promoting conspiracy theories. The congressional testimony provided by Longhornsg is by Zuhdi Jasser, who "has been described as a part of the counter-jihad movement". The article as it currently stands has significant issues with WP:SOAP, so there is insufficient reason for this to remain a standalone article vs selectively merging any encyclopedic content to the coverage at Civilization Jihad. Katzrockso (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also coverage of this document at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, where is discussed in more extensive detail. I think this redirect would serve readers better than the proposed Civilization Jihad one, and there is no important and substantive content from this article to merge there, so I am changing my !vote to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I didn't vote on whether the document has merit or whether its propagators are experts. Just that it meets WP:GNG. And notable people talking about it to the U.S. Congress adds to the notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, however, notability is not a guarantee for a page. If a topic is better covered better at another article, then there isn't a need to create another article. I don't think there is any encyclopedic content in 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that doesn't already exist at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, which is covered 1) more accurately 2) in the greater context of the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States broadly & internationally. From WP:PAGEDECIDE; "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page". Something with marginable notability like this is better covered in context at the article that already discusses it!

  I was indicating that I'm not sure that the congressional testimony is a reliable source, and as such can't contribute to WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per longhornsg. POV pushing is bad, but that doesnt mean the article is. POV scrubbing is also bad. Needs work as others have mentioned. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aquillion as subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. With the exception of the Vidino source, the rest of the handful of references provided only reference the memo briefly. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EvansHallBear, the discussion of the document in Baran's Citizen Islam isn't brief. Alaexis_¿question? 15:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Muslim Brotherhood. The references to the memorandum cited as justification for a standalone article consist mainly of brief mentions in news coverage and primary documents, which are trivial and lack sustained coverage. The secondary sources are largely fringe, far-right, Islamophobic conspiracy theorists (per RS) and therefore do not meet the standards required by WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also do not see why the FBI transcript of the Palestine Committee summit is included, why it is considered relevant to the scope of the article, or why it is presented in wiki voice as evidence of a "Hamas support network". The only source asserting this appears to be an allegation by the US government, which is insufficient for us to treat it as fact. This is replicated thorough the article with other statements, failing for example WP:TERRORIST. Every reference to Hamas in the article is either unsourced or incorrectly sourced. The most frequently cited materials are the memorandum itself, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, and the analysis by Vidino, who, as Aquillion has already noted, raises his own reliability concerns. Taken together, these issues show that the topic does not meet the threshold for a standalone article. As Katzrockso also noted, the subject is already discussed in the Muslim Brotherhood article, where it is contextually appropriate, so I would support redirecting this page to the relevant section there. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or if we must, redirect). The sources we use for the article and the contents of the memo continually state that there is no evidence of it being put into practice. I think the nominator and the other delete votes here have it right, and I would also argue that there's a case for this running up against WP:INDISCRIMINATE – there are many, many memos written and sent to senior leadership of organisations of all kinds, none of which are themselves notable. Because of the way this memo has been used in American political discourse I would be okay with redirecting this to the Muslim Brotherhood article's section on the topic, in a pinch. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Longhornsg recitation of secondary sources. Clearly the topic is notable, the sourcing is adequate, and article issues can be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge to Muslim Brotherhood - While the document itself may be considered notable due to its role in US politics, I'm unconvinced that its independently notable, with it already being well covered in the United States section of the Muslim Brotherhood article. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, Paprikaiser, and Aquillion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Assertions that the Muslim Brotherhood article address this document sufficiently are undermined by its placement in paragraphs 129-130 of that article. Enough has been written about this memorandum specifically to warrant keeping this article. If this article is maintained, the Muslim Brotherhood article should be edited to include a Template:See also link to this article. Coining (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This at best warrants a WP:SPINOFF of a page "Muslim Brotherhood in the USA" that includes discussion of this topic. Placement of discussion within an article does not obviate a WP:PAGEDECIDE argument - which is based on the fact that greater context about the Muslim Brotherhood in America is needed to understand this memorandum. There are thousands of topics for which plenty has been written on and yet we cover them as part of another article. The article is a WP:POVFORK of the coverage of the memorandum at Muslim Brotherhood / Civilization Jihad that gives undue prominence to one document within the broader context of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Occasional invocations of the document by political figures in no way justifies a separate article vs covering the usage at another page. This would be like having an article on the "Lock Step scenario" of the Rockefeller Foundation or random leaked Soros emails. Katzrockso (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources covering the document and its role in laying out the goals and objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrate that the general notability standard has been met here. So many of the arguments touted against the article are related to cleanup and editing issues, without meriting consideration as a basis for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect It's already well covered and and I do not see sufficient reliable sources for a stand alone article. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Muslim Brotherhood#United States. Per nom, the sourcing is mostly WP:PRIMARY and I also suspect a WP:POVFORK. In any case, this entry gives WP:UNDUE weight to the topic, which is covered reasonably well in the target article and in other Wikipedia articles.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Longhornsg and Michael Boutboul. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was a significant event in an important case and there is plenty of WP:SIGCOV Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and redirect redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#United_States where the subject is mentioned in some detail and provides context. Delete as the article is WP:UNDUE (1) because the document was deemed unimportant by the judge in the court case that brought it prominence; (2) the sources are either primary, or not WP:RS Dualpendel (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if those advocating to keep could address the NOPAGE arguments, and those arguing to delete could provide a source analysis of those sources offered here as evidence of SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to @Vanamonde93: here is some source analysis as of this diff

1) NPR coverage, its a reliable secondary source but only mentions the memorandum once in passing, dismissing it. It mostly is a discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood.
2) this white paper from a georgetown university group called "The Program on Extremism" is a 31 page report from Lorenzo Vidino. the article is also mostly about the Muslim Brotherhood, and essentially attempts to argue the civilization jihad conspiracy, and includes 3 mentions of the 1991 memo, though it is cited an additional 4 times. There is no mention that other sourcing has generally found the memo to have been done by a lone actor. As per this report by CAIR, vidino traffics much in islamaphobia, so this sourcing is definitely not due, especially given evidence below.

• some professors have publicly cut ties with Lorenzo over what they call his damaging statements to the muslim community
• this report also authored by vidino includes such gems as arguing that nearly all muslim orgs are part of the conspiracy.
• the new yorker characterizes vidino with this long quote, and includes significant info on his role in manufacturing academic backing for various government attempts at criminalizing muslim civil society orgs.

One of Brero’s first moves after signing the U.A.E. as a client was to seek out Lorenzo Vidino, the director of the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University and a consultant for several European governments. Vidino, a dual citizen of Italy and the U.S., argues that even the most moderate Islamist organizations in the West can tilt Muslims toward separatism and violence. Nada, like many Muslims, thought that he simply dressed up bigotry in academic language. Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative, which studies Islamophobia, has described Vidino as someone who “promotes conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood” and “is connected to numerous anti-Muslim think tanks.” In 2020, the Austrian Interior Ministry cited a report by Vidino as a basis for carrying out raids on dozens of citizens or organizations suspected of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood. No one targeted in the raids has been arrested, much less convicted of any wrongdoing. An Austrian appellate court ruled the raids unlawful.

Farid Hafez, an Austrian scholar of Islamophobia who was picked up in the raids and is now a professor at Williams College and a fellow at Georgetown University, said that Vidino portrays nearly all of the most prominent Muslim civil-society organizations as adjuncts of the Brotherhood. “Vidino is like a fox,” Hafez said. “He says, ‘They have some kind of a relationship to people who are related to the Muslim Brotherhood,’ so you cannot sue him for libel, because he does not actually say you are a member of the Muslim Brotherhood!”

Alp records show that, on January 12, 2018, Brero treated Vidino to a thousand-dollar dinner at the Beau Rivage Hotel in Geneva. In prepared talking points, Brero indicated that he planned to lie about working for the U.A.E., instead telling Vidino that Alp had been hired by a “London-based law firm” to examine the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, with a focus on “possibly interesting points, like Lord Energy.”

3) a primary source, literally the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case article, which is where the 1991 Memo was popularized from.
4) a dupe of the Lorenzo Vidino source, the link goes back to the same pdf as source 2.
5) Single passing ref to the 1991 memo.

The sourcing is either reliable info that dismisses it as part of broader disinfo to argue all muslim orgs are secretly part of Civilization Jihad, primary sourcing that is being synthesized into WP:OR to present the prosecutor's case from the Holy Land Foundation court proceedings, or from Lorenzo Vidino, someone who has faced significant criticism for pushing Civilization Jihad.

Summary: the vidino source is the only secondary sourcing that mentions the memo for more than a singular time in PASSING and the source itself is from someone so undue and nonneutral, that it should probably be removed anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding WP:NOPAGE, reliable, neutral secondary sourcing for the 1991 memo only includes it in passing, and mostly as context for various islamaphobic attacks, for the holy land foundation, or in regards to the muslim brotherhood.
this is at best a WP:POVFORK to cite vidino, instead of other reliable sourcing, and argue the otherwise discredited Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory.

in terms of real world impact, the memo has been disavowed by the muslim brotherhood, confirmed to have been essentially scratch ramblings by a singular person, and essentially dependent on another topic, and has no notability outside of that context. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe the topic is probably marginally notable under WP:GNG per the coverage identified, so can offer no source analysis as the coverage is not determinative of my opinion. I think that the coverage of this memorandum is best discussed at Muslim Brotherhood#United States because that article provides the greatest context to the coverage of the topic. For example, the Congressional testimony mentioned in another comment is titled “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat”, clearly indicating that this coverage is in the greater context of the Muslim's Brotherhood worldwide. Other significant coverage offered includes [25] this article titled "Who's afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? How hatred of Islam is corrupting the American soul", this article [26] titled "Push To Name Muslim Brotherhood A Terrorist Group Worries U.S. Offshoots". The one source that I found established the greatest level of independence in providing significant coverage to this topic was the The New Yorker article [27]. However, from the passage

Geller, who gained fame by opposing the effort to build a mosque and Muslim community center near the site of the World Trade Center, is “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups. Geller operates within a context that includes groups with names like Jihad Watch, Now the End Begins, Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Understanding the Threat, and Discover the Networks, which sound the alarm about the supposed encroachment of Sharia, or Islamic law. They work to convince the public that the Muslim Brotherhood is pursuing a grand plan to infiltrate and subvert the United States, facilitated by Americans’ complacency, and in the process earn ample profits, judging by the flourishing cottage industry of books, videos, Web sites, and training courses for police departments.

I think it is clear that this memorandum is best understood as a particular piece of evidence that anti-Islam hate groups use to bolster their claims about the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. Once we acknowledge this context, it becomes clear that the best place to cover this document is Muslim Brotherhood#United States, where the broader context of anti-Islam movements and legislative attempts to criminalize this organization. Given that there is already coverage of this document at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, it would be sufficient to redirect so that editors may selectively merge any encyclopedic content to that page. Given that I do not think there is any encyclopedic content in the current article (see points by Aquillon, Paprikaser) not already covered by Muslim Brotherhood#United States, I oppose a merge on the grounds that merging will just reproduce the issues with the existing article. Editors are free to independently view the edit history of the redirect and find any content they want to include in the target redirect using WP:BRD, but the issues with the content point against an imposed merge close.Katzrockso (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I believe closing this AfD will need a very skilled closer. Katzrockso (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In response to the relist comment asking for source analysis and NOPAGE arguments: the topic meets WP:GNG based on multiple independent, non-trivial secondary sources that discuss the 1991 memorandum itself (its provenance, content, and later use), and the issues identified so far (overuse of primary sources, undue reliance on particular commentators, POV problems) are content problems that can be fixed with a rewrite, not reasons to delete the page.

There is significant coverage of the memorandum as a document, in different contexts and with different evaluations:

• In 2007, The Dallas Morning News ran a feature on the Holy Land Foundation trial which centers on the internal Muslim Brotherhood papers entered into evidence, describing the 1991 text as a "strategy paper" that outlines a "civilization-jihadist process" and quoting the well known "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within" passage, while also quoting scholars and Muslim leaders who dismiss the document as the work of a small radical fringe rather than an operational blueprint.^[5] That is not a passing mention; the memo is the focus of the article.

• David K. Shipler in The New Yorker devotes a substantial part of a 2015 article on Pamela Geller and the anti-Islam movement to this memorandum, calling it "an old document of questionable authority and relevance" and explaining in detail that it was discovered in a 2004 FBI search, never subjected to adversarial testing in court, appears to be an appeal from a relatively low-level figure, and has acquired "an illusion of importance" through constant recycling by activists and in training materials.^[6] Again, the memo is treated as a central exhibit in a broader story, not simply named in passing.

• The Bridge Initiative at Georgetown (a research and advocacy project housed at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding) has a detailed explainer, "Civilization Jihad: Debunking the Conspiracy Theory", which explicitly takes apart how Frank Gaffney and others use the 1991 memorandum as supposed proof of a Muslim Brotherhood plan, and argues that Gaffney mischaracterizes the text; the article stresses that it "was not a formal plan accepted by the Brotherhood and did not have influence in other Muslim circles".^[7] Regardless of whether one agrees with Bridge, this is significant analytical coverage of the memorandum itself.

• Civil-society and policy documents discussing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim activism also single out the memorandum as a key rhetorical prop. For example, CAIR's "Dispelling Rumors About CAIR" explains how the memo, introduced as an exhibit in the Holy Land Foundation case, has been repeatedly used by anti-Muslim groups to claim a hidden "civilization jihad" plan and why CAIR rejects those inferences.^[8] Educational materials on Islamophobia similarly describe "An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" as a document that purports to outline a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and then analyze how it has been weaponized in conspiracy narratives.^[9]

• On the other side of the spectrum, Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly has articles such as A. J. Caschetta's "The Terrorist 'Wing' Scam" which defend the use of Holy Land Foundation evidence and treat the explanatory memorandum as supporting a thesis about a broader Islamist strategy.^[10] Likewise, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Hoover Institution report "The Challenge of Dawa" explicitly cites "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" as part of her argument about ideological dawa and long term strategy.^[11] These authors are clearly not neutral, but they are secondary sources that discuss the memo at length.

• Beyond the U.S., there are also French language books like Déni français: notre histoire secrète des liaisons franco-arabes (French Denial: Our Secret History of Franco–Arab Relation)^[12] from the historian Vermeren which invoke the memorandum as evidence for or against claims about the Brotherhood's strategy. Or Arabic-language think tank, like the Arab Center for the Study of Extremism (thearabcenter.org), which has a dedicated entry titled in English "Explanatory memorandum on the general strategic goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America".^[13]

In other words, there is a cluster of mainstream and para-academic sources (Dallas Morning News, The New Yorker, Hoover, policy reports, advocacy reports for and against the "civilization jihad" narrative) that treat the memorandum as a notable document in itself. That is more than the trivial, passing mentions which WP:SIGCOV excludes.

On the WP:NOPAGE / WP:PAGEDECIDE side: it is true that the memorandum is already mentioned at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, and in discussions of the Holy Land Foundation case and "civilization jihad". However, the sources above are not just about the Muslim Brotherhood in general; they focus on this particular memorandum as a symbol and a contested piece of evidence:

• Some sources (MEF, certain think-tank reports, some books) treat it as a strategic plan that reveals the Brotherhood's real intentions.
• Other sources (Shipler, Bridge Initiative, CAIR, anti-Islamophobia scholarship) treat it as a fringe or "old document of questionable authority and relevance" that has been inflated into a conspiracy linchpin.

Summarizing that reception history with proper attribution, explaining what the memo is, how it surfaced in the HLF case, and how different actors have used it, requires more than a sentence or two inside a very broad article on the Muslim Brotherhood. That is exactly the sort of situation envisaged at WP:SUMMARY: the Brotherhood article should give a concise summary and link to a subarticle where the memorandum's discovery, content, and later use are covered in more depth and properly contextualized. A redirect would force us either to (a) omit that detail, or (b) overload the already dense "United States" section with a long digression about one document, which would create WP:UNDUE issues there instead.

Regarding the understandable concerns about WP:PRIMARY, WP:POVFORK and WP:RS that several editors have raised:

• I agree that the current revision overuses primary material (the memo itself and court filings) and gives too much weight to a very small number of commentators, especially Lorenzo Vidino and sources close to the "civilization jihad" conspiracy milieu. It also does too much synthesis of court exhibits and prosecutor briefs in wiki-voice. Those are good reasons to rewrite the article, not to delete the topic.

• None of the sources in this space are perfectly "neutral". Bridge Initiative is an advocacy project supported through a center that received major funding from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; Middle East Forum and similar outlets are strongly conservative and Islam-critical; CAIR is a Muslim civil-rights organization; Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a well known critic of political Islam. From a Wikipedia perspective, that is not a reason to throw out their coverage; it is a reason to treat all of them as attributed viewpoints and build the article around verifiable facts and clearly labelled opinions, rather than around any one actor's narrative.

Finally, on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and "memos are not inherently notable": Wikipedia does not normally keep articles on ordinary internal documents, but it does keep articles on specific documents that acquire a significant role in public or political controversy. Here, reliable sources show that this 1991 memorandum has had real-world impact - not because it was ever implemented as policy, but because it has become a key exhibit in U.S. and wider debates over the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamophobia and "civilization jihad". Our job is to summarize that reliably and in context. The sourcing and reception described above indicate that deletion or simple redirect would be throwing away a notable, well-sourced subtopic which can instead be improved and better contextualized.Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• most of these are in context of HL5 or the conspiracy theory.
• MEForum is a islamaphobic group masquerading as a thinktank, their founder pushed birther and no-go-zone conspiracies, the arab center and the french book don't show up easily and i can't verify either as reliable, but the website for the arab center seems scammy. Their ME quarterly per our own article is called a home for anti-islam polemics
• again with the WP:FALSEBALANCE, conspiracy theorists treat it as real, reliable sourcing dismisses it. it is blatantly non-neutral to push the conspiracy theory.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also, this is a double vote, please unbold your Keep User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I did not realize that it could be considered as a second vote. Thanks for the warning. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Muslim Brotherhood#United States per WP:NOPAGE. On balance this topic is better covered in the context to the larger article. The temptation to turn it into a WP:POVFORK is greatly increased as a stand alone article. Editorially this is the best choice.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 26 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 Ahmed Musa#Business interests. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Musa Neighborhood Center (edit | talk | history | 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 and WP:NCORP. There are four sources, a user generated source , homepage of directory Naija body building, another user-generated source and a short news report that is not significant enough for WP:GNG. Also, a cursory search for good sources did not help too Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Sports, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ahmed Musa#Business interests – As valid WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ahmed Musa#Business interests: Yeah, I think a redirect would be better as alternative to deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:18, 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 keep. This can't be closed as a speedy keep due to the presence of a delete !vote. Most of the pre-relist !votes are to either keep or merge the article. As the merge has already been completed, the only thing that remains is the possibility of a page move to match the contents of the list. This is outside the scope of an AfD, so the only logical close here is keep, per consensus, with the page move being the likely next step. If anybody does still believe this AfD needs to remain open, I have no issue with undoing this close. Please contact me on my talk page for this, if so. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While there's nothing inherently against Wikipedia policy about having this type of page (I don't personally care for them due to their tendency to attract cruft but that's beside the point), this particular one is organized according to an obsolete taxonomic grouping. The page itself does acknowledge this (although its note is incorrect; elephants and rhinoceroses are no longer regarded as closely related), but this raises the question as to why not just base the page on a valid taxonomic grouping. I don't see any advantage to having it done this way. — Anonymous 18:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Animal. — Anonymous 18:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This list doesn't have any members of Paenungulata besides elephants, so it could be reasonably just be renamed to "list of fictional elephants" (since woolly mammoths are in Elephantidae), and the rhinoceroses, tapirs and hippopotamuses could be moved back to list of fictional ungulates. -- Reconrabbit 14:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate and selectively merge to List of fictional elephants as well as merging the rest to List of fictional ungulates if necessary. I think there are enough to merit a navigational list, but I agree the "pachyderm" titling is extremely odd and unmerited. After that, delete page as overly vague. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve by changing scope, splitting out and merging the rhinoceroses, tapirs and hippopotamuses to List of fictional ungulates as suggested above and renaming what remains to List of fictional elephants. That should solve the raised issues. Daranios (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If (part of) this is kept in some form, all entries that do not have a stand-alone article for the fictional animal itself should be removed, turning it into a navigational list. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At least.Halbared (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been done. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate List of fictional elephants per Zx, keeping all entries with individual articles, and merging ungulates to their respective list. The pachyderms title seems to be a way to COATRACK multiple topics into one, but this topic is non-notable. While I'm not sure on the notability of the other two lists, that is a problem better dealt with separately, and for now there are enough entries to at the very least serve a navigational purpose. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of fictional elephants and List of fictional ungulates for the non-elephant entries. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I moved out just about all of the rhinos/hippos, all that's left is the elephants and mammoths. Just needs to be renamed to List of fictional elephants now. Object to deletion and recreation, which would remove the edit history. Katzrockso (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment speedy keep as having no valid deletion rationale per WP:SK#1 and WP:WRONGFORUM. Neither the nomination nor do any of the !votes present a rationale for deletion, but rather highlight a potential editing issue and page move issue. This is not the right forum for that discussion and keeping this AfD open longer only wastes editor time. Katzrockso (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Katzrockso, I'm going to push back a little on your claim that this was not opened with any valid deletion rationale. When I nominated this, I did not see any useful function for the content of this page (even if split/moved). However, now that the discussion has progressed, I have come to agree with the votes for a split/move, and I would be fine with this discussion being closed as such, as "List of fictional elephants" seems like a perfectly good and valid list. — Anonymous 00:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The information in the article is encyclopedic - its basis of organization on an outmoded taxonomic grouping is bad, yes, but remediable. Per WP:ATD-E, "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". The nomination considered the possibility that editing could (and did) fix the identified problem with the article ("why not just base the page on a valid taxonomic grouping"), but instead of advocating for editing the article, nominated it for deletion.

  Removing reliably sourced and encyclopedic content because the page is poorly organized goes against WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and other Wikipedia policies.

  As for the !vote below that complains about "elephant men" or the combination of literature/comics with religion/mythology, these are more arguments for editing, discussing splitting lists off or removing particular classes of content, rather than deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps my wording was unclear, but when I tossed out the idea of having a page based on a valid taxonomic grouping, the intention was still for this specific page to be deleted. However, there's no point in arguing further, as I agree with the keep votes, as I've said. — Anonymous 21:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regardless of how it's done, transforming this to List of fictional elephants is the right call. The remainder can be covered elsewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems the thinnest and most arbitrary of lists. There's a few additions here that aren't elephants, like Elephant man. Combining modern literature (comics) with religion/mythology also seems, off.Halbared (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:CSK#1 has been superseded because of a !vote for deletion since the last relist. This discussion is still lacking a proper consensus, though there have been a few mentions of merging some of the content elsewhere. Relisting to allow for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in response to the relist: The discussed merge has already been performed, and this is now already a list of elephants in everything but name, as was requested as far as I can see by all !votes except the "delete" one. (The List of fictional elephants currently links here, so that needs to be exchanged.) Daranios (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So what is the current point of this AfD then? Per CSK#1, due to the presence of a delete !vote, even if it's only one, this AfD cannot reasonably be closed as speedy keep. 11WB (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to List of fictional elephants and keep. "Pachyderm" is a pseudoscientific grouping. Resolve any remaining content issues through regular article editing. BD2412 T 20:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and keep per above. This requires a page-mover to close as List of fictional elephants has an edit history. —Rutebega (talk) 03:18, 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 merge to Trabant 601. Star Mississippi 03:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:GNG & WP:NOTABILITY this the topic does not meet Wikipedia' notability requirements, coverage is limited to manufacturer manuals & enthusiast sites with NO significant independent sources.... Also Hycomat is a feature of the Trabant 601 not standalone topic and should be merged I THINK into the main Trabant 601 article... Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 17:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be given more time Nicebear12345 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY: Hycomat is a feature of the Trabant 601 not independently notable; merge into Trabant 601.
• Merge with Trabant 601: per above comment by Thilio. Bagwe Neza (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The corresponding article in German at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hycomat is significantly longer and has several additional references, which seems to suggest that the topic is independently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Most of the German article is just an explanation of how the clutch works, largely sourced to the primary sources (translated) Operating Instructions TRABANT 601, Supplement to the operating instructions Trabant 601 Hycomat, and Repair manual TRABANT 601 and the trade journal Automotive Engineering: Technical Journal of the Automotive Industry. This doesn't seem independently notable or something we should be going into the detail the German article has. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 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 23:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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