Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 19

< November 18 November 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh family

[edit]
Limbaugh family (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 had proposed move and delete of this article six years ago but it was WP:SNOWed as a malformed request. There are six people on the list, all of whom are admittedly notable, but the family as itself I do not believe meet WP:GNG as there are no cited profiles of the family as a unit, unlike what you might find with other prominent families. Calwatch (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(see the talk page for the discussion from 2019.) Calwatch (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no doubt that the Limbaughs are each prominent in their own right(s), but there's no reason to have a specific page for the family, particularly when the page is essentially just a list and 5/6 of the listed names have standalone Wikipedia pages with the exact same information on them aesurias (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amyris, Inc.

[edit]


Amyris, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete - Just a hodge podge of single-use user WP:PROMO edits, obvious WP:COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 23:45, 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 01:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Miller (soccer)

[edit]
Chase Miller (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:14, 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 01:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Jones (soccer)

[edit]
Malcolm Jones (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 22:37, 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 Fire Emblem Awakening. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrom

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the previous nominator, who once !voted "weak keep" after seeing some changes, I returned to this article and found my opinion has changed. By and large, the article relies on brief mentions in articles about other subjects, fan polls, promotional items, fan merchandise, his Smash appearance (only one of which is about Chrom in particular, and only to use as a platform to complain about Fire Emblem representation in Smash in general), and a bunch of articles about his sword (which don't themselves contribute to Chrom's notability in any way).

To better illustrate how much refbombing I feel is going on in this article, this is the version I made after editing it some: [4]

In addition to comparatively weak sourcing, I have also done a BEFORE search, only to find only routine coverage of Chrom. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fire Emblem Awakening. There's some decent info that can be carried over to the main article but as the nominator says there's just not really much being said here that justifies a split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 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 Independence movement in Puerto Rico. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Puerto Rican protests

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2025 Puerto Rican protests – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one source linked in this entire article, and it is a newsletter. While there are more articles concerning recent protests in Puerto Rico online, it is evident that they are part of larger No Kings protests. RabinoWIN (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one line in the article to Independence movement in Puerto Rico. There are other sources about the August protests, e.g. [5]. Katzrockso (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Wood County Schools. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blennerhassett Middle School

[edit]
Blennerhassett Middle School (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 currently has nothing suggesting notability. Single source is NCES. Searching finds very little - the usual mentions on sites that track every school in the US. Alternatives to deletion would be a redirect to either Parkersburg, West Virginia or Wood County Schools. Gab4gab (talk) 21:56, 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 04:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchu Collective

[edit]
Kuchu Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a quorum here. Even a little more input would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:54, 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.‎

There are arguments roughly equivalent in quality and quantity on both sides and good-faith arguments that the sourcing is sufficient. As a closer I don't find that any of the arguments should be down-weighted. Accordingly I find no consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Economic Freedom

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

  • Keep. The Index of Economic Freedom is widely referenced also outside of the US and clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The nature of the sources used does not appear unduly biased: when describing the methodology and results it would be unreasonable to require use of only third-party descriptions. The editor proposing deletion talks about "blacklisted" sources without a link, presumably referring to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which emphatically is not a "blacklist". And in any case the idea of "blacklisting" major politically affiliated think tanks instead of verifying their claims would be detrimental to open society and freedom of information. Most participants in political and economical discussions are "biased" in one way or another, whether openly or not. If there are objectively incorrect claims, misrepresentation or undue bias, the correct approach is to edit the article, add section on well-source critical views etc., not delete it. Stca74 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to deletion, but at a very minimum I support purging the massive primary sourced tables and any other content that does not have an independent source. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the non-primary supported parts to The Heritage Foundation. Articles should be mostly based on secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While a number of sources mention or use this index, there's a distinct lack of sources about the index providing in-depth coverage that justify an article. The Heritage Foundation article already covers the index as well, and while some material could be transferred to that article, 99% of this article just reproduces Heritage Foundation material, is unsourced/poorly sourced, or both. Cortador (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Disregarding the latter half of this article, which is sourced to the Index itself and largely undue as stated above, there is very little that discusses the index directly in the references. There are references to organizations using the Index to make decisions, and independent publications that plainly state what is written from the Index, but little actual analysis. the Heritage Foundation article already makes mention of the Wall Street Journal having a stake in the Index as well, which is more of a point towards merging any relevant information from this article to those ones (WSJ and Heritage Foundation), if there is any independent discussion not already there. -- Reconrabbit 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DINC - It seems this nomination pertains more to article quality rather than an actual rationale for deletion. The index meets WP:GNG and doesn't appear to be blatant promotion as defined under G11. As for The Heritage Foundations alleged attacks on Wikipedians, we have articles on atrocious topics like Kiwi Farms and RationalWiki which were basically created as harassment think tanks, not to mention things like 8chan, Metapedia, Conservapedia, etc. and consensus has been against deleting articles on topics just because they are critical of Wikipedia or dox Wikipedians (we just don't link to them). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I haven't seen anybody above suggesting this or other articles should be deleted because their subjects "are critical of Wikipedia or dox Wikipedians", and that certainly wasn't the reason I nominated it for deletion. What I and others are saying (and what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources said as per my quotes from it above) has been that Heritage shouldn't be used as a source, as it so copiously is in this article. (Specifically, as a source about a Heritage publication.) There's a woeful scarcity of reliable secondary sources in the article. That was "an actual rationale for deletion" last time I checked. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    WP:DEPS actually allows tge use of a deprecated source as a primary reference about itself, usually. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Allows the use of a deprecated source 17 times, does it? Compare my nomination. Bishonen | tålk 15:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment in support of my Keep: There seems to be a line of argument that articles on WSJ and Heritage Foundation should be enough to cover (any?) index and other data they publish. This kind of position would not be very generalisable: no separate article on any index or similar published by the United Nations or a government agency or a university? The question of whether the Index of Economic Freedom should have an article is one to be decided on notability of the index, not on its being mentioned in the articles on its creators. And here I reteiterate my original comment: the index is widely reported, referenced and used in and outside of the US, and if it does not meet WP:Notable criteria, then very few existing articles do. Again, the issue the editors favouring deletion seems to be with the article's quality, and thus the correct measure is to improve it, not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stca74 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC) . Striking duplicate bolded !vote: rest of comment stands. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contra the "keeps" I see no evidence that the topic meets GNG. There is coverage of the topic, but it is generally not substantive or not independent. The WSJ is a perfectly reliable source, but is not intellectually independent of a product it helps produce. The Heritage Foundation is similarly not independent. I don't see sufficient coverage from other sources. I am not opposed to a merge with the Heritage foundation page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although this is not a hill I would die on. I would very reluctantly accept a minor merge although I simply cannot see a need for one. The Heritage Foundation is neither a reliable nor a secondary source here, the WSJ is also heavily involved as is any other source derived from either of these. So I agree with Vanamonde, Cortador and Reconrabbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - without repeating everything, there is no significant coverage about this topic, outside of its creator and one ideologically connected source. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it is not a good metric, it is cited enough for me to presume that WP:SIGCOV exists. I refuse to believe that no journals talk about it in great detail. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, a quick online search shows that the index is referenced by several academic articles, PhD theses, reports by central banks, ministries of (at least) European countries, official records of parliamentary debates etc. The question of whether the sources currently used in the article satisfy all requirements for reliable secondary sources is separate from the GNG criteria, which are about the existence of such sources. Those claiming they see no evidence the index meets GNG likely have not seriously tried to look for independent sources. Again, once the notability is established, the proper action is to improve the article by including references to such sources. Stca74 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakchris1955 Which is not unusual Doug Weller talk 16:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is little here that is ABOUT this particular publication. If all of the non-RS sources were removed from this article, as far as I can tell after slogging through it, it would be blank. Of the few non-primary sources, one is about the index but is published in the WSJ, which is one of the publishers/creators of the index. Others (Cato, Science Direct) are about the concept of Indices of economic freedom, not this particular publication. I do find sources using this data, and some have a brief description of the methodology. It is possible that an article about this publication could be created, citing sources both positive and critical, but that would be an entirely different article from this one, which is essentially a presentation of the content of this index. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking your assessment at face value would suggest editing the article to remove material not supported by reliable sources. And if the result indeed were reduction to a stub, so be it, it could be marked as one, and with tags requesting reliable sourcing. The urge of many to delete instead of improve strikes me as very odd in this discussion. Stca74 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There still have to be 2-3 significant, reliable sources, which so far have not been identified. And I didn't say "stub", I said "blank", precisely because of that. The job here at AfD is to determine if such sources exist. I don't see any posted here yet. Lamona (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Here's another source: Handbook of Research on Economic Freedom (Berggren, 2024)[6] which contains an independent description of the index and plenty of detail on how it's used and what it correlates with. It also has many references to other papers that use it and draw conclusions from it. This is what the article should be all about. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:12, 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! 20:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10438111
  2. ^ https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2025/03/181687/morocco-tops-african-countries-in-2025-economic-freedom-index/
  3. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/hong-kong-dropped-from-economic-freedom-index-as-policies-controlled-from-beiji-idUSKBN2AW0OA/
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. There is a consensus not to delete, but not a consensus between keep and merge. I think the suggestion to create a new page for Mayoral Elections in Helena, Montana would be very sensible to follow. That can be taken forward editorially. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Helena mayoral election

[edit]
2025 Helena mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • weak keep

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Entertainment

[edit]
Domain Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Yeah, RatPac Entertainment only financed movies, and yet it has its own article. TSG Entertainment also only finances movies, yet it has its own article, too. I don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST? Mike Allen 02:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 companies do–or in RatPac's case, did–the same thing, finance movies, and yet no one complained when the other 2 companies got their own pages. I still don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are more notable than Domain (looking at their articles you can see this). Same with Access, like I noted. We are going off of 2 sources from the last 4 years. You have been one of the users that has spammed this and other companies into film info boxes for years. So your !vote is not surprising since it seems you still have not grasped Wikipedia’s polices and guidelines. Mike Allen 13:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 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. (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 06:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MetCC

[edit]
MetCC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Since Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, it doesn't actually matter whether the article is (in your personal, subjective opinion) "very poor and full of trivial details".
You have nominated this for deletion on the grounds of it being a subunit of a larger entity. Why are you suggesting deletion instead of a WP:MERGE to the article about the larger entity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above CabinetCavers (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:47, 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 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 04:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superman/Tarzan: Sons of the Jungle

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:47, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom Series

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Kingdom Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are all local news based on interviews with the author. It's very hard to tell whether they result from independent journalism, or whether they are the result of the author canvassing the newspapers. They're mostly not reviews, but summaries of interviews and statements by the author's close family. It's not clear whether anyone who wrote the articles actually read the books; one of them quotes a bookseller who explicitly states he hasn't read the books but expects them to appeal! We need real reviews by people who independently read the books to demonstrate notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers chose to write these articles because they thought their readers would be interested in the topic. There are quotes from people affiliated with the book series, which is expected since reputable journalists always attempt to seek input from those involved directly in the subject of their articles. The sources contain plenty of independent research, reporting, and synthesis of information about the book series. These are meant to be newspaper articles about the book series, rather than reviews. There is no requirement for there to be "real reviews" of the book. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says (my bolding): "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."
The book series has been "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works" in multiple newspaper articles. There is no requirement in the notability guideline for books that the sources must be beyond local news. However, the book series did receive significant coverage beyond a single region since it was covered by newspapers in two states: North Dakota and South Dakota. Rapid City Journal is in Rapid City, South Dakota, Williston Daily Herald is in Williston, North Dakota, and Grand Forks Herald is in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elemimele. Looking through the sources, none really give SIGCOV of the books themselves and all include interviews with the author/family. Despite what Cunard says, coverage should be independent, which goes beyond directly citing the book. I did find this article, which is closer, but it's still really just pointing readers to go buy the next book when it comes out, rather than an actual review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:46, 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 no consensus. Valid arguments on both sides, with both numerical and P&G-weight advantage to the Keep side, but not to the point of a consensus. No likelihood of this changing with yet a third relist. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Estrada

[edit]
Irene Estrada (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)

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

Maybe we should see when election night coverage comes out. I agree, but let's postpone it a little bit. There is the theoretical possibility of a surprise boost. Actually, nevermind. That was meant to be a thought experiment in how irrational the defense will be. There will be no leading of major candidates, no boost, only a few precincts at the best, even that being unreasonable. No media airtime, no debate stage, only a deleted article. Delete. Jayson (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly doubt it, I wouldn't hold your breath for Estrada getting enough votes to get any substantial coverage. Scuba 01:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO; [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] all provide varyingly levels of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Some articles contain quotes from interview, but also all contain significant independent analysis of those quotes in a way that makes it "independent of the subject", cumulatively contributing to notability per WP:BASIC "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Bronx Bulliten nor Norwood news nor City limits are notable sources. Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election, so there goes the NY1 and NYT articles, the latter of which isn't even a stand alone article about her. Scuba 02:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have notability. "Also in order for an individual to be notable, they must have coverage from outside the election" is not factually accurate, there is no such aspect of the WP:GNG that mandates that a person must have coverage from outside of an election. Katzrockso (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre statement to make in direct contradiction with WP:NPOL, to quote to save you the data;
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
  • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the WP:GNG.
The key point here is that they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office. General rule of thumb to cross the notability threshold is 3 WP:RS
I loath citing WP bylaw, please don't make me do it again. Cheers! Scuba 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the words in WP:NPOL state anything remotely similar to "they have to meet WP:GNG independently of their status of a candidate for political office", they merely describe that an unelected candidate is not automatically notable by virtue of standing for election. Katzrockso (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view personally is that this case clearly does fail NPOL here. They are not an elected figure in any national or state legislature, and they are not a major local political figure - they won just 0.1% of the vote for mayor. As for GNG, this does not seem to be met because the coverage is highly localised and routine local election coverage (which is warranted to many hundreds of thousands of people who put themselves forward for elections to local authorities globally), not significant and sustained coverage that shows individual notability. Greenleader(2) (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Subject does not pass WP:NPOL. Local news usually cover all candidates of a local race at least a few times, especially if there are not that many on the ballot. Estrada has never been elected to a public office, so her notability rests with her status as a perennial candidate, to satisfy the second point of WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I disagree that local coverage of her as a fringe candidate is "significant press coverage". Yue🌙 04:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the person who created this article, I acknowledge this is a bit of a close call. WP:NPOL establishes inherent notability for certain classes of political figures and judges (which Estrada is not in), and clarifies that being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability. Estrada would not be notable were it just for her myriad runs for office prior to 2025, and I think she probably wouldn't be notable with solely her run for mayor this year. But with these factors combined, I believe she meets WP:GNG for the coverage of her as a candidate for political office. Katzrockso has already mentioned sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, which I'll repeat here. I think the Norwood News source, from a local Bronx newspaper, provides useful biographical information as well as broader coverage beyond quotes, NY1 contains a blurb on her campaign and background, and The Bronx Bulletin has an analysis of the finance of her campaign and how she came to stand. I can understand why some are dismissive of the article, but I believe the small coverage Estrada has recieved adds up to meeting WP:GNG. --LivelyRatification (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article just crosses the minimum requirements GNG and NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the sources provided pass GNG. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's run in several elections now and has gained minor notoriety. The previous elections were not enough to establish notability, but given that she was the Conservative Party's candidate in 2025, I lean towards keep. Ageofultron (talk 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm leaning weak delete as subject has only received coverage as a political candidate and it's my understanding that Wikipedia consensus is that until elected one doesn't meet the notability guidelines even if there's significant coverage in local sources, because candidates are often receive coverage when they run for office. If elected WP:NPOL would apply. I have some sympathy for the perennial candidate notability argument. Would be good to have clarity if a perennial candidate with only local sources crosses the notability threshold. Nnev66 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any aspect of policy that could justify excluding local sources of a perennial candidate. Perhaps on a case by case basis when evaluating the sources (i.e. all sources are non-independent or paid coverage), but that's in virtue of the content of the sourcing itself but in virtue of the type of sourcing. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the perspective I shared isn't stated explicitly in policy but it's the opinion of experienced editors I've encountered here when discussing politicians, which is why I stated leaning weak delete. However, I personally am more neutral about this one which is why I didn't !vote. I'd like to better understand the consensus around articles for candidates who were never elected. Nnev66 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has run in more than one race in New York and has received news reporting in more than one ocassion, she is notable enough to have her own article. SuperGion915 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails WP:NPOL, and their notability and coverage is only derived from running for local elections, two of which were primary elections, two of which were local, which does not confer notability, otherwise almost every local candidate would require a Wiki page (additionally, two local primaries and two local general elections to me does not indicate someone is a notable perennial candidate by itself, and no sources acknowledge her as a perennial candidate). In the two general local elections, she's received a vote share of 0.1% and 0.4%, please let's use WP:COMMONSENSE here. There is no precedent for a non-notable local election candidate having a page, and I would argue that this page currently fails on WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE because it falsely gives the impression of notability in New York politics when the sources and facts do not evidence this. Greenleader(2) (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see No consensus but I don't believe in closing an AFD discussion as NC on its first week of debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She is notable enough to have her own article ~2025-33627-36 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE and our pages on event participants and whether a stand alone article is appropriate. She has never finished in the top half of any of the multi-candidate elections in which she has run. She is simply not a major enough participant in any of these events to be warranted a stand-alone article. --Mpen320 (talk)
  • Delete Local, not enough significant RS national coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES#Candidates suggests that this article would be deleted if the subject were otherwise non-notable. However, based on the sources currently in the article, WP:GNG is met: reliable, significant, independent coverage is demonstrated over a long period of time. The subject does not need to meet both GNG and NPOL to be kept; I don't see any other reason to delete the article, either. mdm.bla 19:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason not to keep the page is that an unsuccessful candidate in a couple of local elections is not considered notable. I can't see sources identifying her as a perennial candidate, yet this is the central claim to notability in the page, meaning this is contentious and synthesis. There are no other reasons for notability put forward. The sources are overwhelmingly not RS, being highly localised and routine coverage solely related to what is the actual source of notability, which is the elections themselves. We have to draw a line somewhere, and consensus has typically been that local candidates and even local officials do not usually meet notability guidelines. E.g. There are many US mayors, or UK councillors etc who have had pages deleted because they do not meet GNG or NPOL despite some some local and sustained coverage. Greenleader(2) (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot to unpack here
    reason not to keep the page is that an unsuccessful candidate in a couple of local elections is not considered notable No, an unsuccessful candidate in a couple of local elections is not considered automatically notable. You are confusing the negation of a positive condition (i.e. not sufficient) with the imposition of a negative condition (i.e. necessarily not). An unsuccessful candidate in a couple of local elections may or may not be notable, depending on whether there is SIGCOV in SIRS.
    I can't see sources identifying her as a perennial candidate That has never been a requirement for notability, but here are some sources identifying her as such [27]
    The sources are overwhelmingly not RS Now this would be a convincing reason, if it were accurate. The New York Times is a reliable source. There's plenty of other reliable sources covering her out there - Norwood News has received tons of awards, receives WP:USEBYOTHERS (People (magazine) [28], The New York Times [29] [30], [[Associated Press] [31], etc), has a clear editorial structure, fact-checking, etc. The claim that it is not a WP:RS is completely unsubstantiated.
    Other deletions are not evidence that the coverage here is insufficient, perhaps those other candidates didn't receive enough coverage or perhaps the deletions were erroneous. Not a policy-based reason to delete. Katzrockso (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I think I meant to put "significant" not RS, as the point that I was making was on significance and what confers notability, not on the nature of sources - I mistakenly put RS instead (I'd just been reading RS again so was thinking about that too). Many apologies for that error and thank you for the correction, really appreciate it as it's a very important distinction! The point about what she is known for is crucial; the only claim to being notable is from being a perennial candidate, but there is no GNG for this. Everything else is routine and local coverage that is not sustained or significant coverage for her individually; the only time there is any coverage is when she runs for election. In my view this is backed by WP:SBST which says "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements" is not significant coverage. I would also note that WP:PAGE very clearly asks us to consider the value and need for an individual page - I don't see how the page adds more value to information that is available on election pages outlining her results, and beyond simply being a candidate, there is no claim to notability. Local candidates and even local elected officials have typically had pages deleted due to the coverage not being considered significant enough. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most editors take WP:100WORDS to be sufficient for significant coverage, all of these articles more than suffice for that. I do not agree that any of these articles are "routine" (WP:ROUTINE describes such things as announcements ... Planned coverage of scheduled events ... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences ... Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out. I don't think any of the coverage that Estrada has received is like that. It's not every day that a Democrat switches to a conservative and runs for office. It's not every day that she would run for mayor of New York City! [for note: I don't like in NYC, I have never heard of her before this AfD and do not have any connection to her]
    Her claim to notability is running in elections a number of times. We don't need every source to say "she's a perennial candidate" (regardless, I already provided one that described her as such), that is evinced by the facts within each article. The idea that the sources must specifically establish/describe the fountain of her wiki-notability is not a requirement found anywhere in WP:GNG, which merely states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Irene Estrada "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - any extra requirements imposed are not policy-based requirements.
    WP:NOPAGE is about whether or not the topic would be better covered at another page - perhaps greater context is given at another article. It's a reason to merge content into another page at an AfD, not an argument to delete. It's also specifically about notable topics, as it states "When creating new content about a notable topic". It doesn't make sense to apply this guideline to a topic you believe is non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. WP:NPOL explicitly states, such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. WP:NOPAGE doesn't make much sense, as the subject received significant coverage for her participation in four elections, there is no article which could provide appropriate context. WP:ITSLOCAL is a poor argument and doesn't apply here because her campaign received coverage in The New York Times. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:45, 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 Reid Venable Moran. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Source 1: Casual lecture notes
2: Blog
3: Obituary
4: Self-published source
5: Obvious
6-8: Species-related sources, unrelated to the article itself.
9: Blog
10: A usage form a Thesis
11: Obituary
12: Same as No. 5
13-15: Not very relevant to the article's theme
It does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. Ghren (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, i see the sources order are different now. Anyway,I just couldn't find a suitable source. Ghren (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghren Thank you for your source assessment. I'd like to recommend using Template:Source assess table next time, since it's much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did we pick-up this one somewhere here? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also re-added The San Diego Union-Tribune's obituary (and reused this source for a brief sentence that gives context too). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethmostigmus, each one of the articles you compared this paper to is a hoax. This paper was not a hoax. And it is not primarily a satire, it is only secondarily a satire. It's main and prime purpose of pubication was to report an extension of known territory for a species of plant. None of the articles you linked to compare with this article for that reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moran's article is not a hoax, but the reason I chose to bring up those articles is because they are all academic publications which are only of interest to those outside of their fields because of their humour, rather than the actual academic merit of the publication - not to imply that there's anything academically problematic with Moran's paper, but most people who have heard of it will know of it because a it's funny thing a relatively famous botanist did, not because they care deeply about the distribution of Cneoridium dumosum. If you know of any Wikipedia articles about a paper that is funny and unusual but still scientifically sound, as Moran's is, that would of course be a more appropriate comparison, but I couldn't think of one, and I think my point regarding significant coverage still stands even with the differences in content. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: This article is listed on WP:UNUSUAL, so if this ends in deletion, it needs to be removed from there too.
~2025-33140-42 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may indeed be yet another reason to keep the article. Also see WP:SNOWBALL, WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:1Q – all of which seem to provide even further credence to the foolish notion that we should probably keep this article.
-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article being linked and mentioned on a project space page is not an argument against deletion, and this discussion certainly has not hit snowball point - I count 5 merge votes, 4 keep votes (counting Gommeh's vote as both keep and merge so as not to diminish either position), and 2 delete votes, not including the nominator. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not enough sourcing. Merge into to Reid Venable Moran. Guz13 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural: I am not sure about some of the sources. I will list them here at the request of some editors:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Saimmx
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes A powerpoint slide by Yves Samyn. May reliable. No No further discussion besides "Making a taxonomic publication - title... A parody" ✘ No
Yes A work from ScienceBlogs. Looks like a scientist, I'm not sure. Yes I guess it has a coverage based on machine translation ? Unknown
Yes Online memorial by San Diego Union-Tribune No Unrelated ✘ No
Yes No Personal blog Yes ✘ No
I am not sure if it is a repeat or a primary source. Yes I will give a pass to Madroño I am not sure if it is a repeat or a primary source. ? Unknown
Yes Yes San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of Botany More than mentioned: "Cneoridium dumosum (Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray) Hook. f. ex Baill. {BC: Moran 30437 (SD 111054)} This common native shrub occurs mostly in nw BC but ranges into the northern CD region and is disjunct to the SBOR in s BC. Ecoregions: CSS, CHA, CSU, CD; Wider distrib.: CA CoaSt SpiCe BuSH, BuSH-rue; HierBa del zorrillo" ? Unknown
Moran, Reid. Relictual northern plants on peninsular mountain tops. Cody, Martin L.; Case, Ted J. (编). Island Biogeography in the Sea of Cortéz. University of California Press. 1983: 407–409. ISBN 9780520047990.
 No Reid Moran Yes I don't read, so I don't know ✘ No
I am not sure if it is Reid Moran or a primary source. Yes No Memtioned only ✘ No
Yes Morgan D. Jackson No Personal blog from an expert Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes I will give a pass to a thesis, which is reliable to me. No Citation only ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
--Saimmx (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reid Venable Moran. I am not convinced that this meets WP:GNG (although not strongly convinced that it fails it) but that's not the only relevant consideration in whether something should be a standalone article. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable. Currently, the paper is the subject of a one-sentence paragraph in the biography. There is only about two paragraphs of actual content in the article we're discussing here, about half of which is background to necessary to make it understandable why this is a joke. All that background context is really just a piece of the career of RVM. Expanding the one-sentence paragraph in the biography to a medium-sized paragraph, and incorporating the background on the paper elsewhere in the biography, would make the biography better, would preserve the humor, and would resolve the issue of forcing this article to rely on marginal sourcing to try to establish a case for GNG. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article about this unique satirical academic topic, if merged, would have to have its own section with the proper name as the section title. I said above that there is nothing broken here, and have become more aware of that reading the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a question for the normal editorial process at the target article (assuming a merge happens), it cannot be dictated here and doesn't have any real bearing on this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eleven citations is enough for GNG, supported by the existence of other perfectly notable articles with even fewer citations. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The number of references in an article is completely irrelevant out of context. People have explained above why those sources don't demonstrate notability, so if you disagree, you should address those concerns. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the sources assessment analysis posted before. The references in the article are not independent, not reliable sources, only mentions, not related directly to the subject of the article or otherwise not valid to meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reid Venable Moran. Not independently notable per the source assessment table. Very funny, but funniness isn't considered in notability. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not funny; not informative; not useful. Athel cb (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's not funny" is an invalid argument, as is "it's funny". Neither are arguments that actually help the deletion discussion, which is centred around whether the article passes GNG. not whether it is "funny". --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also the relevant link is WP:IDONTLIKEIT) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 20:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Reid Moran per Gommeh. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reid Moran Primary sources establish it's existence; need third-party sources about it to establish its notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why the !keep votes think the GNG has been met - it seems to be that the standard is some distance from being met. It could surely be mentioned elsewhere but for me the main purpose of the page would appear to be a ridiculously long title. JMWt (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with California Botanical Society: Clever joke/meme I guess, not sure it's notable enough for an article. It was published in the Botanical Society journal, could be an interesting fact there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saimmx: The San Diego Union-Tribune is RS, significant, and GNG relevant. Shall we revise your table to reflect this? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking about this 2010 obituary for Moran run in the San Diego Union-Tribune (currently ref #3 in the article), right? It's a reliable source and detailed coverage, yes, but only of Moran himself - it doesn't so much as allude to the Cneoridium dumosum paper, let alone provide significant coverage of it. Unless you're referring to a different article from the San Diego Union-Tribune, this is irrelevant to the notability of the actual paper, and certainly cannot demonstrate the significant independent coverage needed to satisfy GNG. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still don't really think anything is "broken" here. Not sure I really understand why this is even an issue. Yes, the SDUT article is about Moran (it's his obituary, after all). In our article, it supports the claim that the author of the paper which our article concerns had a "dry sense of humor" (inter alia). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that he had a dry sense of humor could be made in Moran's article. Trying to say that the title of this paper was a product of his "dry sense of humor" is WP:SYNTH and not permitted on Wikipedia. Even if it were, as Ethmostigmus said, the best that source does is support a claim about Moran himself, and possibly Moran's notability, but it has zero impact on the notability of this paper. Why do you keep arguing that something isn't broken, when no one is claiming that it is? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An AfD procedure is in and unto itself a claim that something is broken (i.e., the article you wish to delete), and we should be rid of it, no? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhhh, no. It's a claim that something doesn't meet our notability guidelines (or has some other fundamental issue) and should be deleted. Nothing is broken, but the topic is pretty clearly not notable as set out in GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 First, I must say sorry because I didn't get your ping. Second, assume that you are talking about sandiegouniontribune on legacy.com, while I can trust that The San Diego Union-Tribune is RS, I still remain my option that the source does not have significant coverage on the paper - the source only have significant coverage when the describe the paper in short, something like "Moran has published an interesting paper in 1962 about flower, in which he 'got it there then'..." - that's what "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" means. The rest is explained by Ethmostigmus and Deacon Vorbis. Saimmx (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reid Venable Moran per Gommeh. Not convinced that it passes GNG but it certainly exists and has some level of coverage. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 01:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reid Moran; does not meet GNG, but has enough sourcing for a mention in Moran's article. Esculenta (talk) 19:08, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Bus Airport Express

[edit]
Bright Bus Airport Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: NOPAGE. topic is small and everything on the page is not enough for an encyclopedic article. Can be merged to McGill's Bus Services. DAmik001 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Start merging individual routes into McGill's Bus Services page and it will quickly get unmanageable - this is why a separate page makes sense. Garuda3 (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but it is only just 2 short paragraphs. DAmik001 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3, WP: NOPAGE says that small articles with a low chance to expand should be checked to see it they should exist. This page only covers the route's introducion and withdrawl, making it not worthy for its own page. It can easily be merged into McGill's Bus Services as it is a short article and Wikipedia isn't a Paper Encyclopedia. DAmik001 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st source is a Self-Published Source and the 5th source is a primary source. DAmik001 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. Bus line only existed as an ill-fated rehash of general competition between Lothian Buses and McGill's Bus Services, therefore I would not consider it particularly notable - it closed at relatively short notice with its withdrawal having been expedited from original proposals.
However, if the article was expanded (and by extension renamed) to cover the entire Bright Bus brand from its launch by First Scotland East on 1 July 2019 to its cessation of use with the rebrand of the tour services to Big Bus Tours in June 2025, and the withdrawal of the Airport Express service on 19 November 2025, I would argue that would be notable as it covers a longer period and a much more notable total operation. Clthreeoneeight (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:Deletion is not cleanup, if there is a way to remedy the article to prevent it from violating any guidelines, then "this should be done rather than deleting the page" (WP:ATD-E). This means a deletion is an inappropriate remedy to whatever issues an editor may find in the article.
I also disagree that the article as it stands is non-notable; sources 1-4 are sufficient to establish notability as they provide WP:SIGCOV over a period of time (i.e. nascent express route coverage in 2023, opening in early 2024). Katzrockso (talk) 07:59, 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! 20:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable bus route with minor local coverage and no significant coverage establishing notability. At best, one line could be merged into McGill's Bus Services. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:49, 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 redirect to Uno (bus company). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hertfordshire bus routes 614 and 644

[edit]
Hertfordshire bus routes 614 and 644 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uno (bus company). Out of the 6 sources on the page, 3 of them are not significant coverage or are primary sources. Sources 2 and 3 all talk about the route getting new buses. Will source 2 having less significant coverage than source 3. Sources are all local except source 3 which is a magazine which may be enough be a good source for a page but can't make this page notable alone. Even source 5 won't help. DAmik001 (talk) 16:53, 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! 20:39, 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 United States Olympic curling trials. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States Olympic mixed doubles curling trials

[edit]
United States Olympic mixed doubles curling trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems almost completely duplicative of United States Olympic curling trials. The only additional information I see here is the info about the move of the 2021 trials, which easily could be added as a FN in that article. All additional information that I could see being added here, more appropriately belongs on the individual trials article, which all have their own page. meamemg (talk) 19:57, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G-Slimm

[edit]
G-Slimm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unfortunate that he was murdered, but he does not seem to have any notability outside of that. None of his music had ever charted on any major chart; and as for the sources in the article, only one talks about the murder while the rest either simply mention his name in passing or don't mention him at all. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:46, 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 04:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Gittard

[edit]
Hugo Gittard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is currently written this seems to fail notability. He isnt the focus of any news articles or independent pages that I could find. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing about this person in French media. Most are tv show listings/cast credit lists. This was about the only one in a RS [34], it's literally his name in a list of credits for an episode. I don't see a French wiki article, so that's no help. I had to try a .fr Google search, and the link I gave only comes up after about 15 pages... There isn't anything to be found that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Consensus was found that the list had unresolvable issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. Rjjiii (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi symbolism in Taiwan

[edit]
Nazi symbolism in Taiwan (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)
Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTNEWS. I am contesting the notability of this list article's scope. The article's current title and former titles (Nazism in Taiwan and Use of Nazi symbols in Taiwan), imply that Nazi symbolism and Nazism have a significant or particular presence in Taiwan, but most list items are one-off, isolated examples of an individual's ignorance.
Nazi chic and ignorance about the Holocaust and Nazism are not unique to Taiwan; they are part of a wider problem in Asia and outside of the West in general. For this reason, none of the 44 sources cited in this article as of this deletion proposal describe Taiwan as uniquely having a significant / particular presence of (or problem with) Nazi symbols or (neo-)Nazis.
The list scope therefore seems to be unilaterally decided by the editor(s) who independently searched for every report of a Nazi symbol being used in Taiwan and stitched it into an article, without regard to the lasting notability of each item, or more importantly, the list's scope, which is the crux of WP:NLIST. There are two high-profile examples of Nazi symbols being used by groups of people rather than individual cases, but those topics are covered in their own articles: National Socialism Association and Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School#2016 Nazi-themed parade. Yue🌙 18:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Taiwan. Yue🌙 18:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination is significantly flawed in that the issue does not have to be "unique to Taiwan" to warrant article. WP:SYNTH might be a point of argumentation though. Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte: To clarify, my argument is not that the article should be deleted because the topic is "not unique to Taiwan"; it is indeed in the spirit of WP:SYNTH that I made this nomination and the second paragraph is a supporting detail for my main contention that the list topic / scope is an original idea (point 6 of WP:DEL-REASON). The first sentence of this article encapsulates the article's scope:
    "While there is no significant neo-Nazi movement other than one national socialism association officially founded in Taiwan, the use of Nazi symbolism and imagery in the country has been observed throughout the years, often causing controversy."
    This sentence is an original observation that is not verified by the two citations given, which were taken from the National Socialism Association article and speak to just the controversy that specific group stirred up for a few weeks in 2007.
    I acknowledge the last paragraph of WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists ...", but I would argue that this list would not pass WP:OVERCAT if it was a category because the scope is not a notable topic. If reliable sources are not making this grouping of events (i.e. the conclusion made by this article's first sentence), why would Wikipedia? Yue🌙 02:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I'd like some discussion on both synthesis and how this ties into the wider spectrum of worldwide Antisemitic tropes. I'm not "being a pain" - I'm serious. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is a collection of incidents that are not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. It is not surprising to see them given Taiwan has a population of 25 million. Overall, the subject is non-notable. Azuredivay (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unrelated people doing unrelated things in the country, doesn't make a proper Wikipedia article. A politician calling someone Hitler, a restaurant with a Nazi death camp theme, etc, just unrelated nonsense. Dream Focus 03:33, 27 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 04:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revertive case

[edit]
Revertive case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Going out on a bit of a limb, I wonder if it's relevant that the creator of the article was active on Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. Botterweg (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection and given some of the author's other fishy case articles turning out to have a basis in reality, I think this was an honest mistake rather than a hoax. Botterweg (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article barely has any comment, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:32, 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 Chaserider. While the nomination indeed offered no evidence of a BEFORE, subsequent views expressed here oppose a standalone article for this route, with a redirect to the bus services article being a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

62 Lichfield–Cannock

[edit]
62 Lichfield–Cannock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Redirect to Chaserider. BBC source is the only non local sources that passes GNG. Therefore the content should be merged Redirected into Chaserider as a single BBC source isnt enough for notability.DAmik001 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is split between keeping, deleting or redirecting the article currently. Relisting to allow for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, non notable bus route. --woodensuperman 13:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I previously voted to speedy keep this article as the nominator nominated dozens of these articles with no WP:BEFORE. I am updating this to more than a procedural but substantive keep, since unfortunately this AfD was relisted. The topic of this article is not subject to WP:NCORP as currently worded as it is not a company or organization, so WP:ITSLOCAL applies here as a rebuttal to invalid rationale for deletion. The coverage is substantial enough to pass the WP:GNG; that the sources are largely local is not pertinent here; Wikipedia is not paper and we can afford to have information on topics notable for their coverage in local newspapers.Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chaserider per DAmik001. Even the BBC source is in their local news section, and if local news of bus service commencement and cancellation were sufficient to demonstrate notability, then all routes would be notable. But Wikipedia is not indiscriminate. To be notable for a page in its own right, there need to be sources talking about this route, showing why it is notable and that there is more to put in the article than its start and end dates and that people are annoyed it has been axed. That is, for an encyclopaedic page, there must be something showing this is encyclopaedic information and not just a directory. There is longstanding precedent for this. For instance, even though a wiki exists that lists all the London bus routes, [35], we instead collate these into pages, particularly List of bus routes in London, although there is also aggregation of information around the depots and operationg companies, such as London General. Redirects exist for many of the routes that preserve some earlier history, such as [36]. This allows the page to be written out as and when sources are found that show something is notable about the route and allow a page to be written that is more than stub. This, therefore, is a good WP:ATD in line with WP:NOT, WP:NOPAGE, and established and longstanding practice. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just routine stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual bus routes are rarely notable. Need wider coverage than local press. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 27 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. G5 speedy-deleted by Izno; for the record, all of the keep !voters here are socks of the blocked user in question. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connester

[edit]
Connester (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)

Many sources, but all of them seem to be repackaged press releases with lots of hype and repetition. Lacks actual independent journalism about it, and thus isn't notable. Fram (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added references from the leading news media in the country of India. Outlook india is one of the major trustworthy media, even mid-day, the reputed printed and online news portal. Even Asianet News also is the biggest news media in south india. I even added references from the Mynation, First India, APN news, ED Times, Hindustan metro and The blunt times etc. Many of sites are covered the news of connester, and i took only the news from the repurated media and which is published for different reasons. Those are not press releases. in india, reputed news papers need to add a disclaimer about the press release. So we can understand these are not press releases. Asianet news reported about that connester got DPIIT recognition on July 23, 2025. On July 31, 2025, hindustan metro reported connester got Kerala startup mission recognition. First india reported about the partnership between payu and connester on September 8, 2025. Oct 12, 2025, APN news reported on the news about connester. October 17,2025. ED times about the connester name, pronunciation and its location. The Blunt Times reported on Nov 12, 2025 about the freelance feature in the connester platform. Nov 13, 2025, MyNation reported about the marketplace feature in the connester. About the founder, Subeesh Bose, outlook india made a report on November 14, 2025. November 20, 2025, Mid-Day published, how connester makes job opportunities. All contents are unique and not repacked press release and published in the different times about the new news about connester. Not like promoting connester. The article is meet the criteria of WP:GNG from the multiple different sources and those are very important news portals. Some people can do just one article per day some people can do many. Even juniors can publish in the main editor name. So those are not a factor to delete the article (WP:AGF). Im ready to rewrite the article if it need improvement, and it not a reason to delete (WP:NOTREASONDELETE). I didnt copy and paste the content from anywhere and it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Even Government recognition also help to identify the reputation. Even the certificate number is also mentioned. If the problem because of the reference link, i didnt add all the links available in the internet. Added just few links and those are major news portals in the country. Stingkygow (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC) — Stingkygow (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of SUBEESH_BOSE (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Delete: A promotional attempt with planned press release links. Onmyway22 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern about the press release style sources.but the references in the articles are not planned or paid articles. Those are from multiple independent resources such as Outlook india, Mid-Day, ED Times, APN news and mynation etc.
    For example, i added a PR news from Outlook india. They clearly mentioned the disclaimer for the paid news. Check the link Stingkygow (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the concern about using WP:LLM and voting three times here despite only being allowed to vote once? You are free to discuss other's (and your) contention, but you are not allowed to vote multiple times or use LLM. Can you please strike your other votes?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did vote only for one time and i gave explanation to others. Plz check. I gave only reply. All are gave vote for delete without investigation. Stingkygow (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2 and 3. Please stop. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one of my vote flagged for AI content. So created new. Actually I have no idea about it. Stingkygow (talk) 03:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Direct

[edit]
Seymour Direct (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:CORP with no WP:RS and I can't find any coverage of it, significant or otherwise. Probably could qualify as an A7, but it's been around since 2014, so I decided to bring it to AFD. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Hungary football rivalry

[edit]
Austria–Hungary football rivalry (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)

Pure WP:OR and as of now, unless someone can improve it, it totally fails WP:GNG with the only information being stuff unrelated to association football (Don't care what you call it, as long as we now what sport we are referring to) about mostly war history. A redirect to List of association football rivalries #Europe (UEFA) could work as an WP:ATD if someone can find one reliable source in any language because there currently isn't one to back up claims it's a rivalry, but it rivalries with Austria and Hungary shouldn't really be surprising or notable considering the proximity and history. It is basically just WP:ROUTINE of rivalries that will exist in other sports aswell. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy @Svartner Here are two important questions is this notable for a stand alone article? There is a clear rationale for ATD. Doing a quick search, it is mostly college football discussions, but rivalries to appear to have been deleted: [44]. But most importantly, are all of these sources reliable? Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing different topics here, College football and association football are very different. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy That wasn't my intent. I should have specified different sports. I was assuming others would understand the difference. I should have specified it is mostly from a different sport. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presented sources covering the history of the clash, what did you think of them? And as Gowy mentioned, it's the second most played matchup between national teams, quite distinct from collegial rivalries in US. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naoyuki Yamazaki

[edit]
Naoyuki Yamazaki (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 did a search with Japan as my results region and even then, I couldn't find any significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. The teams he played for in the Netherlands weren't even in the top division, and I am specifically mentioning Telstar and IF Gnistan. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new info CabinetCavers (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat confused by your reply, soccerway and transfermarkt are not used as citations on the Japanese wiki, it's university press, Sports Navi, Tokyo Press, one blog profile. Only about 30% are secondary sources. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 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 14:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destructionism

[edit]
Destructionism (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)

Formerly a DICDEF, the LLM expanded version is something of a WP:SOAP for this one specific use of, in reality, a rather generic political pejorative. (Other uses include for abolitionism and protectionism, apparently) If scope is limited to the Mises sub-sense of the word, it would seem to me to fail WP:NFRINGE by substantial margins. (Though, it may still fail even without limiting to independent, non-fringe sources, given that the definition whatever these people associate with statism and socialism, which isn't really a coherent topic)

For the most part, sources using the term in the sense covered are written by the folks at the Mises Institute. Statism and the Economy and The Problem with Socialism are by senior fellows, The Left, The Right and The State, their founder and chairman. For news sources, we apparently have this article published by the American Institute for Economic Research... when you argue the entire field of "modern macroeconomics", i.e., the current state of the field you're writing about... well, that kind of outs you as perhaps a little outside of the mainstream, if we subject the source to rigorous (or even not so rigorous) scrutiny. We're not here to host an argumentative essay about statism (more commonly known as socialism, in the sense of "the government does stuff", not in a serious mainstream sense) as the Mises people et al. show, there are plenty of places that will do that.

On the political sense of the term as a whole (i.e., including Reagan's use in referring to protectionism), I am still unconvinced that we could write anything beyond the DICDEF, simply because most of the sources show mere use, and do not provide any secondary analysis. I am more willing to be persuaded on this point though, should anyone show up with WP:THREE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LLM generated content still has no place on Wikipedia. CabinetCavers (talk) 17:49, 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 Jeypore#Education. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern English School, Jeypore

[edit]
Modern English School, Jeypore (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 Jeypore#Education, where it is mentioned. Fails in WP:NSCHOOL and GNG owing to no WP:SIGCOV in RS. My BEFORE yielded only database listings and the school's social media pages. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:05, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Dittmann

[edit]
Gina Dittmann (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)

Tennis player with a highest ranking of 415 in doubles and 517 in singles. Never played in a Grand Slam or WTA Tour main draw or in Billie Jean King Cup. Only coverage I can find is routine database or from her college which does not meet impartiality test. Existing references mention her briefly as a side note in articles primarily focussed on other players. She is 23 so maybe one day will be notable but as it stands she fails GNG and SIGCOV which, before the article creator mentions it, override Tennis Project advice. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kalmus

[edit]
Marion Kalmus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-PRODded with suggestion to take to AfD. Per PROD, I don't think the subject is notable whether under GNG or under artist specific criteria.

Maybe you could say being a Fellow at Pembroke College is solid enough to hit criterion 3 of WP:NACADEMIC but Kalmus was in fact "Kettle's Yard Artist Fellow in Residence at Pembroke College", not just a Cambridge fellow. There are many Cambridge fellows sans Wiki articles, being one at Kettle's Yard isn't exactly noteworthy.

I've already cleaned content which is either unreferenced/OR but there still exist some bits of question e.g. reference 1, where Kalmus isn't actually listed in the book (unless under a different surname?) (strike through - only version available online i.e. the one I was checking is 1998 pub, referenced one is 2007 pub) and reference 13 which is, as far as I can tell, just citing a person.

It is a separate thing but the majority of the creator/primary contributor's edits have been to Marion Kalmus, Peter Kalmus (physicist) and George Kalmus. I haven't really done a deep dive on the latter two (who are related) but in all three cases there have been significant amounts of unreferenced/unverifiable content which I have had to strip out. Can't confirm it but wouldn't be surprised if Marion is a member of the same family and given the amount of unsourced content across the three it makes me think there could be some potential COI editing at play. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who wrote the bulk of the articles for Marion Kalmus, Peter Kalmus (physicist) and George Kalmus. There's no conflict of interest. I am not a family member and have nothing to gain from these articles. I worked on Peter and George's information from notes provided by the physics and academic bodied they have represented and from notes they supplied which had been prepared to assist in their eventual obituaries. Marion is the daughter of Peter. She was a significant and leading figure in modern British art during the 1990s and had been tipped for stardom. While she was actively making art her career was similar to Damien Hurst's in that she was already winning art awards and achievements whilst still a student, and she was anticipated as highly likely to achieve similar success; until other circumstances led to her stepping back. She was influential enough that when she did step back, other artists in the field described themselves as being 'the new Marion Kalmus'. I'm very unclear exactly why this article is nominated for deletion? She's just as valid as a modern British artist as the others from the same movement who also have articles.
I have to say that I find your accusation of COI rather unwarranted and insulting. How about believing the best of people rather than the worst? I was under the impression that Wiki's strength was that it is a community and built from the contributions of that the community. It's not much of a community if contributors' work gets trashed wholesale. I may not be a professional author or a Wiki expert, but the articles are sincere. Admiralquirk (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Admiralquirk:: it's important not to misunderstand AfD as a judgement on a subject's importance, achievements, validity and so on. The purpose of the exercise is to verify whether it (she) meets the criteria for inclusion in a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, which are known slightly misleadingly as the notability guidelines. For a biography of an artist, the main ways in which this could be demonstrated are:
  • WP:GNG: the gold standard for all articles -- we could demonstrate that there is significant coverage of her and her work in multiple independent reliable sources. These don't necessarily have to be included in the article -- it would be enough to find them and link them here.
  • WP:NARTIST or WP:NAUTHOR (which are the same standard): can we demonstrate from independent reliable sources that her work has had a major impact in her field -- in particular, that her books and/or artworks have been widely reviewed?
UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't the avenue for it but it falls on for me raising it - a WP:COI doesn't inherently suggest you are a familial relative or have anything to gain, financial or otherwise. I've just pointed out a pattern of editing which could indicate a COI. "Notes" provided to you personally by the subjects aren't reliable sources because no one else can verify them. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A WP:BEFORE search finds that she meets criteria #4a of WP:NARTIST for her notable permanant public art work created for the National Botanic Garden of Wales. The sculpture and fountain, titled, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Eight which serves as the public "gateway" or gatehouse to the garden. There is a lot of coverage online of this work. She has also been commissioned for projects by the Tate Museum, and Royal Festival Hall. [51]. Other site-specific works include those for th Jerwood sculpture park, a sculptural work for Canterbury City Center UK[52], a site-specific event for the Victoria and Albert Museum. She also meets WP:GNG: her work has been reviewed in the Sunday Herald (Glasgow) by Giles Sutherland on 10 March 2002; the New South Wales Evening Post on 3 March 2011; in the Western Mail (Cardiff, UK) by Steve Dube, 30 November 2001; among others, all found via ProQuest. Regarding the possible COI, the creator has disclosed that they don't have a COI, and even if they did, while COI editing is strongly discouraged, it is not a valid rational for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the permanent work at the Welsh National Botanic Gardens, and installations at Tate Liverpool, V&A, ICA, indicate notability. It's a pity the "issuu" copy of the Buckman ref seems unavailable ... unless someone else can track it down ... as that contributes to notability. PamD 09:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Internet Archive is temporarily (I hope) unavailable, otherwise I'd have tried to find an archived copy of some of the refs; I've already upgraded the BBC News Nov 2001 ref to include a link. @Admiralquirk: please try to provide usable links in your references, rather than partial URLs, so that readers, and editors, can find your sources. Thanks. PamD 09:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Pam, I did provide complete URLs for my internet references originally. Someone then subsequently compacted them about a decade ago, applying what was supposed to be a Wiki rule. I'm sorry it is causing a problem. Admiralquirk (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admiralquirk Well the version at the end of your major creation set of editing was this, which seems to have several somewhat malformed refs already such as "issuu.com/powershift/docs/dictionary_k" for the Buckman ref. Yes, I can see that some 2017 edits then incorrectly changed your citations from inline defined to list defined, while trying to improve them, but this article seems never to have had a well-formed set of refs. PamD 08:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful to know which edition of Buckman's Artists in Britain since 1945 was used. Netherzone (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's not in the 1998 version, I just checked. The 2006 edition doesn't have a match for "Marion Kalmus" on HathiTrust either [53]. Katzrockso (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katzrockso, the book you mention on HathiTrust (Britain Since 1945 by Terry Gorvich and Alan O'Day, published by MacMillan) is not the same book. We are looking for David Buckman's Artists in Britain since 1945. Published by Art Dictionaries Ltd. Nevertheless she still meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, you're correct I don't know why i thought that. Katzrockso (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    issuu.com/powershift/docs/dictionary_k was a valid reference, but no use now as the domain is no longer in use and up for sale. It pointed to an alphabetical list of recognised artists. From memory I believe that it claimed to display Buckman's data, but it was a long time ago. There are three crawls on the Wayback Machine which confirm that it did exist and did resolve as a URL. Unfortunately the crawls that the Wayback Machine captured seem to also show that issuu.com relied on Flash to display properly, and it would probably be hard to find anything that uses Flash as a core technology these days. Sadly it is no good as a reference, even from archive as the pages don't load any more. Admiralquirk (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the good work of Netherzone and the Admiral. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was draftify. I see consensus that the article isn't ready for mainspace. Promotional tone should be removed before attempting to move this back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackery

[edit]
Jackery (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 Jacquerie contested, so here we are. Non-notable US power company, undersourced to primary sources, Forbes Sites, LinkedIn and the usual low level corporate desperation sources. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Would accept redirect per consensus but note it's not a perfect target so, failing that, deletion would be appropriate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that promotional tone, if any, can be removed while the AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:49, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beachcomber (bus)

[edit]
Beachcomber (bus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus route Sugar Tax (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article satisfies the WP:GNG, which states that a topic is notable "when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources 2/6 and 4 constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I disagree that sources 2, 4, and 6 are "trivial and/or promotional" and disagree that their local nature has any bearing on the WP:GNG. It is noted at WP:ITSLOCAL that "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources ... [b]ut this ... does not specify the locality of the coverage". Katzrockso (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into East Yorkshire (bus company). Won't contest deletion of the separate article despite contributing an image, the subject is rather niche and I think the information from this article could be spun off as a subsection of the East Yorkshire article. Hullian111 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. The topic is notable per Katzrockso, but I'm undecided on which option on WP:NOPAGE grounds. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 08:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All independent sources are local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability, similar to WP:LOCALCORP guideline which is unfortunately very US-centric. Guardian listicle isn't WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:ATD - merge or redirect to East Yorkshire (bus company). Orange sticker (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    local news outlets who have a very low standard for publication and should probably not be considered as viable sources for notability Based on what policy or guideline? WP:GNG does not have any indicator that local sources should be excluded from consideration from notability, and while WP:LOCALCORP does, it doesn't apply here. You are more than welcome to propose a change to policy, but not apply policies and guidelines that don't exist. Katzrockso (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all reliable, secondary sources with SIGCOV are local sources. DAmik001 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

575 Harlow–Romford

[edit]
575 Harlow–Romford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First 2 sources are local, the rest being either primary or non SIGCOV. History only states the route was introduced then widrawn. DAmik001 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Local sources are sufficient to establish notability, see WP:ITSLOCAL. Sources #1 and #2 are sufficient to establish notability. Length of the route does not have any impact on notability as notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. Katzrockso (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSLOCAL is from an essay, whereas WP:LOCALCORP is from a notability guideline, which would normally clearly be more relevant, although the guideline here is WP:NCORP. Should this be covered by NCORP? I'm not sure. The bus company certainly would be, but a route exists independently of a company (although might be renumbered). Regarding notability of the subject, even if NCORP does not apply, this still needs to meet WP:GNG, so we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject, sufficient that we can write an encyclopaedic article from them. I'm not seeing that, but will reserve my !vote for now to give a chance for something to be found. I also suggest you add to your "procedural keep" since that can't happen now there is a delete !vote. As it stands, you don't have any policy reasons to keep, so adding those will give it more weight and avoid a WP:DISCARD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, you don't have any policy reasons to keep I already stated in my previous comment Sources #1 and #2 are sufficient to establish notability and I stand by that remark - the sources #1 and #2 already in the already are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't know why both you and Owen seem to have missed the words in my comment, which despite not having the word "keep", provide a policy-based reason to keep the article - i.e. that the topic is notable per the significant coverage in sources #1 and #2. I specifically commented because the article was no longer eligible for a speedy keep. Once again, I will repeat it: 575 Harlow–Romford should be kept because is a notable topic, as per the WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS already existent in the article; [54] [55]. These articles provide more than enough material to write an encyclopedia article, as evidenced by the existing encyclopedia article.
    "It's an essay" is not a valid dismissal of the basic point that the locality of coverage is not invoked in the WP:GNG, and I while I agree WP:AUD would be relevant if this were an organization, I do not believe that the relevant standard for this class of articles is WP:NCORP, as a route can be reconstituted by another company, as you have noted. A bus route is like a road, it's a means of describing the connection between two geographic places. There are other examples of these bus routes that were once operated by one company, closed down and then restarted by another company. Katzrockso (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well don't accuse Owenx of missing it, they made no comment nor evaluation on the matter but merely reiterated the issue re the procedural keep argument. I was suggesting you put the update as a comment against your !vote so it was clear for closers. Instead you have bolded it here. I don't think that clarifies. If it were me, I would strike my procedural keep now and re-enter a new keep vote. You can only have one bolded !vote per discussion, so I'll leave it up to you how you lay that out (but you can't have both bolded).
    Logistics aside, you claim that those sources establish notability. Are you evaluating that against WP:GNG? because there are a few issues there. First, we need multiple sources, GNG says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. That is, although you see some people suggesting 2 sources will be enough, that simply can't be the case for a couple of local news sources. WP:ROUTINE often gets cited, despite being about events, and this is not an event. Despite that shortcoming, the point is good. If these routes are notable, we should be seeing more than coverage of the event of a local bus service starting and the event of a local bus service ending. If that were all it takes for a page to be notable, then all bus routes would be notable.
    Add to this the WP:PRIMARYNEWS element of the coverage. An article about the commencement or suspension of a bus route is a primary source about that commencement or suspension. Primary sources do not count towards notability. Also if the announcement comes off a press release, it is not independent. But ultimately, the real problem is that neither of these sources give enough to write an article with anything other than there was a bus route, it went here and here and here, and now it doesn't. On the face of it, I don't see what encyclopaedic article we can write here, and I wonder whether the real issue is that this is something that would better be merged elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once a valid delete rationale has been entered by a participant, the nomination no longer qualifies for a speedy/procedural keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, as Sirfurboy correctly noted. Please assess notability per the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just routine stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per my comments above, WP:GNG is not met, and this route is just not notable for an encyclopaedic article. A redirect to the bus company would be okay, but only if that article bothered to mention individual routes, and it doesn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Kołumbajew

[edit]
Jacek Kołumbajew (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 notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph•talk• 05:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:06, 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 14:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engage Mutual Assurance

[edit]
Engage Mutual Assurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the page for a run-of-the-mill finance company. I can find no significant media coverage, merely routine coverage, press releases and native advertising ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:47, 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. Salvio giuliano 07:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koray Erdoğan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Koray Erdoğan (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)

Spammy bio of non-notable hair restoring surgeon, no more notable today per WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC than when it was deleted at AFD four years ago. Sources are, again, all press releases and sponsored content, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up only more of that, and a book he wrote about his hair transplant technique, published by Springer.

The smiley posed photo is courtesy of User:Mutlutopuz, a blocked sock of User:Ertanguven, and this latest attempt shouts undisclosed paid editing loudly, e.g. this "reference" by Koray Yılmaz about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, nothing to do with this hair transplant guy. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

38 Glasgow–Johnstone

[edit]
38 Glasgow–Johnstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most sources are not Significant Coverage and are all local sources. DAmik001 (talk) 21:00, 17 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) 06:09, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

141 Nottingham–Sutton-in-Ashfield

[edit]
141 Nottingham–Sutton-in-Ashfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I seriously question whether the nominator checked the references. Notability is established by coverage from BBC News, Buses magazine, and on a regional level with the Nottingham Post, and Chad. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just routine stuff. The BBC source looks like a press release rather than an independent story, no mention of reporters. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The BBC and Muses magazine articles are WP:PRIMARYNEWS of potential axing (and reprieve) of the route. This kind of run of the mill coverage does not establish notability and does not meet GNG. We have no sources that allow an encyclopaedic article to be written about this ordinary and non notable route. To be clear, if this one were notable, then they all are, everywhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

159 Coalville–Hinckley

[edit]
159 Coalville–Hinckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is covered by the BBC, and the Leicester Mercury - a regional publication (not local), this is enough to establish notability for the purposes of this AfD, which the nominator, I feel, has not provided a good enough reason for. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just routine stuff. Not a very frequent route, I might add. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The BBC news is in the local news section and is just local news about axing the service. If services were notable based on announcements of commencement or closure, then all would be automatically notable. In fact this fails under WP:PRIMARYNEWS. There is nothing here that indicates notability of this route. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

216 Cardiff–Bristol Airport

[edit]
216 Cardiff–Bristol 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)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into National Express. Out of the 8 sources on the page, 2 are primary sources (the bus companies that have operated the route) and 2 more are not significant coverage (a book talking about buses in wales and the Renishaw source, which does not mention route 216 even once). The 4 other sources are local sources but if those can count towards notability then the page should be redirected to National Express with some content being merged into that page. DAmik001 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to National Express per above, or just delete. WP:NOPAGE certainly pertains. The article is based on WP:PRIMARYNEWS and that doesn't meet GNG, but even if it were argued it did, NOPAGE would still pertain as there is nothing to say particularly about this route as an encyclopaedic subject in its own right. Readers are better served in finding the information on the operator page and this is in line with our practioce elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:20, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

280 Preston–Skipton

[edit]
280 Preston–Skipton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Burnley Express, Lancs Live, and Buses magazine provide coverage which is enough to establish notability for the purposes of this AfD, as I believe the nominator has not given a satisfactory specific reason as to why the article should be deleted. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the route information only to Stagecoach Merseyside and South Lancashire (or else delete). This is in line with other bus operator pages, such as London General, where the routes that are operated by an operator are listed, and individual routes are redirected there. For an encyclopaedic page, there must be something showing this is encyclopaedic information. There is longstanding precedent for this. For instance, even though a wiki exists that lists all the London bus routes, [56], we instead collate these into pages, particularly List of bus routes in London, although there is also aggregation of information around the depots and operating companies, such as London General. Redirects exist for many of the routes that preserve some earlier history, such as [57]. This is a good WP:ATD in line with WP:NOT, WP:NOPAGE, and established and longstanding practice. If anything emerges in the future demonstrating this route has notability, the page can be restored and written out. But, to be clear, if not merging I think we should delete this as non notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To note, if merge is not the consensus here, I would say this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just routine stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual bus routes are rarely notable. Need wider coverage than local press. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 27 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Express

[edit]
Severn Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with First West of England most sources have significant coverage but apart from some magazines are local therefore the page can have some information transferred to First West of England. DAmik001 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why these were not picked out by the above users but Coach & Bus Week and Buses (magazine) are publications for news regarding the bus industry across the UK and satisfy the "regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source" requirement to pass WP:LOCALCORP. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 00:50, 18 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) 06:05, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T7 Bristol–Chepstow

[edit]
T7 Bristol–Chepstow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coach & Bus Week and Buses (magazine) are publications for news regarding the bus industry across the UK and satisfy the "regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source" requirement. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into TrawsCymru. Unfortunately, beyond coverage by local news sources, I doubt it's really notable to have its own article.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 18 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) 06:04, 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W8 Wellingborough–Bozeat

[edit]
W8 Wellingborough–Bozeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source 1 isnt significant coverage, source 3 is a subscription source that i cant access to see if it is SIGCOV or not and source 5 is primarily. Apart from the BBC source (source 4), all sourcees are local. DAmik001 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 Ratho–Chesser

[edit]
20 Ratho–Chesser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the BBC, plus regional/local publications like the Edinburgh Evening News are enough to establish notability for the purposes of this AfD, which I believe the nominator hasn't provided enough reasoning for. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only county level local coverage, nothing significant beyond that. Nothing of major historical significance in any of the sources, just trivial mentions. The BBC article, mentions a bearded dragon on this bus route, which is only coincidental and only vouches notability (a little bit) for the event, not the bus route, Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom and above, there is insufficient significant coverage to establish notability. Even as a local somewhat myself to this bus route, its a long stretch to argue notability could be there for a route which really only covers a small geographic area. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:47, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hale

[edit]
Christopher Hale (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)

Unclear notability. Article seems like a CV perhaps written by those with a close connection to the subject. Article appears to have been created by the subject himself: User:Chrishale53 ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mirzapur Upazila#Education. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burihati High School, Mirzapur

[edit]
Burihati High School, Mirzapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The school is a government-approved secondary institution registered under the Dhaka Education Board with EIIN 114509, and it is officially listed by the Bangladesh Ministry of Education and the Department of Secondary and Higher Education (SHED).[1]
Additionally, independent news coverage from national and regional media — including Dainik Shiksha, Amar Campus BD, and U71 News — has featured the school’s achievements, community involvement, and educational development, which are reliable and independent of the institution’s own publications.[2][3][4]
The article also provides detailed historical and administrative context, including the school’s community-based founding, educational motto (“Education is Power”), and MPO (Monthly Pay Order) approval in 2024 — showing long-term community impact and verifiable institutional growth.
Overall, the article satisfies Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards for educational institutions, supported by multiple independent sources.
— Shuvomzr (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC) Shuvomzr (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources you have mentioned here, the first one isn't even opening. The second one is redirecting to the homepage, and 3rd and 4th ones are about DUET, not this school. Also, the reply made by you was written by an AI, which does not matter, I guess. It fails WP:GNG anyway. Raihanur (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Official Notice for Burihati High School". Department of Secondary and Higher Education (in Bengali). Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
  2. ^ বুড়িহাটি উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়. দৈনিক শিক্ষা. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
  3. ^ "Burihati High School News Coverage". Amar Campus BD. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
  4. ^ "Burihati High School Report". U71 News. Retrieved 7 November 2025.
  • Redirect non-notable school to Mirzapur Upazila, where it is located. The article cited several indiscriminate, self-published and/or user-generated websites that parrot the government's statistics database. Dainik Shiksha is a reliable source, but the cited piece is a job circular placed by the school. Neither the Amar Campus BD article nor the U71 News one mention the school. Searches in English and Bengali found no sources that would establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:28, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie, Indiana

[edit]
Prairie, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two houses at a crossroads do not house 5,999 people unless one of them has a lot of beds hidden in its basement, or unless one misreads the census and confuses this place with the township of the same name. Not sure why this spot has a name but it's not a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. jolielover♥talk 04:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The census reference does link to a Prairie Township in Henry County, not any unincorporated territory in Posey County. I would be curious to know if there is more information or if this is a CDP before voting for deletion. ~RAM (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Prairie Township linked to in the census reference is in Henry County, hundreds of miles away, suggesting someone wasn't careful to read their references. This leaves only GNIS as a source, which isn't reliable. USGS topo maps do show several houses and a church in 1917, but essentially nothing since then: [58]. I didn't do a thorough search through newspaper archives or anything, but nothing was found in a cursory web search. Unless sources can be found I say delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WeirdNAnnoyed. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Aldridge family came in 1810 from North Carolina. The father was John Aldridge, who was a blacksmith, and the sons were Samuel, Elijah, Reuben, Henry, William and Aaron. The Todd family, also, came from North Carolina, their native town being Charlottesville. The original members of the family in Black township were William and Hugh. Other families who settled in the township before the battle of Tippecanoe were the Rowes, Dunns, Jeffries and the Andrews, Nestlers, Ashworths, Frenches, Bacons, Kennedys, the Burlisons, Joseph Holleman, Thomas Russell and George Harshman, who located in what is known as Prairie Settlement. From "History of Posey County, Indiana". This is likely where the name comes from, it was a settlement. I was unable to find much more on this settlement, but it is likely organized around Prairie Chapel, which I created a page on one of its preachers, Moses Ashworth, so that could be a possible redirect target. Katzrockso (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Station, Indiana

[edit]
Philip Station, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have a novelty: a new rail point, the site of a wye connecting the main line to the A. B. Brown Generating Station, which was built in 1979; and indeed, there is nothing at this point until after that date. Presumably it's called Philip Station because Saint Philip is (at least on GMaps) not too far to the northeast, but at any rate this is not and was not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Moshiar Rahman

[edit]
Mohammed Moshiar Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disclosure – I am the main contributor to the article but believe it does not meet notability requirements.

Delete – subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; sources lack significant, independent, reliable coverage.

Disclaimer – As outlined in my User:Smoothing sun, I wrote the article Mohammed_Moshiar_Rahman. I was given the sources to write the article. The article got nominated for speedy deletion in June but somehow made it to the main Wikipedia Page in November. I was offered payment for producing this article but I declined it because it violates Wikipedia's policy and the article is totally based on unreliable sources. I didn't realize that the speedy deletion was reverted until a few hours ago.

Reasoning For Deletion – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It lacks significant, independent, and reliably sourced coverage that would establish the subject’s encyclopedic relevance. The sources provided are extremely weak: two citations come from Daily Asian Age, a publication with no demonstrated editorial reputation or independence, making it unreliable for establishing notability. In fact, the Daily Asian Age (where the source is taken from for this article) with the website https://dailyasianage.com/ep/ is a Media Impersonation of the actual reliable newspaper Asian Age. To be specific, the source provided tries to mimic the authentic and reliable Indian newspaper Asian Age as the source copies the original's newspapers logo verbatim.

The NEOM reference is unusable, as it does not verify that the individual mentioned is the same person described in the article, which is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. The remaining references from Financial Express BD, Dhaka Tribune, and BRAC offer only brief or passing mentions rather than the in-depth, secondary coverage required by policy.

The subject’s former role as Chairman of the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority does not establish notability, particularly given the lack of independent coverage demonstrating that the position is itself significant. The article also contains multiple sections, including Early Life and Education, that are entirely unsourced, contrary to the sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. The image used in the article is unverifiable and provides no evidence that it actually depicts the subject.

Overall, the entry relies on non-independent, low-quality, or irrelevant sources and fails to provide any substantive, reliably sourced indication of notability. As it stands, the article does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:V, or WP:BLP, and deletion is the appropriate outcome. Smoothing sun (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting of the AfD so it can transclude correctly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A WP:BEFORE search finds only passing mentions of this individuals name. In Bengali, all I could find in addition was a similarly named "Judge Munshi Mohammad Moshiar Rahman" being named in passing for sentencing decisions. Katzrockso (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.