Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 3#Albert Acquah

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      October 8 (Wed)      October 7 (Tue)      October 6 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscernible  Unsorted

Purge server cache

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

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

This article is a partial hoax. He never signed with an NFL team. The LA Sentinel source appears to be a promotional interview. It falsely claims he is on the Redskins' practice squad. Fails GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The LA Sentinel interview is citing the iSportsWeb article which was written by NFL scout John Carr...might be true. But being on the practice squad briefly still doesn't cut the mustard. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The iSportsWeb article is a promotional hoax. It was actually written by "Evin Morrison". Ross never signed with an NFL team. It would be easy to find records of it if he actually did. I don't think this guy even got a workout. And he also didn't have 60 catches his senior year, he only had 6. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, that's a definite delete then. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, American football, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 03:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, this is a hoax. Article was created by a SPA with no edits to any other pages. Let'srun (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and restart per nom. Hoax article. NotJamestack (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Let'srun , Additionally user has no edits outside of this article . Khagendra (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence of Ross's football career that I can find. I cannot verify that the article is a hoax but will note there are no secondary sources backing it up. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonkie Borthakur (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:ANYBIO. SaTnamZIN (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, India, and Assam. SaTnamZIN (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. jolielover♥talk 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:ENT. She is notable both for WP:GNG, as there is WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ENT as she was a major actress in "multiple notable films". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzrockso (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please prove your claim. SaTnamZIN (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  citations and claims are difficult provide as she was notable during 1996-2002, although only in Assam. From that time, online archives are rare. Dagoofybloke (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So you have admitted that notability isn't applied to the subject person? SaTnamZIN (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  weak keep, coverage exists: modern mainstream sources (India Today and Sentinel Assam) have published articles discussing Jonkie Borthakur’s career and death, and her recorded songs/credits are available from music catalogs and uploads together these meet WP:ENT / WP:SIGCOV Dagoofybloke (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  citations and references are difficult to provide based on what is given, that's true; though mere information with confirmed evidence, witness, and some by taking from videos maybe kept. 'by taking from videos' here i mean suppose you got info from video, so as citation keep the video link Anonymusbro (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  extremely sorry, forgot abt wikipedia guidelines, but i am not talikin' of journalism or blog/vlog, i am talking abt youtube videos of news, and their family speaking or like that Anonymusbro (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Added 3 more sources and attempted a WP:HEY. Does the article now have any source with a SIGCOV? - No. Is notability established? - No. But one thing which keeps irking me is the fact that her prime was in around 2000 and in Assam, online archives from that period is scarce. But whatever coverage is available, much of that also appears to be present owing to her brother's popularity. WP:INHERITED. Please ping me when (and if) online archives are found. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: - Many passing mentions but couldn't find WP:SIGCOV neither in english nor in hindi .Khagendra (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable Uwsi (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uwsi (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – I am the creator of Boa, so I have a conflict of interest and will not add these sources to the article myself. However, there are multiple reliable, independent sources that cover Boa in detail, which helps satisfy WP:GNG:

  The New Stack: “New Astro Releases Incorporates Sessions, New Astro Actions Tools” – coverage from a respected industry publication, mentioning Boa as part of a major release.

  Medium (JavaScript in Plain English): “Boa v0.20 — A Major Leap for the JavaScript Engine” – detailed write-up of the engine’s progress, development history, and significance.

  Academic paper from Vrije Universiteit Brussel (PDF) – cites Boa in the context of JavaScript engine research, showing its relevance in scholarly work.

  These are independent sources providing substantive discussion, not trivial mentions, which helps establish notability per WP:INDEP.

  I am only participating here to make sure editors are aware of these sources, not to influence article content. JaseW (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article from The New Stack is just a "release roundup" of JavaScript Rust tools that summarizes information found in the various projects' release notes. The article has no information not found in https://boajs.dev/blog/2024/12/05/boa-release-020, which it heavily quotes from.

  The JavaScript in Plain English article is not a "detailed write-up of the engine’s progress, development history, and significance", but plagiarizes the aforementioned 0.2.0 release notes, even to the extent of occasionally copying the first person pronouns ("our", "we", etc.) that the release notes use.

  The masters' thesis (about a project that uses Boa) is a single paper referencing Boa which does not (on its own) convey or confer notability. Martey (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are some things going on that make Boa notable, including the recent work going on to support the ECMAScript Temporal APIs, of which Boa's temporal_rs forms the underlying basis. Chromium Tracker

While a more minor player, I don't see this as falling below the notability threshold that would suggest deletion is appropriate. Neoeinstein (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This does not meet the notability guidelines outlined in WP:GNG. As I commented above, the sources that the project's creator provided are not enough to establish this project's notability. When I look at List of JavaScript engines, Boa does not have the high-quality (i.e. reliable) sources that other engines (even niche engines like Espruino) have. Martey (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So you looked at JerryScript in that list and decided they have higher reliable sources than this article when there’s only 3 references and one of them is just a link to their GitHub repository?

  I’d be curious to understand how that passes JaseW (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have found no reliable, in-depth, non-primary sources that establish notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like jerryscript is not a good reason to keep this article. As of now, the best place for this is in a list of Javascript engines. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Opinion is divided between Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a single reliable/independent source for this that can establish notability? Right now the keep votes are from the creator which raises COI concerns and a vague argument that the package is somehow notable with a link to a chrome update page. This is my analysis of sourcing provided in this discussion:

• [7] Programmer website that has user-submitted content. Cannot tell if there is any editorial oversight.
• [8] Medium is a blog hosting service and unreliable WP:MEDIUM.
• [9] A master's thesis. Per WP:THESIS: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
• [10] A link to a chrome/chromium feature addition. Chrome/Chromium may be notable but notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED and while a changelog may be reliable it offers no indication of notability.

Some of these sources are included on the main article now (2/12). The article also has these additional sources:

• [11][12][13][14] 4/12 references are non-independent references to the boa dev site and don't establish notability.
• [15] A link to an archived javascript engine test page
• [16][17] A video and a transcript of a conference presentation. I don't think technical conference presentation confer notability but correct me if that is incorrect.
• [18] Mozilla blog post that has no mention of Boa.
• [19] Presentation slides from another technical conference.
• [20] A github dev page which is primary/does not establish notability.

Unless other sources can be brought to the table, I don't think this article passes the requirements for WP:GNG as there are no sources that meet WP:SIRS to establish notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A FOSS project certainly isn't expected to be covered in NY times or the Guardian. But there doesn't exist anything even in lesser sources that would be compatible with WP:NSOFT. This does sound like an impressive project and congrats to the JaseW for building it and getting a part of it into V8. But Wikipedia notability just isn't there, for now. – SD0001 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Neoeinstein (talk) that there are goings on that make Boa notable, especially the Temporal work at the moment. In response to Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) there is a New Stack article which mentions Boa that wasn't on your list: https://thenewstack.io/xslt-debate-leads-to-bigger-questions-of-web-governance/ i believe the New Stack are independent. The presentation from https://webengineshackfest.org/slides/cross-engine_contributions_at_scale:_how_newcomers_accelerated_temporal_and_upsert_in_spidermonkey,_v8,_and_boa_by_jonas_haukenes,_mikhail_barash_&_shane_carr.pdf is also independent from the project and doesn't include content from anyone who works on it (whether that confers notability or not is a different question). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.82.26 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa (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 fails notability guidelines for a few reasons regarding sourcing, but it also suffers from WP:SYNTH and trivial content:

1. Poor coverage in reliable sources in English, Chinese, and Japanese
   • Sources presently cited in this article are unreliable (e.g. citing Japanese nationalist YouTube channels, tabloids, and opinion pieces), mention the phrase in passing or merely as part of a headline (WP:HEADLINES), or makes no mention of the phrase at all and is cited for related filler to lengthen the article.
   • Googling the phrase in English, Chinese, and Japanese returns 10, 234, and 840 hits, respectively, most of which are social media posts, particularly tweets, by politicians, pundits, commentators, etc. None of the other results are high quality, consisting of opinion pieces, many of which limit their usage of the phrase to a catchy headline. The phrase is evidently a fringe internet-ism that was recently coined and does not enjoy widespread coverage by reliable sources. This article also appears to be a rough translation from the Japanese Wikipedia and retains all the sourcing issues from it.
2. The article body accordingly consists mostly of trivial mentions of the phrase and related surveys with no longer term significance (WP:NOTNEWS). If the article was completely purged and rewritten to remedy this issue, then the article would just be a statement that the phrase has been used, with a few citations of unreliable sources (self-published opinions).

This article's creation was premature at best; at present, it is not a reliably covered topic. Yue🌙 20:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, China, and Japan. Yue🌙 20:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:SOAP, the only thing this article does is lending credence to fringe theories. Zalaraz (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only does this article appear to lack a WP:BEFORE search (in Japanese and other relevant languages) it does not appear to have even viewed the Japanese or Chinese language versions of this article which contain 166 and 127 citations, respectively. I understand many CCP-supporting editors may wish to whitewash but Wikipedia should not be censored and this is hardly a fringe theory as evident by the citation count in foreign languages (WP:NOENG). DCsansei (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DCsansei, Are you implying that people who voted delete are "CCP-supporting editors may wish to whitewash"? Zalaraz (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei: WP:BEFORE was indeed done and I stand by my above assessment of the sources. Over a hundred citations in the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia articles, but how many of them are reliable sources that mention the phrase? Have you actually checked the citations in those Wikipedia articles? Yue🌙 05:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei: The Chinese version of “zh:今日香港，明日臺灣，後天沖繩” is not just a definition of the phrase. It also covers geopolitics, the military, and aspects of espionage, and even discusses CCP influence over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Okinawa. The Chinese Wikipedia article already treats it as a geopolitical concept and has been actively expanded, reflecting ongoing discourse in Taiwan. This means it is not simply a Japanese nationalist slogan but a phrase pointing to deeper links among Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Okinawa. The English version only covers part of this, and rather than being deleted, the article should be improved and expanded. 27.253.251.178 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an LLM generated comment, not collapsing as IP editors are reverting them. Jumpytoo Talk 18:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The JP and ZH articles have WP:COATRACK and WP:CITEBOMB issues which makes the number of sources irrelevant. Looking at the five Japanese sources that have the phrase in the headline, the first is WP:SPUTNIK, second one both has questionable reliability and is only a mention, third one is a FB post that goes to a privated WP:YOUTUBE video, fourth is WP:SPS and the fifth is a coined phrase from an interview. The ZH article has no sources with the phrase in the headline and I'm not willing to look through 127 citations. Please provide a Wp:THREE if there are reliable sources providing significant coverage. Jumpytoo Talk 18:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we have at least one mention of Chinese claim on Okinawa here. Citation used under Chinese social media claim on Palawan#Responses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At least, this article must be overhauled and retitled Chinese claim on Okinawa, to be similar to Chinese social media claim on Palawan in title format. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: You're proposing a completely different scope from this article, which is about a political slogan / phrase. Why keep this article, change the scope, then move it to a new title when you could just create Chinese claims to Okinawa (assuming in-depth reliable coverage exists)? Yue🌙 20:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yue because Wikipedia should cover Chinese irredentism on territories located outside the disputed waters. For example, Chinese social media claim on Palawan that was brought up by certain pro-Beijing netizens which later changed tone and claimed the claim was just for humor/joke. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: You are proposing that this particular article be kept, renamed, and completely overhauled to a new scope for a new topic instead of you or anyone else just creating a new article for the new topic. If you want a fresh start and a completely different topic, why not just make a new article?

  Also, please no more subjective, non-policy based reasons for content retention / deletion (WP:TRUTH), nor random accusations of or allusions to conspiracies, I am so tired of that nonsense being brought to Wikipedia. Chinese social media claim on Palawan only has 13 authors including you, only one of whom, Yukitanooki, has been blocked for sockpuppeting and whose only edits to the article are copyright violations. Labelling editors and accusing them of misbehaviour without naming them (i.e. "... brought up by certain pro-Beijing netizens which later changed tone and claimed the claim was just for humor/joke.") is still casting aspersions against them. Regardless, that article on Palawan is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Other articles exist, so what? Yue🌙 17:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yue you seem to have misread. "Pro-Beijing netizens" refer to the RedNote users who promoted the Chinese claims on Palawan province. I did not say that the Wikipedians who are questioning the existence of these articles are "pro-Beijing". Whether it's ethical to accuse those RedNote netizens or not is not the job of Wikipedia, though, and so CASTING does not apply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: You did not mention RedNote in your initial comments nor the fact that you were referencing commentators outside of Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia discussions are based on onsite policy and behaviour, I feel that was a reasonable assumption. Regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not policy; just because Chinese social media claim on Palawan may be notable does not mean the specific phrase "Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa" is by merit of their similarity. Yue🌙 00:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I support keeping this article. My reasons are as follows:

Coverage in reliable international sources The phrase is not merely an internet meme.

1. • Nikkei Asia (October 2024) reported on China’s disinformation campaign promoting Okinawan independence. While the article does not directly quote the phrase “Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa,” it shows that related rhetoric is already being incorporated into the broader context of international information warfare.
   • Central News Agency (CNA, Taiwan, August 2024) reported that this phrase has in fact been cited and discussed in Taiwanese media and public discourse, demonstrating that it is not limited to Japan.
   • Both sources meet WP:RS and indicate that the topic is not fringe, but rather situated in an ongoing international political debate.
2. Multilingual coverage exists
   • The Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia versions of this article already contain over 100 citations, reflecting significant coverage outside the English-language sphere. Under WP:NOENG, deleting the English article while it exists with substantial references in other languages would be inconsistent.
3. Further coverage is likely to expand
   • Because this phrase links sensitive geopolitical areas (China, Taiwan, and Okinawa), it is highly likely to continue to appear in news reporting and academic research. To delete it now as a “passing slogan” would risk falling into WP:TOOSOON.
4. Comparable precedents exist
   • For example, as JWilz12345 pointed out, articles such as Chinese social media claim on Palawan already exist to address issues related to China’s information warfare and territorial claims. It would set an undesirable precedent if information politically inconvenient to the Chinese government were to be deleted from Wikipedia. らいかす (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@らいかす: When it comes to China’s influence operations in Okinawa, Taiwanese media actually has some pretty detailed reports on it.^[1] 180.53.185.203 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided does not provide any coverage on the Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa slogan. Sources that only discuss the relations between China & Okinawa do not contribute notability to the phrase unless they provide non-trivial detail on the usage of the phrase itself. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an LLM generated comment and should be excluded from consensus per WP:LLMTALK. I attempted collapsing but was reverted by IP editor. Jumpytoo Talk 01:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example itself shows that this article should be deleted because this phrase is not notable, please dont use AI. Zalaraz (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This slogan shows up a lot in non-English sources, even if it hasn’t really caught on in the English-speaking world. (WP:NOENG)

• The slogan 'Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan' is well known in Taiwan. (zh:今日香港，明日臺灣)
• The slogan 'Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa' is well known in Japan. (ja:今日の香港、明日の台湾、明後日の沖縄)

These two versions have influenced each other, and regardless of how much English media has picked up on it, the slogan is clearly notable. Since Wikipedia has a global scope, its relevance shouldn't be dismissed just because it isn't famous in the Anglosphere.

The piece was actually written by Japanese lawmaker Akihisa Nagashima, and in his version the last part was “Japan,” not “Okinawa.” But the core idea is the same. ^[2]

The article also notes that Kim Bí-Lîng, a well-known activist for Taiwan independence in both Japan and Taiwan, referred to this slogan, which is likewise documented in the Wikipedia entry.

Nagashima is known in Japan for his hard line on China, and Kim is a prominent voice for Taiwan independence. Both of them are the type of people Beijing sees as enemies.

This slogan has been quoted by pretty well-known figures outside the English-speaking world.

The Japanese Wikipedia also mentions a variation with 'Japan' instead of 'Okinawa'.　Agd2xd (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that this phrase is notable without providing any reference. Please show these hundreds of articles in non-english languages. Zalaraz (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agd2xd: The phrase in English, Chinese, and Japanese returns 10, 234, and 840 hits, respectively, on Google, the largest search engine in the world. YouTubers and Twitter users using the phrase in their insular political circles does not make the phrase notable; it having significant coverage in reliable sources would. Yue🌙 17:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for the phrase with the Japan variation and the only coverage I found was written by the politician who coined the phrase. Can you please provide the WP:THREE reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage on the phrase itself? Jumpytoo Talk 18:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per WP:SOAP, no significant coverage in sources for this exact phrase. This is a conspiracy theory at best. The above AI generated comment attests to this when the sources about Japanese paranoa over the island is being portrayed as a coverage to this term. Orientls (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. A source assessment table would be handy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I happened to come across this discussion about deleting the post.

I apologize if my English is broken, as I'm not very good at it.

I'm a native Japanese speaker, and I can assure you that this slogan actually exists.

For example, the following description can be found for Taiwanese independence activist Kim Bí-Lîng.

To avoid mistranslation, the text will be published in Japanese.

イギリスやフランスなど、 EU各国がいくら対中包囲網に参加していると言っても地理的な距離は埋めよ うがなく、何かあれば最も近くにいる日本が真っ先に駆け付けるしかないのです。

国際社会がようやく気づいたように、中国封じ込めの要は台湾にあります。台湾が中国にNOを言い続けられる状況を、各国は協力して作り上げていかなければならない。 特に日本の存在は重要です。

私がいつも言うことですが、「日台は運命共同体」なのです。 「日本は台湾とともにある」 「stand by Taiwan」 と声援を送り続けることが、台湾のみならず日本を救うことになる。 「今日の香港、明日の台湾、明後日の沖縄」。 中国共産党創設百年を機に、改めてこのフレーズを胸に刻む必要があるでしょう。

Source: 習近平 VS.櫻井よしこ(月刊Hanadaセレクション) -pp73 花田紀凱責任編集, ‎月刊Hanada編集部 · 2021

Also, geopolitical scholar ja:奥山真司 (戦略学者) (Okuyama Masashi) writes the following in his book:

変わる国民の意識、変わらない大手メディア

ここまで、ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻、 そして懸念される中国による台湾侵攻 (台湾有事) に関する国際ニュースを読み解きながら、戦略学的に必要な考え方を紹介してきた。 安全保障や国際政治の専門家、あるいはこうしたテーマに関心の高い国民の意識は、以前と比べてかなり変わってきたのではないかと思う。 特にウクライナ侵攻は、そうした変化に拍車をかけるに十分だった。

ところが一部のメディアや論者には、あまりに危機意識のない言説を繰り返し吹聴しているものがある。 むしろ、危機が高まるほど「煽ってはいけない」 「軍事以外の解決の道もあるはずだ」と述べる傾向さえある。 さらには、あえて問題を直視しない姿勢すら垣間見える。 たとえば香港で大規模なデモが発生し、中国本土からの指示でこれが強硬に弾圧され、香港の本土化が進む過程で、「今日の香港、明日の台湾」という言葉がよく聞かれた。

ここに「明後日の沖縄」 を付け加え、中国の影響力の拡大によって、沖縄までもが中国の射程内に入るのではないかという 危惧が出てきた、あるいはウクライナ侵攻が起きてからは「今日のウクライナ、明日の台湾」というフレーズも聞かれるようになったことは重大だ。 当然、その後にも「明後日の沖縄」と続く。

しかし日本国内の大手メディアが報じる沖縄は、従来の基地問題や沖縄戦の記憶、差別の問題などに終始している。 これらも重要な問題ではある。だが日本、特に南西諸島方面を取り巻く安全保障環境の変化を十分に伝えないがために、なぜ沖縄の離島に自衛隊が基地を進出させているのか、が極めて見えづらい状況にある。

Source: 新しい戦争の時代の戦略的思考　奥山真司 · 2024 P91

This slogan is related to the China threat theory.

It's used to advocate defense cooperation between Taiwan and Japan and strengthening defense capabilities in Okinawa, but I've never seen a systematic explanation for it.

I've also seen this slogan used by supporters of democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

If I had to choose, it seems like conservatives would use it to be wary of China attacking the Sakishima Islands or engaging in espionage, while liberals would use it when they fear that the effects of China's destruction of the democratic systems in Hong Kong and Taiwan will extend to Japan.

Since it's ultimately a slogan, it seems like interpretations are divided.

But is Wikipedia the first penguin to compile new articles and terms?

Or does it only publish them once the articles and university research are ready? 183.180.113.241 (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant coverage, the slogan is mentioned in passing while discussing the theory of Chinese irredentism. Perhaps, the information about Japanese fears over the island can be covered there, but to dedicate an article to this slogan would violate Wikipedia's content policies. Zalaraz (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article cites a lot of sources, but I haven't seen any with significant coverage of this phrase. I checked four of the sources cited in the article and found that three of them don't mention the phrase while the other only mentions it briefly. The LLM-generated "keep" comments above don't do much to bolster the argument. I would be happy to reevaluate if anyone can provide WP:THREE. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So you admit you only reviewed 4 out of 100+ sources cited in the Japanese and Mandarin articles and came to your conclusion. Hardly seems sufficient. DCsansei (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DCsansei: I'm not going to waste my time reading more than 100 sources that may all be inadequate. Can you provide the WP:THREE best sources for me to review? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not every random internet catchphrase needs its own article. Most of the article isn't even related to the slogan. The Account 2 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you review the references in the Japanese and Mandarin articles? DCsansei (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DCsansei: The onus is still on you to dispute the argument that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. You keep bringing up just the citation count, but the Chinese and Japanese articles suffer the exact same issue that the English article suffers from: they go off topic. There are 100+ citations, but nearly all are being cited for arguments in the debate regarding sovereignty over Okinawa, not the slogan "Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa". The debate itself has spotty coverage (Japan's sovereignty over Okinawa is not disputed by either the PRC or ROC, nor any prominent officials or scholars), but that's not the debate being had in this deletion proposal.

  It's like having an article titled "I like President Xi of China", having the article consist almost entirely of an essay about Donald Trump's relationship with Xi Jinping, then asking other editors to read through every one of the 100+ citations while not doing so yourself to see if "I like President Xi of China" has enough coverage in them to justify an article for the expression (not the wider topic, which is a separate discussion). Yue🌙 00:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't write this article. Reviewing the Japanese-language sources provided by the IP editor above, I believe there is enough for WP:GNG, not to mention the sources in the foreign language sources that were not reviewed despite WP:DILIGENCE prior to nomination. DCsansei (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a few english secondary sources referencing this quote including the following Time Magazine article: https://time.com/archive/6728547/today-hong-kong-tomorrow-taiwan/ a piece in Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/19/todays-hong-kong-tomorrows-taiwan/ a piece in Nikkei Asia: https://asia.nikkei.com/spotlight/the-big-story/today-hong-kong-tomorrow-taiwan-resistance-to-china-spreads and a reference to it in the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/asia/19taiwan-interview.html Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources mention Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, not Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa which is the article being discussed for deletion. The Account 2 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this does not seem encyclopedic. None of the references contain significant coverage.

It should be understood that while our policies permit sources in any language, our editorial standards differ from our sister projects’, and inclusion in another language’s Wikipedia does not imply notability here. For anyone not familiar, we almost always require articles to have at least two reliable sources that discuss the article topic directly, specifically, and in detail. Sources that mention a phrase, or indicate that a particular person or organization repeated that phrase, are insufficient to establish that the phrase itself should have a Wikipedia article. —Rutebega (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Editors arguing keep are protesting that the sources haven't been looked through so I went through all 41 sources in the article at the time of this comment and I determined that none of them are good enough to support Notability of an article about this phrase. (They might be very useful for background or other parts of this article but that's not the point of this discussion.) Of course these are just my views on the matter so if you disagree please let me know.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Mag2			one brief use, never mentioned	✘ No
Axios			Doesn't talk about it at all	✘ No
go2senkyo		Self published	one brief use, no discussion	✘ No
udn.com			404'ed	? Unknown
cna.com			One brief mention that dead guy said it, no further discussion	✘ No
jiji.com			no mention	✘ No
jinf.jp			~ Best source so far but I still don't rate it as in-depth	? Unknown
Sankei Shimbun		~	Used in headline and nowhere else	✘ No
ZakZak			Used briefly at the end, not in-depth	✘ No
ironna.jp			Not significant coverage	✘ No
Sankei 2		~	No mention	✘ No
TokyoHeadline			No mention	✘ No
ZakZak 2			Talks about similar meme but not this phrase	✘ No
Facebook Post of a Youtube Video		Self-published		✘ No
YouTube Bunkajin Housoukyoku		Self-published		✘ No
Reuters			No mention of the phrase	✘ No
TokyoHeadline (copy)			Still no mention	✘ No
YouTube Utsukushii Nihon		Self-published		✘ No
Mag2(2)			No mention of the phrase	✘ No
Sankei Shimbun (copy)		~	Still only mentioned in headline	✘ No
習近平 vs.櫻井よしこ(月刊 Hanada セレクション) – 73 ページ	Couldn't access			? Unknown
Youtube		Self-published		✘ No
Janic			No mention	✘ No
Youtube ChooseLife	Unavailable	Self-published		✘ No
Youtube		Self-published		✘ No
新中国論: 台湾・香港と習近平体制 平凡社新書 著者 野嶋剛	Couldn't access			? Unknown
新中国論: 台湾・香港と習近平体制 平凡社新書 著者 野嶋剛	Couldn't access			? Unknown
Harbor Business Online			No mention	✘ No
hk01			quoting a comment from social media	✘ No
tw.yahoo		Actually an article from Nikkei	2nd best source but not significant	✘ No
Youtube		Self-published		✘ No
South China Morning Post			No mention	✘ No
Megalodon		Twitter capture, self-published		✘ No
Newsweekjapan			Talks about "Okinawa next" but not this phrase	✘ No
yahoo.jp	can't find			? Unknown
Sankei 3		~	No mention	✘ No
jiji.com 2			No mention	✘ No
Globe Asahi			No mention	✘ No
Nikkei			No mention	✘ No
Nikkei english			no mention	✘ No
Chinese PDF			Only mention is a reference to Source 7	✘ 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}}.

Moritoriko (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of notability. Also, no sources whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unable to find any significant coverage aside from a few passing mentions about his rally results published by Gulf Times. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quick BEFORE search didn't found any references that would meet GNG or to demonstrate SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find enough secondary sources to justify keeping the page. Just doesn't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mendy Twerski (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)

US Hasidic Jewish musician (BLP). Sources are just Youtube links, routine bios, and a poster for a performance. I can't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, as required for WP:BASIC, and I can't see anything that would meet WP:MUSICBIO either. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Judaism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: relatively new singer who does not have any significant sources. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t mean WP: BASIC nor WP:MUSICBIO per nomination. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The appropriate WikiProject has just been notified. Please allow them a few more days before deleting. Bearian (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON he does have a verified spoitify profile and a significant social media presence but no significant coverage outside of this. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onyria Group (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)

Appears to be LLM-generated promotional content. It complies with the rule of threes suspiciously well, contains a strangely detailed history, and has a clunky and repetitive nature to it. The edit that created this page was tagged as potentially using LLM-generated citations. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Golf. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment possibly notable. The promotional content and llm are too heavey but I tried to clean it up. --Never-ending string (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I ran this article through GPTzero.com and it did not think it was LLM-generated. (Caution: GPTzero.com can be very wrong sometimes.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Parit Hamid–Parit Botak (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Parit Raja Darat (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChatBot (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)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveChat (2nd nomination), with same rationale. All relevant, verifiable information can be merged into the parent company's article, Text (company). There is no need for a standalone article, as it constitutes WP:UNDUE emphasis on a topic with minimal, independent coverage. Chiserc (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Chiserc (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per nom; I don’t see why a particular non-notable product should have its own spin-off from its parent company— all sources seem WP:ROUTINE or again assumed from Text’s independent coverage. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept 2405:6E00:62F:C187:E0F1:222E:F432:DDC (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Sengkuang (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Simpang Lima–Parit Sulong (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On this and other related AfD (which should have been proposed together as a joint AfD given the situation is identical for all the articles). These are all Malaysian state roads. What is supposed to be the understanding of "state and provincial highways"? To me it seems these all qualify for WP:NROAD. Katzrockso (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Simpang Renggam–Layang Layang (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The current version of the article is largely written in a promotional tone, with issues of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADV. It does not demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, there is minimal significant coverage in WP:INDY, WP:RS that is both substantial and in-depth. Additionally, it fails WP:NORG and WP:NCORP, as this is an app with limited third-party coverage. Chiserc (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Chiserc (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there might be some third party coverage, but it is difficult to find as the name of the software is the same as the name generic term "live chat" ([41]). See also [42]. The issue is that the company is Polish. Katzrockso (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some third party coverage, but this is mostly too promotional, like a product review or passing mention, and nothing that validates standalone article's notability from secondary, reliable, and in-depth sources. The one example you mention is from a Forbes contributor, a freelance journalist "covering lists for Forbes" https://www.forbes.com/sites/haniyarae/2017/03/30/inside-retails-live-chat-revolution/. As per Wikipedia:FORBESCON, there is a consensus that this not a reliable source, considered as self-published source. Chiserc (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Researcher J. Broadbent has studied LiveChat for educational use: [43], [44]. It was also reviewed by Techradar: [45], although the site's use of affiliate links makes its independence unclear. Notability seems borderline to me. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Terminal Feri (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Ulu Tiram (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:NROAD. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- do see the infrastructure being mentioned fairly in newspapers but as you see, seems to be not SIGCOV about it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celina, 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)

All the documentation I've found says that this was a post office located in the Jacob Rickenbaugh House; see especially this history. Rickenbaugh had a tannery here but I've found nothing describing an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously not a community; just a house and a lake inside a park. Post offices are not inherently notable; fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE. Mentioned as "a fair weather town" in this news article from 1941 giving a full history of the locality [46]. At one time, had a "blacksmith shop, school, church, store and my father's tannery" according to resident. Katzrockso (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add that in the article if you can. Metallurgist (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added some detail to the article. Katzrockso (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing in ancestry, but the post office was there awhile and the house has some notability. Not comfortable with deletion. Metallurgist (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Katzrockso.Fulfils WP:NPLACE. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT with only 3 games in the Slovak top league. Deprodded as having sources in the Czech article. Does it? It has two profiles and an article that says: "On the contrary, in January, four players left the team – Lukáš Urminský, Peter Jánošík, Juraj Piroska (all terminated their contracts by mutual agreement) and Fabián Slančík (termination of their loan spell)." In other words, GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Fcstmani and Clara statements. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, secondary sources. C679 15:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sourcesGothicGolem29 23:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -lacking enough SIGCOV in my additional searches so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no skin in this game and no idea if he's notable. I'm just going along what appears to be consensus. I had deprodded this, for procedural reasons, not the least because the appropriate WikiProjects were not given fair notice, but also to prevent the whole Prod system from getting overwhelmed. What I did apparently irked several people. Giving notice to them: Liz, Lord Mountbutter, and Jkudlick. No good deed goes unpunished. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a popularity vote where one votes going along with everyone else. Either look at the article and relevant sources and make a decision based on that or refrain from voting. Closing admin, please make sure to ignore this !vote. --SuperJew (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments:

  1. I don't appreciate being called out like this. It has no place at AFD, and I would hope that a long-time editor and administrator emeritus would understand that
  2. I took issue with some of the deprods because they were tagged with {{blp prod}}, but no reliable source was added as required by the WP:BLPPROD policy. IAR is not a catch-all to ignore all policies; prolonging the inevitable doesn't help the project.

  I will likely review the article and any sourcing and return to !vote later, but I felt I needed to say this now. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize that I upset you. I was just trying to help an admin, and to improve the process, but often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions. For that I am sorry. If there's any way I can make amends, or help you with anything, I am here. Thanks for your input. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: @ Giant I have added more citations and expanded the article. Please correct me if I am wrong and have a look at the article. Fcstmani (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2025
• Keep Looks good following expansion by Fcstmani. --SuperJew (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

I see decent amount of SIGCOV on the article and am going to translate some sentences. The first source (paywalled): The name of goalkeeper Luke Urminský is familiar to many football fans [...] Urminský was a humble man on Kysuce by a friend of Roland Šmahajčík. In Turzovka, this has been dragging on for one year. Although there is no doubt about the qualities of this goalkeeper, he no longer thinks about going back to the higher leagues. He settled in Kysuce, started a family and plays football as one of his hobbies.

From the second source, The last goal of the second tier club Pohonium, Lukáš Urminský, defeated Banská Bystrica in the 11th round. Since then, he did not save a goal during four matches in a row. Thanks to him, Pohoronie climbed from the bottom of the table to eighth place. Urminský had a huge form and a scene with an even more famous scoring line without saving a goal. However, he suffered an injury from the match against Žilina B, in which he dislocated his shoulder and tore his necks.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following the expansion by Fcstmani. It's still only a stub, but it's a fair sight better than it was. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing my vote to keep based on the sources found. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Opielka (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)

Polish-German journalist and political scientist (BLP). The sources are routine bios (so not enough to meet WP:BASIC), and I can't readily see any particular respect in which he meets WP:ACADEMIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, Germany, and Poland. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 20:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not seeing any sources that seem independent (which is required per WP:GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-lacks SIGCOV even with additional searches so far, to be fair did search on a more general way, if there are more sources in the subjects local language , let me know to check. Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbless Ukaegbu (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)

Nigerian filmmaker (BLP). References are just to a routine entry on IMDB, and to Youtube videos of his work. I can't find anything amounting to significant coverage of the subject in sources independent of him, as would be required for WP:BASIC, and I can't see anything that would meet WP:CREATIVE either. I would say this is a case where WP:NOTRESUME applies. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, a question/sidenote: is there any circumstance that linking a LinkedIn page as a External Link is proper? Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. It lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources and contains promotional language.ShawMindMiner (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities Daily Planet (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)

Newspaper isn't notable. Article lacks sources. Eric Schucht (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The online newspaper is defunct, but Wikipedia has many articles that feature defunct periodicals. Four sources other than the TCDP are cited. Bigturtle (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in article seem fine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is independent coverage, but it's not substantial Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem to demonstrate independent significant coverage.

In addition as this is the 3rd or 4th newspaper nomination per the same nominator, I would like to perhaps advise the nominator to examine sources more throughly to match with the guidelines necessary for newspapers before initiating AfD where it may not be necessary. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and here are some citations from a 10 minute surface-level search, although I agree with Monkeysmashingkeyboards that I was not able to find anything incredibly in-depth. I'm from WP:MINN and I have a feeling there must be a couple good profiles out there, it is just finding them that may prove difficult, since a keyword search shows TCDP cited in a lot of other research, but we'd have to file that down to coverage actually about the publication itself. WPMN folks might be able to help.

• • Haas, Tani (July–December 2007). "Do citizen-based media of communication advance public journalism's ideals? Evidence from the empirical research literature". International Journal of Communication. 17 (2). Bahri Publications. Gale A172249382. Jeremy Iggers, ethics columnist at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, heads a community website called the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Like the Madison Commons, the Twin Cities Daily Planet serves as a space for citizen-based news reporting and deliberation on political topics of concern to the racially and ethnically diverse populations of Minneapolis and St. Paul (see the websites of the Madison Commons, and the Twin Cities Daily Planet, for further details).
  • Konieczna, Magda (January 2, 2014). "Do old Norms Have a Place in New Media?: A case study of the nonprofit MinnPost". Journalism Practice. 8 (1): 49–64. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.793511. ISSN 1751-2786. Retrieved October 4, 2025. the Twin Cities Daily Planet, a community-focused aggregator site that also publishes blog posts and articles about neighborhoods and communities in the Twin Cities
  • Kim, Nakho; Konieczna, Magda; Yoon, Ho Young; Friedland, Lewis A. (2016). "Sustainability Factors of Emergent Civic News Websites: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approach". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 93 (4): 750–769. doi:10.1177/1077699016628807. ISSN 1077-6990. Retrieved October 4, 2025. The Twin Cities have the 16th largest television and radio market in the country (Arbitron, 2013). Their broadest local news network is led by the foundation-funded Twin Cities Daily Planet, which creates content and republishes articles and blog entries from neighborhood partners.

• • Barkho, Leon (October 1, 2016). "How to convert media and journalism studies into relevant, useful and practical research". Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies. 5 (3): 319–325. doi:10.1386/ajms.5.3.319_1. ISSN 2001-0818. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
  • Rosenberry, Jack; St John, Burton, eds. (2010). "Open Source Interview: The Evolution of Public Journalism". Public Journalism 2.0: The Promise and Reality of a Citizen-Engaged Press. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-87677-0. (DOI seems broken)
    • Cited once here: Negreira-Rey, María-Cruz; López-García, Xosé (July 17, 2021). "A Decade of Research on Hyperlocal Media: An International Approach to a New Media Model" (PDF). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 11 (3): e202111. doi:10.30935/ojcmt/11082. Retrieved October 4, 2025.

Pingnova (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Pignova's analysis. The CJR article is an obvious example of an independent reliable secondary source. I would tend to say that the further discussion of the outlet in academic aspects coupled with the fact that its articles have been cited and referenced in many other news publications (see WP:NEWSNOTE, though this is not an officially adapted guideline yet).

See also [47] for another mention. Katzrockso (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I remember how this paper once had quite a presence, and the sources listed by others above demonstrates this presence it once had. TH1980 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Planet (Philadelphia newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Newspaper isn't notable. Article lacks sources. Eric Schucht (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article's sources are lacking and upon looking myself, I was unable to find sources to use either. death pact (again) 18:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- lacking enough SIGCOV coverage for notability, closest found is this, though seem more narrative in tone and not specifically about the newspaper.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of Tanchangya descent (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)

unnecessary article. Not too many notable people, plus, the notable people themselves have no Wikipedia article, sources are blogs. Merge with Tanchangya people#Notable people WinKyaw (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ethnic groups. WinKyaw (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are at the very least not up to encyclopedic standard; there doesn't seem to be any better sources, either Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 17:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the "notable" people listed do not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, and most of the citations are not notable, reliable, or evaluable. Ira Leviton (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Surname ≠ ethnicity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then merge: to Tanchangya people as a standalone for now lacks enough SIGCOV.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Diamond (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)

Journalist isn't notable. Not every publisher or local news writer warrants an entry on Wikipedia. Eric Schucht (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Routine career, I can only find mentions in publications or things she's written. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was fired not once but twice from different news publications, which is definitely interesting in and of itself and generated WP:SIGCOV in both instances. She was first fired in 1983 [48] [49] from the California Lawyer magazine, leading to some dispute. She was fired again in 2006 from the Daily News Group [50], with coverage on her return to column writing [51]. She wasn't just a "journalist", but the founder of a notable magazine California Lawyer, and the editor-in-chief of multiple news organizations. She not only qualifies for notability under the WP:GNG, but under WP:JOURNALIST as her reporting is acknowledged as a valuable journalist in the Palo Alto area. That is why she was listed in Marquis' Who's Who [52]. Marquis' Who's Who isn't great evidence for notability anymore, but it is another piece of evidence given that they have selection processes. She also won several journalism awards [53] [54]. Katzrockso (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has not played in a full time football league, and usually would not meet the requirement for a page. Telfordbuck (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Played for a few decent clubs there, although they are not in the top leagues, it could be probably there maybe enough for GNG around. I see some stuff, but if someone provides better sources than what I saw on my first look. Then I maybe inclined to keep. Govvy (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage like [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61] etc. etc. - all from a very quick Google search. Lazy nomination, no indication that any BEFORE has been done given that nomination statement only refers to "full time football" which has not been a relevant fact sinxe NFOOTBALL was abolished 3 years ago! Expect better from @Govvy: as well, particularly given past (unfair!) criticism levelled at meat AFD... GiantSnowman 11:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment You've linked to a couple of match reports and a BBC interview which you know aren't acceptable for whether or not someone passes GNG. Maybe slow down your google searches in future before making claims of laziness and a lack of BEFORE. Dougal18 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't have actually read any of the sources if you have dismissed them all as mere "match reports"... GiantSnowman 20:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. He is recognised as the best player in the National League, and all his team mates at Carlisle United have a page. Carlisle United are a large historic club in England and their No10 should have a page, especially given the coverage the player receives. RaphaelBosko (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. So what, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, notability isn't inherited and the only people who "should" have a page are ones that meet the notability guidelines. Dougal18 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't relevant.

  Those other players which have pages have played in the football league. Telfordbuck (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Playing in the Football League is not relevant - WP:NFOOTBALL has been long abolished. The fact you are still using that as your barometer for notability is very concerning. GiantSnowman 11:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG due to signifcant coverage by reliable sources. GothicGolem29 00:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GS, I only did a quick search yesterday early morning, and I don't know what a meat AFD means! I maybe brutal at times in my commentary at AfDs, but there is no need to be mean to me. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty sure it was supposed to be "levelled at me at AFD". Moritoriko (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bingo. GiantSnowman 12:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per sources found. Svartner (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Barbara Daily Sound (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)

Newspaper isn't notable. It was only in print for six years. Aside from a legal battle, the paper isn't notable. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The length that the newspaper was in print for has no bearing on its notability, as evaluated by the WP:GNG; see WP:NTEMP. The legal battle alone qualifies the newspaper for notability under the WP:GNG, as it received significant coverage from reliable independent secondary sources. But it was also covered upon launch [62] and closing [63] [64]. Katzrockso (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per @Katzrockso‘s comment. I think there are multiple aspects of his comment regarding sources that demonstrates that deletion is a bit overzealous. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada Journal (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)

Newspaper isn't notable. It was only around for a decade. Aside from it being the town's first newspapers, there isn't anything else that makes this paper notable. It was replaced by other papers in Nevada City. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being "the first newspaper published in Nevada County, and one of the earliest published in the mountains of the U.S. state of California" seems notable to me. But, of course, others can disagree. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are passing mentions or from the journal itself, there aren't many news articles where the main subject is the Nevada Journal Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in page seem alright. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article meets WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV in sources already linked in the article ([65] and [66] for specific pages). There is no need for the newspaper to be the "main subject" of a news article per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Katzrockso (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the goals of WP:GNG per its sources and historical notability. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kemble and Lindars both definitely count for SIGCOV. —Rutebega (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Joseph Higgins (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)

Seemingly non-notable clergy member/writer. As discussed at Talk:James Joseph Higgins and as raised by multiple editors with the author during the Draft/AfC process, there's limited/no material evidence that the article subject meets WP:NWRITER or WP:NBIO. As a writer, the subject's two biographical/auto-biographical books (published directly by the religious order of which the subject was a member) do not represent a significant/well-known body of work and have not been the subject of any independent reviews. (The creating editor's suggestion, that the subject's books are "cited in two peer-reviewed journal articles", doesn't really survive analysis. As, where the subject's works are cited by the same author, it is to support basic factual statements - made in passing.) As a general biographical subject, the only independent source, which deals with the subject as a primary topic, is the obituary in the local/regional Sligo Champion newspaper. Which, on its own, doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. The rest of the article is supported by the only other sources seemingly available (namely trivial passing mentions, other people's obits, birth/death notices, the subject's own works and other decidedly non-independent sources). It is also hard to ignore that the text of this title was substantially machine-generated (using ChatGPT or similar) and that this title was unilaterally moved from DRAFT (without addressing the feedback received by various editors during AfC). Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ireland, and Nigeria. Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete - regretfully I agree with Gulio (and with the earlier AFC reviewers); there just doesn't seem to be a clear indication of notability here. I had originally been looking at this to see if cleanup was needed after LLM-generated text, but I think given the notability issues, deletion is more appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'''Keep.''' I appreciate the concerns raised about notability and sourcing, and I understand where earlier reviewers were coming from. However, I believe the subject does meet the [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:ANYBIO]] guidelines, and that the sources collectively demonstrate lasting significance, particularly in the context of Nigerian education and missionary history. I believe another editor previously reviewed and removed the "notability" maintenance tag, which suggested that the article had at some point already been considered to meet the basic notability standard. 1. National and papal honours: The guideline [[WP:ANYBIO]] guidelines states that a person is notable if “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour...” Fr. Higgins received the '''Member of the Order of the Federal Republic (MFR)''' from the President of Nigeria in 1982 for services to education, and later the papal '''Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice''' medal in 2009. Both are major national and ecclesiastical distinctions, verifiable from independent and enduring records. Under [[WP:ANYBIO]], such nationally conferred honours indicate clear notability even aside from other achievements. I would just add that the Member of the Order of the Federal Republic (MFR) is Nigeria’s official state honour, conferred by the President and listed in the National Honours Act. It holds the same level of national recognition as awards such as the MBE or the National Order of Merit for example. 2. Breadth of independent coverage: While I agree that obituaries alone would not suffice, the coverage extends beyond the Sligo Champion. The subject is documented in: Official diocesan histories of Warri and Asaba (independent of the Irish SMA), The Irish Life and Lore missionary oral history archive, Academic publications by authors such as O’Shea (2006), Rozario (2005, 2012), Omonokhua (2005), Usuanlele (2019, 2023), and Egbunu (2022). These are all independent, secondary sources offering enduring reference to his work and influence. Collectively, they meet the level of [[WP:SIGCOV]] expected for historical missionary figures. 3. Scholarly use of his publications: It’s true that Higgins’ books were published through the SMA, but they have since been cited across several academic studies on Nigerian church history and colonial education. For instance, Kindling the Fire (2003) and History of the Church in Mid-West Nigeria (2006) are used as reference sources in the Journal of Religion in Africa and Religions journals, among others. This level of citation shows the works have a recognised value as primary documentation within the field; aligning with [[WP:AUTHOR]]. 4. Historical significance and comparators: Fr. Higgins’ 60 years of continuous missionary service (reportedly the longest in SMA history for Nigeria) and his foundational educational roles at four training colleges are well-documented. Articles on comparable SMA missionaries (e.g. Thomas Broderick Jean-Marie Coquard, Bishop Patrick J. Kelly) are retained with similar or lesser levels of sourcing. This supports consistency in how missionary figures are treated across Wikipedia. 5. On the language and tone of the article I fully understand the concerns around machine-assisted drafting. I’m happy help refine or rephrase any parts that sound artificial. The notability, however, stands on the strength of the sources, which can be cited and polished in line with [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:RS]]. Taken together, Fr. Higgins’ recognised honours, academic citations, and independent documentation meet the [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:ANYBIO]] thresholds. Rather than deletion, a round of copyediting and reference tightening would best serve this article and preserve valuable historical material. 'Recommendation: Keep, with improvements. ForayHistory (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ForayHistory, are you using LLM to comment here? If so, please don't -- it's against the rules here. See WP:AITALK:

• "LLM-generated comments: Comments that are obviously generated (not merely refined) by a large language model (LLM) or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed with {{Collapse AI top}}. Please see Wikipedia:Large language models for why we do this."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT which is just an essay, not a policy or guideline but a good idea in this case. We don't know what to trust and what is wrong. Reliability is a must for Wikipedia and LLMs are not reliable -- see WP:OR. Bad refs violate WP:V and may indicate potential bad faith (or cluelessness). I'll reconsider if someone will cut this article back to a notable, properly referenced stub -- ping me in that case. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I am very hesitant to delete controversial material. Can this be fixed? Bearian (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I have tried to apply fixes (repeatedly [67][68][69]). In doing so, and as per the discussion at Talk:James Joseph Higgins, I was unable to find reliable/independent sources (including reviews or coverage of the subjects work) to support the basic factual text or address much of the editorial that accompanied it. And the only material/independent source, for the biographical text, is the single obituary (in local/regional paper). As such, while the LLM issues do not help, my nom is based on a notability concern. Rather than, solely, a WP:TNT recommendation. (FWIW, if there was consensus to WP:DRAFTIFY this title, so the author could actually see it through the AfC process (rather than usurping/superceding it), then that'd be OK with me...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, and I genuinely appreciate the work you’ve put into improving and reviewing the article and I apologise that my earlier edits made that more difficult.

I do, however, respectfully disagree that the subject lacks independent coverage. Beyond the obituary, there are multiple secondary and academic sources (e.g. O’Shea 2006; Usuanlele 2019; Egbunu 2022; Omonokhua 2005) and diocesan histories that discuss/reference his role within Nigerian education and the SMA mission structure. These are independent of the subject and provide the coverage expected under WP:GNG.

I’d be open to tightening or rewriting sections to meet sourcing expectations, but deletion feels premature given the available documentation and his receipt of nationally and papal conferred honours under WP:ANYBIO. ForayHistory (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING here, but in terms of "nationally conferred honours", the MFR (a) is the lowest of the four orders of the Order of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (b) may be granted to up to 100 people per year (per policy), and (c) is routinely awarded to farmers, business people, physicians, school principals and otherwise non-notable people (per gazettes in 1982, 1983, etc). In 1981, according to the gazette entry which lists the subject, over 20 people were named in the list. While, perhaps somewhat contributory, being the recipient of this honour doesn't materially sway or outweigh the lack of significant coverage (in independent sources). Any more than it would mean WP:ANYBIO is met for the retired civil servants, teachers, businessmen and members of the armed forces named in the 1981 honours list... Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

lack of notability; academic journal has a low impact factor and citations metrics EmberQuill47 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Actors and filmmakers. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only source is primary(his official school profile) Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wp:GNG and contains next to no usable sourcing. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma Valley Sun (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)

Newspaper isn't notable. Couldn't find any info on it via Google. The page appears to have been made by someone associated with the publication. Possible self-promotion. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, United States of America, and California. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV of the newspaper from independent secondary reliable sources, such as The Press-Democrat in 2006^[1], 2009^[2] and 2010^[3]. It thus meets the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, per prior editors’ insights and outlines demonstrating WP:GNG. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of points. Multiple articles from the same publication count as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Also, we require in-depth "independent content" about the company/organization which does not rely on information provided by the company or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I find no requirement for the independent sources establishing notability to be from different publications in WP:GNG? What PAG basis are you asserting for this claim? Katzrockso (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Katzrockso, I can see your account has been dormant for large periods of time, and since September 2025, you have resumed activity and almost exclusively at AfD. Some things have become clearer since you set up your account. You should familiarise yourself with WP:SNG and note that WP:NCORP provides guidance for companies/organization. Then see WP:MULTSOURCES. In my !vote below, I've also highlighted the importance of two specific sections, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and the sources you've mentioned above fail those sections and cannot therefore count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the coverage in The Press Democrat is independent and reliable. Its significant coverage cited by Katzrockso above is sufficient to build up a reliable article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point to specific paragraphs containing "in-depth" "independent content" in any of those articles. From what I can see, it it is (1) entirely sourced from information provided by the execs / employees / involved parties; and (2) provides no *independent* opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking that is *clearly* *attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax Mine (Canada) (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 sole source cited in this article (an archived document from 2011) speaks of "a world class primary molybdenum property in the advanced stage of exploration" and gives various resource estimates, but it's clear that no mine had been opened at that time; and I can find no evidence on the Internet of any mining activity since then. This is rather reminiscent of an article I nominated for deletion three years ago, created by the same editor; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranos mine. Deor (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources refer to other "Ajax Mines" in Canada, some from 1916 Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's apparently an Ajax Mine in British Columbia, with which, as the article's history indicates, this supposed mine in Newfoundland has been confused. I should have mentioned that in the nomination. Deor (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article's reference refers to two mines: the Ajax molybdenum mine in BC and the Molybrook mine in Newfoundland. The author started both articles within 5 minutes of each other and clearly got confused. Newfoundland's Moly Brook molybdenum deposits are clearly notable and maybe the mine, too. The Ajax Mine in B.C. is also notable. The fix is to rewrite this stub to one about the BC mine. I may do this in the next several days; if not, WP:TNT this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither deposit has been mined and ownership has changed hand several times. It looks like exploration is active at Ajax. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can only find things about an Ajax mine in BC, nothing about this one, [74]. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I would give A. B. a few days to get sources. Bearian (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While Beutler has several mentions in Erie Times-News articles, those are just routine passing mentions which do not establish WP:GNG. Example: [75] Raskuly (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada, Alabama, Michigan, and Tennessee. Raskuly (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is notable because there are other secondary sources used, not just the Erie Times-News. For example, "Lipscomb signs Beutler" from The Enterprise Ledger does a feature piece. The second example is from the Dothan Eagles, "Ex-Enterprise star Beutler now a professional player", another feature piece. The third secondary source that covers the topic in depth is "Beutler signing Lipscomb's praises" from the Dothan Eagle. Shotgun pete (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They all sound ROUTINE, with the exception of the second one. Not enough. GiantSnowman 11:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily routine. The three sources are not just a paragraph-long announcement of a signing. In all three articles, he is the featured piece, and the articles go in-depth about him. Shotgun pete (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgot to mention this one, "Wiregrass' Best - Beutler, Howard honored as Dothan Eagle's best of 2011" from The Dothan Eagle, which does an interview piece with him. The four independent, reliable, secondary sources are a night and day difference from the routine mentions in the Erie Times-News. Shotgun pete (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Haisch (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 WP:BLP is sourced almost entirely to self-authored papers with little attestation to importance. A lack of WP:Independent sources seems to be the biggest problem. This person just is not very well-known outside of the internet clanging that happened 20 years ago or so where his pseudophysics was being objected to on various message boards and fora. I am not seeing strong claim to notability. jps (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Physics. jps (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. For certain he does not pass WP:NPROF, his citations are too low, and there is also significant WP:Peacock on the page which should be toned down. However, a quick search for book reviews finds a significant number, not all of which can be discarded. By our own standards he appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR. (N.B., I am not an expert on NAUTHOR so if someone can prove me wrong I will change my vote.)Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found one review by Richard Conn Henry that struck me as a bit bloggy and wouldn't serve as a good source for anything but his personal opinion on one book. Are there others you found which are more serious and substantial? jps (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check the link I had. I don't know how serious/deep etc book reviews have to be to pass WP:NAUTHOR, just that there seem to be quite a few. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That page of search results includes Amazon, Goodreads, etc. These are not usable for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR. The same goes for the Richard Conn Henry item, which appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a fringe and unreliable source. A typical pass of that guideline for a scholarly writer would be from reviews in major literary magazines (e.g., the London Review of Books) or academic journals. I believe the minimum usually asked for is two books having received two substantial reviews each. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here: https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/the-purpose-guided-universe/ Hyperbolick (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that a reliable source? It doesn't seem to have clear editorial standards, and the author doesn't appear to have relevant academic experience. That's not to slight them as a person, of course; it just doesn't look up to par with the kinds of reviews that have counted for WP:AUTHOR passes. But even if we do count it, one review of one book is still pretty far below the WP:AUTHOR standard.

  The Journal of Scientific Exploration was recently deprecated at RSN. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  and the author doesn't appear to have relevant academic experience.

  What policy supports this argument as a factor, whether or not that individual has some qualifications? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just trying to judge whether the review is meaningfully better than a self-published source (like a review on Amazon or Goodreads), and failing that, whether the review would be worth counting even if it were basically self-published. Per the Verifiability policy, Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That doesn't seem to apply here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  About 95 Wikipedia pages site www.forewordreviews.com as a source as we speak. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen a random group blog with no editorial standards whatsoever be used as sources that many times. The more pertinent question here is whether forewordreviews.com has been accepted as counting towards passing WP:AUTHOR in AfD's before. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What, discount any not accepted in AfD? Pretty sure it's the other way around. Has it ever been rejected? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming that any random website is by default a reliable source doesn't seem like a good idea, particularly for a BLP. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, general purpose notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on what sources? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's one not even on the page: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956 Hyperbolick (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not significant coverage of Haisch himself. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's enough, considering the source and the writer. Don’t know about you, but for most getting highlighted by a top scence writer in NBC News as an expert in the field, it’s kind of a big deal. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He wasn't "highlighted". He was mentioned in one paragraph.

  That story is better evidence that NBC News is willing to platform kookery than that Haisch is notable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO for being in the Gale biographical dictionary American Men and Women of Science. Considering there are currently over 2,200 stub articles on astronomers and physicists with much less content awaiting editor attention, Haisch's article looks satisfactory to me. 5Q5|^✉ 12:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this data point as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is American Men and Women of Science "a country's standard national biographical dictionary" like WP:ANYBIO calls for? The only example given in the guideline is not restricted to the sciences. Does a dictionary that is restricted to the sciences qualify? I could be convinced that it does, but looking for prior discussions that would be relevant, I can't find any where inclusion in AMWS was itself enough to secure notability. There has always been some other argument as well, like a WP:PROF#C1 pass. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is American Men and Women of Science "a country's standard national biographical dictionary" like WP:ANYBIO calls for?

  Based on the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_biographical_dictionaries, it would appear so. A country could have specialized ones, especially one the size and historical duration of the USA. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That category includes some examples that aren't even national (specialized to Iowa, Virginia and Nebraska). They're "United States biographical dictionaries" in the sense that they're published in the United States, but they don't cover the whole United States. It also includes a scam operation designed to fleece the parents of college-bound kids. It's not a category full of "a country's standard" books. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I could be convinced either way on this. It all seems to come down to the WP:ANYBIO argument made above, which doesn't seem like a bad argument but isn't (AFAICT) an absolute knock-down case either. I do not see either a WP:PROF or a WP:AUTHOR pass. If kept, the article needs pretty serious cleanup for unsourced material and peacocking, but we can worry about that when we get to it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I could not find sources which supported Bettenhausen meeting WP:GNG. Bettenhausen does not appear to have signed with any team since his senior year at Penn State in 2024. Raskuly (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Raskuly (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG]. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, No evidence of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the consensus has turned against barely sourced athletes' BLPs. Bearian (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Earth (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 defunct website appears to be completely finished. I don't think it is even worth documenting for posterity sake. Note the lack of WP:Independent sources. I found only one source from 2006 which consists, in its entirety, of a single paragraph: [76]. jps (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Biology, Geography, and Internet. jps (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally believe with all my heart that the Encyclopaedia of Earth should be kept for future research purposes. 2405:6E00:62F:C187:E0F1:222E:F432:DDC (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wonder if there were independent magazine reviews when this was launched? Could be worth a very selective merge and redirect to Wikipedia#related projects. Rupples (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've been able to find a few other possible sources, though I've only skimmed them or am relying on the title and publication:

• Barakatt, Cynthia. "The Encyclopedia of Earth." The Science Teacher 77, no. 2 (2010): 54. (I haven't found an online copy)
• Pardee House Hosts Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) Meeting (lists some of the editors)
• Maret, Susan. "The Encyclopedia of Earth." The Charleston Advisor 9, no. 1 (2007): 36-38. [77] (downloadable review)
• Kubiszewski, Ida, Thomas Noordewier, and Robert Costanza. "Perceived credibility of Internet encyclopedias." Computers & Education 56, no. 3 (2011): 659-667.[78] (peer-reviewed but at least 1 non-independent author)
• Hogan, C. Michael. "The Encyclopedia of Earth Invites CNPS Participation." Fremontia (2012): 49. [79]
• Johnson, T. "Encyclopedia of Earth." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries 47, no. 10 (2010): 1848-1849.(online copy should be accessible through libraries via Gale, but I didn't log in)

Non-independent but likely useful:

• Kubiszewski, Ida, and Cutler J. Cleveland. "The Encyclopedia of Earth." D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 7/8 (2007): 1082-9873. ([80] D-Lib = a magazine for digital library research, looks like the article is by two contributors to the EoE)

I don't want to work on the article itself, but it can likely be improved enough to keep. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem as I see it is that there are no recent sources so how do we tell people the thing is defunct? A lot of hype resulting in nothing left over? jps (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some defunct websites can still have pages here on Wikipedia. 96.19.230.73 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can say a site is defunct without a third-party source. WP:BLUESKY Dege31 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that Cynthia Barakatt writing in the The Science Teacher was "director of content development for the Encyclopedia of Earth at Boston University", so presumably not independent. (Article available online via The Wikipedia Library) Rupples (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Source: Review [81]. The encyclopedia looks like it was accessible at least to August 2024.[82]. Maybe it's temporarily unavailable? Our inability to determine the encyclopedia's current status ought not to affect the retention of the article. Rupples (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Couldn't it be that our inability to determine the encyclopedia's status might be an indication of a lack of notability? I would imagine that most non-notable encyclopedias suffer from the same condition. Not saying it's a clear categorical, but it is at least instructive. jps (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair point, but doesn't WP:NTEMP apply if the sources highlighted in this AFD are gauged sufficient to pass the GNG? It looks like the encyclopedia failed to achieve critical mass, the resource is blocked for public access and there's indications suggestive of a funding problem, though I'm unable to find reliable sources confirming this. Rupples (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it has numerous years of coverage and the goes offline many years after that, no, I would not say so. The reviews span many years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reviews and academic coverage. The reviews are spread over a multi-year period, so notability is established. Once notability has been established over a sustained period of time, even if coverage falls off after that, notability does not disappear. It also appears to have gone down fairly recently so I don't think that makes sense to count against it; academic stuff tends to have a lag on things like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. The sources found by FactOrOpinion and Rupples.
  2. Maret, Susan (July 2007). "The Encyclopedia of Earth Review Scores Composite". The Charleston Advisor. Vol. 9, no. 1. pp. 37–38. Retrieved 2025-10-06.

     The review notes: "As the Encyclopedia is fairly new, going live in October of 2006, content is limited. In addition, researchers should be encouraged to seek outside sources to supplement the Encyclopedia’s content and limited perspectives. ... A factual error was spotted on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act entry for the DOE’s proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository. ... Such a statement raises questions of confidence in the EoE. Perhaps there is “wide support” for burning MOX (mixed oxide fuel) amongst U.S. regulatory agencies, (the Nuclear Regulatory Agency or the Department of Energy as examples), but one can’t be sure because “widespread” isn’t characterized. Affected communities in North and South Carolina and Virginia, ... While public and academic libraries may want to link the EoE in their online catalogs and subject guides, they should continue guiding library users to standard reference sources such as ..."

  3. Brown, Shelley J.M. (2009). "The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE)". Reference Reviews. 23 (8): 40. doi:10.1108/09504120911003438.

     The article notes: "The website The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) presents itself as a comprehensive reference about the earth, earth's natural environments and their interaction with society. The articles are written by scholars, educators, and professionals, and are written in non‐technical language so as to be useful to a variety of users. The body behind this encyclopaedia is the Environmental Information Coalition (EIC). ... The site is attractive and uncluttered, which makes for easy searching or browsing. The Encyclopedia of Earth was awarded the 2008 Best Website Award of the Geoscience Information Society."

  4. "Touring the Digital Universe". School Library Journal. Vol. 52, no. 2. February 2006. p. 24. EBSCOhost 5‌0‌2‌9‌7‌6‌4‌.

     The article notes: "Every student will be exploring the Digital Universe in the coming months, if Joe Firmage has his way.Firmage, a cofounder of Digital Universe (digitaluniverse.net), a Web resource that went live in January, says his product is intended to be a learning portal to all aspects of the world at large, with an emphasis on the earth sciences. The resource will incorporate related links, participatory journalism, and an open-content encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. The difference is that experts-from General Wesley Clark to Dr. Robert Corell, senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society-will vet all data."

  5. Smith, Laura (May 2006). "UK academics to add big bang to Digital Universe expansion". Information World Review. No. 224. p. 3. EBSCOhost 2‌0‌9‌5‌1‌7‌5‌.

     The article notes: "Academics at Oxford, Cambridge, Strathclyde and Dundee universities will be among the first UK-based contributors to a new online encyclopedia written and edited entirely by experts.The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE), an online reference resource for all things environmental, will be written by academics approved by a panel of scientists, who will also 'peer-review' their contributions.Cutler J Cleveland, the EoE's editor-in-chief, said this approach meant its accuracy could be trusted by students, lecturers, librarians and teachers - unlike the collaborative online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which anybody can edit. ... Expected to launch in June, the EoE is the first part of the Digital Universe project, which will offer online information free from commercial advertising, including encyclopedias on other subjects, blogs and podcasts from academics and links to relevant websites and databases.But the project received a mixed response from UK institutions where many staff had never heard of it. The Royal Society of Medicine and the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA) Council said they were aware of the project but had no plans to get involved."

  6. Johnson, T. (June 2010). "Encyclopedia of Earth". Choice. Vol. 47, no. 10. p. 1848. Gale A251862287.

     The review notes: "Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) creates a "pile of great content" out of the Web's "great piles of content." ... Produced by the Environmental Information Coalition of the National Council for Science and the Environment, EoE strives for objectivity. It handles controversial topics in a neutral manner, without advocacy or biased language but with a balanced perspective representing all sides. ... Easily searchable by topic, author, or keyword, each EoE entry is loaded with links to related information. This connectivity makes this type of electronic resource functionally superior to paper-based products."

  7. Carriveau Jr., K.L. (July 2015). "The Encyclopedia of Earth". Choice. Vol. 52, no. 11. p. 1819. Gale A419532473.

     The review notes: "Following Wikipedia's crowdsourced development model, The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE)--last reviewed in 2007 (CH, Aug'07, 44-6568)--fills a specialized niche by focusing on environmental issues, particularly human interrelations with Earth's natural spheres. Unlike Wikipedia, contributors must apply and be approved by the online encyclopedia's editorial board before information may be added or modified; the editors offer a helpful discussion of the policy regarding Wikipedia content. ... The majority of the content is freely available through a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, but some items provided by external partners are protected by copyright restrictions. EoE continues to be a work in progress and has ample growth opportunities. It does not quite yet replace any major commercial publication, but it has the potential to become a major resource in the future."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Encyclopedia of Earth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above comments; it is clear WP:GNG is met. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I could not find sources to support Beskovic meeting WP:GNG. Possible redirect to 2001 MLS SuperDraft. Raskuly (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Montenegro, Yugoslavia, and New York. Raskuly (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of failing WP:N on pretty much all points. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to All-time New York Red Bulls roster as possible search term. GiantSnowman 11:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to All-time New York Red Bulls roster – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to All-time New York Red Bulls roster: Per recommendations above Demt1298 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Name mentioned on seven different articles [83], including the one nominated for the redirect. I wouldn't redirect to just one of them. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to All-time New York Red Bulls roster. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. Metrostars (now Red Bulls) is clearly the most notable team for which Mr. Beskovic played, so a redirect to this team's all-time roster is a sensible WP:ATD. I am open to other possible redirect targets as per the comment by Govvy, but having multiple valid targets is not grounds to choose neither and delete anyway, which also deletes the article history. Frank Anchor 14:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacki Bacharach (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a local political figure, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2.
As always, politicians at local levels of office, such as mayors and members of regional transportation commissions, are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant volume of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but 13 of the 20 footnotes here are primary sources, such as staff profiles and press releases on the self-published websites of companies, organizations or governments she's been directly affiliated with. What's left for reliable sourcing largely just namechecks her as a provider of soundbite in an article whose primary subject is something else, and the only source that's strongly about her exists in the context of her being named the winner of a local Woman of the Year award that isn't highly notable enough to give her a free pass over WP:ANYBIO.
Again, this would be fine if the article were well-sourced, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian New Wave (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 creation of a single journo; the writer of the second source uses another termTheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Austria. jolielover♥talk 14:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of the article, I would like to note that the term is used in the Austrian press as well as in academic discussions. While it does originate with Christian Fuchs, the term has circulated more widely and has been used in discussions at the 2024 Diagonale film festival. I understand the skepticism, but the book by Dassanowsky and Speck already refers to the phenomenon, even though it was published at the very beginning of the movement. Of course, I will fully respect the outcome of this discussion, whatever it may be. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 14:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to allow further development of article. There's already too much well-sourced material there to merge into Cinema of Austria. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expand. Ronald von den Sternen (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I’ve added more references. I hope this is sufficient now. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 09:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What does @TheLongTone think about the current state of the article? Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually only contribute to the German Wikipedia, but I wanted to drop by and note that this should certainly be a keep. As someone active in the Austrian film scene, I can confirm its validity. Jasmin Hagendorfer (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hal'lu (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 group itself is just about notable, I can't see how any of their albums meet WP:NALBUM. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Judaism. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to The Rabbis' Sons There does not to be any basis for notability on a standalone basis. Any meaningful content should be merged to the article for the group and this article changed to a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Rabbis' Sons. I cannot find anything beyond this incidental mention in an interview [86]. Katzrockso (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Rabbis Sons per above. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. For the same reason, we should also delete and redirect Greatest Hits (The Rabbis' Sons album), To Life (album), and Kivinu, other non-notable albums by the same group. Longhornsg (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Rabbis' Sons#Discography: Fails WP:NALBUM, as I couldn't find anything on Google. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 19:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap Service Company (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 entirely fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, and contains nothing remotely resembling evidence of :significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources cited appear to fail WP:RS critera (e.g. a paid obituary: see Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources), or otherwise cannot be cited to establish notability (e.g. the multiple primary-source legal documents use to pad out the 'history' section, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources). Of the two or three sources which might possibly be RS (none are accessible enough online to assess), none are cited for anything beyond passing factiods about a couple of 'trade in' deals, or as references for entries a 'locomotive fleet' table that lacks any sort of sourced discussion indicating why a scrapping company would operate a fleet of locomotives: or even that it did (what exactly did this 'fleet' do? No indication is given). Note also that the majority of the table is unsourced, and that it cites a non-RS railroad fan's self-published website for the last two of the five sourced entries. Given the issues with the table, it is my contention that even if there were sources demonstrating that the company met relevant notability criteria, the table would be inappropriate in that not only does it lack proper sourcing (are the unsourced entries from an unreliable source? If not, where did they come from?), but it appears to be discussing a minor detail in the company's operation - trivial listcruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, United States of America, and Illinois. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotives scrapped by Scrap Service Company and the article creator let the PROD continue until the last possible moment it could be deleted, which is always dirty pool, sending us here. They also copied someone else's rationale from a previous vote as an edit summary, which I warned them not to do in that previous nomination. Low quality sources, and rail cars and locomotives are not equivalent in any way to ships as far as notability, and most of the article revolves around family business disputes that are not notable to rail companies, and of little interest to actual rail fans. Probably best to bundle Southwest Scrap and Salvage with this so Insomniac187 doesn't get to stretch their disruption out for another week after this nomination is closed. Nathannah • 📮 16:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If Southwest Scrap and Salvage didn't still have the PROD template on it I placed a week ago, I'd have bundled it - it suffers from exactly the same issues as this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We only have a few hours left in the PROD so hopefully what they pulled here does not recur, I'll keep an eye on it too. Nathannah • 📮 16:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD has been successful, so striking all that. Nathannah • 📮 00:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrap per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I appreciate zealous attention to minute detail, but this is truly non-notable. "only a small percentage of the world's organizations meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article." Also WP:CORPTRIV. ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 14:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Miniapolis 22:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union (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 sure what the need for this article is. The listed sites are already on List of World Heritage Sites in Russia, List of World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, and List of World Heritage Sites in Uzbekistan, where it is easy to see the sites listed in 1990. No sources or content is USSR-specific (the Russia article also includes the date of ratification). No need for a list of sites in Czechoslovakia or West Germany either, it's redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Ukraine. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Russia with hat notes for Ukraine and Uzbekistan as Russia is the succesor of the Soviet Union AND has most of the soviet sites. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, probably there is no point in having this article. I fixed it when I was working on the others, but as pointed out, all information is in the three successor state lists. --Tone 22:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Soviet Union ceased to exist as such in 1991. Please consider deleting this article as is. List of World Heritage Sites in Russia is a Featured List and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article is not redundant because Russia and the Soviet Union are not identical geographically, with the USSR covering significantly more area. Although these sites are included in various lists for other countries, there is not one single source that duplicates this list. Because there are sources discussing the world heritage areas in the Soviet Union, this topic meets notability as required for a stand-alone list article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY says, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." So the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists in not a reason to delete this article. Rublamb (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there are sources discussing the world heritage areas in the Soviet Union I see none of these in the article... This is not notable, and even if it were, it's redundant and unnecessary. — Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The appeal to NOTTEMPORARY above is flawed -- the notability here is of World Heritage sites overall, not of World Heritage sites in X country. The splitting is just Wikipedia's organizational structure, and necessarily changes as political boundaries change. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is not about general world heritage sites, but about world heritage sites in the Soviet Union. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, its notability has to match the topic of sites in Russia, as notability is not inherited from the World Heritage Site article. Rublamb (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to the "Soviet Union and UNESCO" which is a notable topic [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94] (more sources can be found if newspapers and the like is also searched. The currently existing list would be a helpful subsection 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 20:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as irrelevant. If someone wants to write a draft creating that different topic these links could be a good starting place, but UNESCO is far more than the WHS program, these sources do not cover it and entirely predate the 1990 designation of these sites, and this list would still be entirely redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    delete 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 00:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Yeah, I just got beat to the punch, but I checked out the sources, and none of them talk about World Heritage sites, so I agree that if you think there's a notable topic about the USSR's relationship to UNESCO more generally, then by all means, go write that article, but the one under discussion isn't that. All we have here is a list that collates existing list information in a redundant and generally unhelpful way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - USSR existed for nearly 70 years, which makes it necessary to allow such an article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What difference would it make if it lasted for 7 months, 7 decades, or 7 centuries? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful list for anybody with this exact question. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fallacy fallacy. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good news! If your question was "Did the USSR have World Heritage Sites?", then List of World Heritage Sites in Russia answers that for you! No need for another article to say the same thing! Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reywas92: Wrong, both geographically and temporally. Was Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv a world heritage site of the Soviet Union? Yes it was. Is it on the list for Russia? Of course, not, not in Russia. Were the Golden Mountains of Altai a world heritage monument of the Soviet Union? No, they were not listed while the Soviet Union existed, but are now listed for Russia. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two in Ukraine and Uzbekistan have been added to the lead for appropriate context. A history section that could include other sources linked here is welcome. The lead already listed the three in Russia so it would be clear that Altai wasn't one of them. — Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Good solution to have added the extra text. Speaking of former countries, Yugoslavia also does not have a separate article but several of the sites in the successor countries were listed while they were still in the common state. Tone 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        It is completely WP:UNDUE to add information about sites in Uzbekistan and Ukraine to an article about World Heritage Sites in Russia - no extant sources connects the World Heritage Sites in these two countries to Russia. Katzrockso (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably a lot of sources exist from 1990 when the sites were listed, it is just hard to find them online. Czechoslovakia had no World Heritage Sites, and East Germany had only one that was shared with West Berlin. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just an essay, while actual guideline states, WP:NEXIST: Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the article, Czechoslovakia had three sites listed in 1992, just shortly before the dissolution. Tone 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wrongly assumed that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1991. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's hypothetical gibberish, even if there were sources that covered their listing in 1990, that *still* doesn't mean they need to be listed now in a duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A book titled Building a Common Past: World Heritage in Russia Under Transformation, 1965–2000 dedicates pages 293 to 311 to the section 'Soviet Heritage Sites Become UNESCO World Heritage'. But for this topic sources are presumed. A featured article on Heritage Sites in Russia contains nothing but links to the UNESCO site. There are similarly sourced articles about the sites in Liberia (3 sites), the Marshall Islands (1), Comoros (4).

    This is not a duplicative article, no other article covers or should cover these five sites together. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    All contents of table already exists elsewhere, identical word-for-word. That's a duplicative article. There's not a need for them to listed in one place together. This is a very good source, but I believe it would fit well in the Russia article. — Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since not all of the sites are in Russia, that really does not address the issue. The bottom line in that the Soviet Union was different country with a different list of heritage sites. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With respect to the redundancy, the template "Lists of World Heritage Sites" includes 19 elements. Of these, 16 duplicate information present in the country list articles, 15 by region and 1 lists sites that are in danger.
  Some country level articles include information about the tentative list. The 1989 list for the SU contained 28 elements, of which 25 were later inscribed. The list is relevant only to the SU article and the information about it cannot be easily recovered from articles on post-Soviet states. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The danger list is useful and has sufficient sourcing. There is no state party named "danger" which has been superseded by other states. Also, there is now a consensus to convert the region lists into simple list to combat duplication and to make sure they are of a manageable size. This consensus was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Asia. However, Wikiproject World Heritage is somewhat inactive currently, so we have not done that yet. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I crossed out that paragraph. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Easternsahara. This list is redundant to the lists covering the successor states. Per WP:CFORK, such rendundancies should be avoided. Sandstein 07:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of World Heritage Sites in Russia with hat notes as suggested by Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the information is adequately covered elsewhere.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kelob2678 and Hyperbolick. Kelob2678 provided a source that adequately demonstrates that the subject of the list (World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union). The material is not duplicative and addresses both a different geographic and temporal cross-section of UNESCO World Heritage Sites than the ones listed in the article on Russia. That localities are listed in one more than one list is no issue, this is extremely common for lists. See also discussion of the topic in [95].Katzrockso (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source is actually not about World Heritage Sites (a term never used in the article), but rather heritage protection generally, such as with the International Register of Cultural Property. Again, calling it "not duplicative" is blatantly false – it explicitly duplicates the exact same content in the table that is on other articles. You can say the duplication is okay because it's organized on its own rather than with sites listed after dissolution, but don't make up crap that it isn't in some form redundant. — Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I reject your accusation that I am "making up crap". If the claim is that any information that is (re)produced at more than one location is "duplicative", then we might as well delete the entire encyclopedia, as all the content created on Wikipedia can be found in the Library of Babel. The point is that the specific organization of sites (1 in Uzbekistan, 1 in Ukraine, 3 in Russia; and all identified by UNESCO before 1991) is not contained at any other page, and hence is not "duplicated anywhere", rather than picking apart the article and then claiming subsections are reproduced elsewhere. As noted above, there are many articles where content is reproduced in other articles, but not synthesized together as a whole. It appears this accusation is aiming to hint that the article in question is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK without directly claiming so as it does not fit the criteria. Katzrockso (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a very good point about the notability of the Soviet Union's World Heritage Sites but that can be covered by "World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union" which is not currently a page. The actual number of world heritage sites and tentative listings would probably only deserve a passing mention as the conflict between the western aligned UNESCO association and USSR would be the notable bit there (presumably). We can redirect to save all those sources for future use. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think given the entity of Russia and The USSR being different along with the geographic makeups of both entities being different demonstrates a keep. Per @Rublamb’s comment regarding WP:NOTTEMPORARY follow that up with @Hyperbolicks and @Kelob2678s additional sources, I am much more comfortable in keeping this article over deletion. However I believe that additional sourcing is necessary for much needed support. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kensuke Hijikata (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 find a second source for this, but I don't think two passing mentions in magazines is enough to make a notable person. Roast (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Japan. Roast (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is just a random person, definitely not notable. Zalaraz (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have significant coverage in an encyclopedia published in 2000 . A book-length retrospective of his work was published by a reputable publisher in 2004 and another was published in 1992 by another major publisher. Keep in mind he was born 1922 so most coverage would likely be pre-internet, therefore, being included in a published encyclopedia is quite significant. DCsansei (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is also an automatic WP:NARTIST #4 pass since his work is in the permanent collection of the JCII Museum and the Tokyo Photographic Art Museum in addition to, according to the Japan Professional Photographers Society, having had 18 solo exhibitions hosted and winning the JPS Award in 1979. DCsansei (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAs per the sources found by DCSansei, but also the main (offline) source cited in the article itself, which is specifically a book about famous / notable Japanese photographers from the history of Japanese photography as chosen by the curators of the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography (which has photos from almost all of the photographers mentioned in their permanent collection. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NARTIST #4 (thank you DCsansei) but I hope someone who reads the language can get those sources included soon. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG, as no significant independent coverage was found during a Google search. The available references do not establish notability. ShawMindMiner (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs expansion but WP:NARTIST #4 applies.BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – WP:AGF about offline encyclopedic material about him. Svartner (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of independent notability for this dancer, choreographer and filmmaker. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Spain, and Switzerland. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Got 57 hits for her exact name on Swissdox, mostly in French and mostly passing mentions or minimal coverage. She is almost always discussed in connection with the work of Gilles Jobin. Three online examples are [96][97][98]. This one has a little more coverage, but probably still not enough for the GNG [99]. This Berner Zeitung article has sigcov of a performance she did with Jobin, but not of Diaz herself [100], while this Le Temps article has a full paragraph on one of her solo shows [101]. I don't know whether all of these pieces can be scrounged together to claim the GNG is met. I think the best solution is a redirect to Gilles Jobin, her collaborator who based on the sources she is primarily notable for working with. Toadspike [Talk] 12:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  a few points

  Gilles Jobin acknowledges the importance of Ms Diaz in his work and in their company Studio 44 MocapLab she is listed as Director! Suggesting she should be reduced to a redirect to him would I believe be offensive to Mr Jobim and seems like veiled misogny. I notice there are around 700 pages devoted to individual Simpsons episodes - if Wikipedia is so short of space that it can't accommodate an important dance artist then perhaps you could suggest that they all be redirected back to the main Simpsons page! BERLINDANCE (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm of two minds of this barely sourced BLP. If more sources were added, then I'd be more confident that she passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - I am sympathetic to BERLINDANCE, Wikipedia is very far from perfect. However this is a brand new article, and requires good GNG / sourcing given the subject is a Biography of a Living Person. I would suggest it goes back to draft form and then through the formal Article for Creation process to acquire the required GNG and reliable independent sources with support from another editor. It may take a while, but a better article will potentially come from that. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: While I don't see WP:SIGCOV I think the subject passes WP:NCREATIVE with significant roles in multiple films and dance performances, that have been documented in independent reliable sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Roque humba incident (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 single viral incident involving a public figure doesn't really establish it being notable enough to have its own stand-alone article.

• WP:SUSTAINED - Citations don't support sustained coverage of this incident past the initial news coverage spike.
• MOS:WEASEL and MOS:EDITORIAL - Article makes grand claims of the incident displaying "rising tensions" and "international factionalism" but the sources don't actually support this.
• WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." (see also WP:RECENTISM)
• WP:10YT - I don't really see this issue being relevant after 10 years, let alone in 10 months PritongKandule-✉️📝 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. PritongKandule-✉️📝 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete isn't worth it as a standalone article. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also want to add that possible to merge to Harry Roque. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Read inquiry report (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 actual report here that is the subject of the article fails N. There is lots of good writing here that might be able to be repurposed elsewhere across the project, but this draws too heavily on conclusions to on primary work put together (i.e.: WP:SYNTH) or touches tangentially on the subject but overall fails the GNG. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Setting any perceived notability to one side, this article is a mishmash of WP:SYNTH interspersed with recording what some of the sources say. We can't have WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The nom is clear on this. I feel it also is in the territory of WP:SOAPBOX, the more so since educational topics are emotion triggers. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It also warrants note that this was submitted to WP:AFC several times, and was declined each time for not meeting Wikipedia standards of content organization and referencing, before being arbitrarily moved into mainspace by its own creator, which is not proper wikiprocess. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it's not not allowed but most of the time the reviewers at AfC get it right and prevent difficult discussions like this. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thank you for your comments. As the author of this article, it comes as no surprise that I think it should be kept. I made changes in response to the suggestions of other editors. I also made notes on the talk page and appealed directly to the previous editor, asking them to review my thirty-eight changes and provide me with feedback. When I received no reply and a month had passed, I decided to move it to the main space. I was trying to be respectful of the process, but I also feel that an editor should revisit an article after having declined it to see if the issue had been resolved. I am always respectful of my fellow Wikipedians.

The Right to Read inquiry report is similar to two other articles. One of them is "Teaching Children to Read," by the National Reading Panel in the United States (2000), which is a well-known report on literacy instruction that was well-received by President George W. Bush and used to craft the federal literacy policy. The other report is the Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006), which had a significant impact on the manner in which reading is taught in England.

The Right to Read inquiry report was the result of the work of two recognized Canadian authorities in the areas of reading disabilities and reading instruction. It is notable because the Government of Ontario, Canada, responded to the report by making significant changes to the way children are taught to read in Ontario. It has also received positive reviews from experienced Canadian educators; please see the "Reception" section.

I am passionate about Wikipedia's mission to provide free, evidence-based information and have been an active contributor since 2011, with nearly 3,000 edits. I am more than willing to make changes to the article based on constructive feedback.

I forgot to sign off properly. John NH (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 89 references? Some articles in academic journals explicitly, extensively, and significantly about the report? I'd like to see a review of the sources :). I looked at a single one of those - a 16-page article in Education Sciences - it's an excellent reference. I also did my own search of academic journals, and here's another one in the Journal of Learning and Teaching that's 20-pages long and all about the report. Could the article be improved? Yes. Is that grounds for deletion? No. Do I know why we are even here? No. Nfitz (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject most definitely meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The quickest WP:BEFORE search finds that it has been covered academically here [102] [103] and in media coverage [104]. There is no other WP:DEL-REASON presented here, so many of the arguments appear to simply be WP:DINC/WP:PROBLEM. Katzrockso (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined PROD. Only 9 professional appearances [105], and lacks WP:SIGCOV, the sources are merely match reports. Svartner (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Assam. Svartner (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:FOOTY and lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG). Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG and is not supported by reliable sources. Achintya2023 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet GNG and SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Ghana, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Albert Acquah meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

He is the founder and chancellor of Garden City University College (GCUC), which in December 2024 was granted a Presidential Charter, making it an autonomous degree-awarding institution. This achievement was covered in multiple independent, reliable news outlets, including Graphic Online (https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/president-grants-charters-to-14-universities.html) and DailyGuide Network (https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcu-presents-presidential-charter-to-asantehene/).

He has received independent coverage in national media about his personal advocacy. For example, MyJoyOnline (https://www.myjoyonline.com/support-private-universities-to-achieve-gross-enrollment-ratio-gcuc-founder-urges-government/) quotes and discusses his views on higher education policy.

Additional coverage includes DailyGuide Network (https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcuc-wins-international-health-training-award/), which identifies him as founder and leader of the institution.

Taken together, these demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, not limited to routine announcements. His notability is also reinforced by his role as founder and current chancellor of a university that has national recognition and now full autonomy.

Per WP:ORG and WP:ACADEMIC, the founder of a chartered university with national media coverage is notable.Sweetabena (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See, I acknowledge the subject’s role as founder and chancellor of Garden City University College, but Wikipedia evaluates not who someone is but how notable they are as demonstrated through in-depth coverage. The majority of the cited sources primarily cover the institution, for example, the Presidential Charter award, and only mention Acquah in passing as the founder. This is routine coverage of an organization, not significant biographical coverage of the individual per WP:GNG. Sweetabena's argument was on institutional achievements, but those belong more appropriately in the article on GCUC itself. For the notability of a person, we require sustained, secondary coverage about the subject as an individual, not just the institution they lead. Independent profiles, analysis of his contributions, or detailed reporting on his personal career are largely absent. On balance, the sourcing shows that GCUC is notable, but Acquah himself does not yet meet the threshold for a standalone biography. I therefore agree with the JTtheOG that the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO and recommend deletion. Cameremote (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Unfortunately the nom has applied the wrong criteria. As a Chancellor he is an academic, and as such falls under WP:NPROF. He automatically qualifies under WP:NPROF#C6, since there is agreement above that the university is notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only if you consider GCUC a “major academic institution”. The only "agreement" came from the creator of the article. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep: I suppose it's passing PROF as above, I know nothing about post-secondary education in Ghana to really say one way or another. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure it would be fair to call a school that only "transitioned... to a fully-fledged degree-awarding university" earlier this year a major academic institution. Combined with the lack of SIGCOV of Acquah, I think the case for notability is pretty poor. JTtheOG (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find enough secondary sources for him to qualify for WP:SIGCOV he also doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep otherwise not notable except for WP:NPROF#C6. Ldm1954 is right. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So literally any accredited university qualifies as a “major academic institution”? That can’t be right. JTtheOG (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An institution with 6,000 students should be considered major, especially in a country like Ghana with more limited post-secondary education. Katzrockso (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Stuff (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 honestly don't see any indication of notability to permit for a standalone article here. The page has previously been deleted, but recreated recently. Yet no indication of notabilty that satifies WP:Album (An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.) For this reason, i'm sending this here for proper consensus. But again, per WP:Album (Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article..) Cameremote (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Cameremote (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not aware this was already a page previously, however, I’m not understanding the logic in this not meeting notability guidelines. It’s a posthumous release from one of the most notable country music artists in the history of the genre, and the album itself had more than extensive media coverage upon its release. It was featured in magazines such as the Rolling Stone & other sites as well, and as best I see everything seems pretty well in order as it’s sourced correctly and the info in the article is all there and correct. 162.246.155.6 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this reply above made by 162.246.155.6 was made by me, just wanted to clarify. I had believed I was logged in and I was not, sorry. Zacnascarguy 88 fan (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This review in Rolling Stone [106] and the MXDWN source should be enough for notability, unless MX isn't a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's not much to work with, but the Rolling Srone review helps support a stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree based on the Rolling Stone review. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Waylon Jennings albums discography. Notability guidelines state that multiple reliable sources discussing a subject are needed to establish notability. One review is not sufficient and I'm unsure if MXDWN is a reliable source or not. WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM state "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". I don't think you can make a well-detailed article with one, or even two, sources. λ NegativeMP1 17:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Waylon Jennings albums discography Generally you cannot have an article based on just one or two RSes per WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, merging the notable content onto another article is the best way to go since the article is not notable enough for inclusion per WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even if we assume notability is there, we still need to decide whether readers would benefit more from having a standalone article about the album or see the content in the broader context of the discography.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, as @Oaktree b explained. The content would not be served fit by redirection to the albums discography page, as there is no content on that page bar rote release information. If the content were to be merged into the discography page, it would be an undue focus on that album specifically as all other albums have their own article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rolling Stone’s article demonstrates there is enough WP:SIGCOV for a stub. Perhaps more sources can be welled up from there. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a good time to find those sources? Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Rolling Stone article should help the stub even if it doesn't have that many sources. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 17:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The Rolling Stone piece is not, I repeat not, a review. It is a news article about the release, where the commentary is partially not independent since it quotes the album publisher, who is also Jennings' son. One article cannot "demonstrate" that there are other sources. Redirect due to WP:PAGEDECIDE. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GWLT (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)

Group does not appear to pass WP:NBAND, my WP:BEFORE has not turned up anything in either English or German media to establish notability David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 per [107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112]. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above sources. No question about it. Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Holocaust Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There's some coverage, but nothing that shows it meets the threshold for WP:ORG / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find enough news sources, there were a few mentions, which are not enough. Darkm777 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArtiosCAD (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 exists, but doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Belgium, United States of America, and Massachusetts. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, just ckecking to be sure you reviewed the 5 sources I suggested on the talk page when I deprodded. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It exists but does not appear to meet WP:N. It has been tagged for notability and lack of references for more than a decade, hopefully we can resolve the issue now one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Australia. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Despite the delsort that implies otherwise, this is a field hockey club, not ice hockey. (No opinion or further comment beyond clarifying that only the likely NORG failure tag has been there 15 years; the unsourced tag was only placed a few days ago.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find any news sources, but there were a few mentions, which are not enough.Darkm777 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of South Australian field hockey clubs #Adelaide where this is mentioned at target per WP:ATD, WP:CHEAP and WP:BLAR. It is also mentioned at List of sporting clubs in Adelaide but I think this is a more appropriate target. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ECO codes (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:NLIST, no indication why this list of codes would be a notable topic. They are in use, but we are not a database for everything that is in use. Fram (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ECO codes are very widely used in chess and are very obviously notable. That is why Wikipedia has lists of ECO codes in 27 other languages. Khiikiat (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not decided by how many other languages have an article, but by coverage in reliable independent sources. The ECO itself is clearly notable, but are the ECO codes a topic of discussion or just a tool used by other sources? Fram (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are suggesting that, if the codes are only used (but not discussed) in chess books and magazines, then the codes are not sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am not sure that that is correct. However, even if it is correct, WP:NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Khiikiat (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: three quarters of the chart is empty and the lead doesn't explain why this notable... Feels like it should have stayed in draft. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This list is not ready for prime time, inasmuch as it is mostly empty. Why not just move it to draft space?

I am not sure what sort of source would confer notability. The Chess Informant series, begun in the 1960's, and the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, first edition from the late 1970's, are both entirely organized by this classification system. These are popular and respected publications, but I do not know if their use of this system would be considered to make the system "notable". The system was invented for the purpose of organizing the Informant series, and when the same publisher decided to produce the Encyclopedias, it was an obvious choice. The popular chess game databases, such as chessgames.com and 365Chess.com, have their own lists of ECO codes, but we do not consider these reliable sources, because the level of editorial control is less than certain. Usually, when an article about a chess opening or variation is published, it mentions the ECO code or codes under which the opening or variation is classified; this is also true of books. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The French and Spanish versions of this page are obviously superior. Could someone with subject matter expertise get this article into a respectable state without too much trouble? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd want to see evidence that these codes see use in reliable sources (other than where they were defined). I'm less concerned that this isn't done. I'd like a paragraph that explains why they are useful and how they are used, with references. Or just include that here for now. Whatever. As it is, the article fails WP:N/WP:LISTN. I can believe that the topic meets LISTN, I just need evidence. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but likely needs to be merged with List of chess openings. ECO codes as a group are notable and thus meets WP:NLIST. However, List of chess openings also uses these ECO codes and probably presents the list better. https://www.365chess.com/eco.php shows another way to list these codes without making it as much of a trainwreck as our article currently. – SD0001 (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of chess openings. On looking further, I don't see any distinct content here that's not covered there. Having a list of these codes is like having a list of highway numbers – the highways are notable, not the numbers used to name them. – SD0001 (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SD0001: List of chess openings is entirely unsourced and does not have clearly defined selection criteria. The problem has been discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 40#Can list of chess openings be redeemed? I tried to solve the problem by turning List of chess openings into a list of chess openings for which there are stand-alone Wikipedia articles (with this edit) and by creating a separate list of ECO codes. However, an IP has restored the previous version of List of chess openings with this edit. Khiikiat (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SD0001: I have started a discussion about List of chess openings here: Talk:List of chess openings#Big mess. Khiikiat (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that all the major chess sites have their own lists of ECO codes indicates that the world needs one good list of ECO codes. Ours should exist, and it should be the best. The same description applies to Glossary of chess: there is no single topic that is notable, other than chess itself; but the world needs a glossary, and Wikipedia is the place for that glossary, and Wikipedia's glossary should be the best around. Bruce leverett (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete List of chess openings, an entirely unsourced indiscriminate collection of information. The IP editor clearly doesn't understand that there is no such thing as an "official" opening name in chess. There is only tradition, which has evolved over the centuries, and many opening names (e.g. Sicilian Defence) are now universal, but that doesn't mean they have any "official" status with any chess governing body. Besides different writers have used some names differently, e.g. Italian Game. Many of the opening names listed have no historic basis and appear to have arisen recently on the internet, some of them being little more than memes. ECO codes, on the other hand, have been almost usniversally adopted in chess publications since their introduction in the 1970s. A full list of ECO codes would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:NACADEMIC: the article does not demonstrate the subject meeting any of the criteria. As best as I could verify, this is the objective state of affairs: none of the criteria is also met in reality. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. jolielover♥talk 09:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the vast number of coauthors on his published papers it is impossible to determine if there is any independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. While I agree that he is a coauthor on many papers with large numbers of co-authors, there are some such as ^[1] where he is last of 3, and GS shows 1517 cites. A bit of peacock removal would help.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I encourage a bit of critical analysis re: citation count of [1]. Some recent Open Access citations via Dimensions are below.

  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100377, ref. [5]. "The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), an enveloped, positive-sense single-stranded ribonucleic acid virus, which causes coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), has complicated the clinical management of lung transplant recipients, particularly due to their heightened immunosuppression and infection risk [4-6]." But Lotfi, Hamblin and Rezaei do not mention lung transplantation.
  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40936988, ref. [1]. "Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), spreads rapidly through droplet and contact transmission, potentially infecting healthcare personnel and leading to irreversible conditions or fatalities [1]." Unless we pretend that this statement should indeed be credited to Lotfi, Hamblin and Rezaei, I don't see how such a citation makes their review influential.
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2024.101337, ref. (Lotfi, 2020). "COVID-19 can be transmitted through both direct contact (human-to-human transmission and droplet) and indirect contact (airborne contagion and contaminated objects) (Lotfi, 2020)." Same as previous.
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42739, ref. [7]. "Antivirals and vaccines are essential to prevent viral infections and reduce mortality rates [6, 7]." Same as previous.
  • https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-024-02106-x, ref. [1]. "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrpme [sic! - N.d.] Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and by March 2020, it was declared a pandemic [1]." Same as previous. And worse, since this specific timeline is not anywhere in the cited review.

  To summarize, I am reluctant to call a COVID-19 review influential based solely on the citation count. Even less so knowing that most of citations are too generic to reflect the authors' achievements, and a visible portion of those are outright miscitations.

  Neodiprion demoides (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Neodiprion demoides, there is a subtle but important counter argument to what you say -- is it WP:Opinion and/or WP:Original research? One thing we are supposed to do as reviewing editors is maintain WP:NPOV. So long as there is no citation misrepresentation and it is a reputable journal, if 1500 other scientists feel that the work merits citing it must be counted as having some impact towards WP:NPROF#C1. Iff there is are other published papers which have stated that the paper is wrong, other published work has contradicted it and/or there is a retraction, it may be different -- but incorrect science can still be notable! (There is the quagmire of pseudoscience and WP:Fringe.) Ldm1954 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  > is it WP:Opinion and/or WP:Original research

  Wikipedia:Opinion it is, which I acknowledge is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, but I don't find a clause that would ban it in discussions.

  > having some impact towards WP:NPROF#C1

  That's an absolutely correct wording! How much impact is there, is exactly the matter of discussion. My point is, "not too much because it is a review on a hot topic often cited just because 'we must cite something broad on this hot topic.'"

  Actually, it might be not entirely unreasonable to revise the notability criteria so that only highly cited original research counts towards notability. This will mitigate a lot of citation stacking cases, though by far not all of them. Another possible option (not excluding the first one) is to add an explicit warning that the "highly cited" status might be a result of citation stacking.

  > So long as there is no citation misrepresentation

  Two of the five cases above are exactly that, am I wrong?

  > if 1500 other scientists feel that the work merits citing

  BTW, there is some discrepancy regarding the numbers. Scopus listed 763 as of September 29, Crossref listed 870-ish. Not sure how such a huge difference arose.

  > There is the quagmire of pseudoscience and WP:Fringe.

  There is also a rise of Research paper mills. If this discussion ends up in a clear pathway as to how to record those, that is a great outcome, too.

  Neodiprion demoides (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 10:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]