Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21

Shoreline Public Adjusters, LLC

Shoreline Public Adjusters, LLC (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)

Connected contributor. Recently started company in 2025. Non-notable. Frap (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Frap (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as clear WP:PROMO and company does not meet WP:NCORP.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence of notability, look like AI generated content, fails WP:NCORP. Baqi:) (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy deleteCriteria A7, clearly WP:PROMO. –DMartin 22:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: An article setting out the wares of an insurance claim firm, sourced to their own site and routine listings. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and per WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Mostly self-published unencyclopedic trash. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Boston Simbeye

Boston Simbeye (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. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in first round. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• I'd like to know what WP:BEFORE searching you did here, given my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svavar Markússon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Google news, books. and plain google search, 1st two pages of results are database listings or WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  How do you explain that this was made the very minute of the deproding of Svavar Markússon, and that each of your other recent PRODs are made immediately after someone removes your previous prods? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  it only takes a few minutes to search for this for Boston Simbeye. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why are all of the PRODs being made immediately after the previous PRODs are removed? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  @LibStar: It'd be nice to get an answer to this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Malawi at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect or just delete, nothing here to establish notability. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Malawi at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Boxing per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Malawi at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Boxing might be a good idea for an ATD. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Svavar Markússon

Svavar Markússon (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. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Iceland. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep since its obvious at this point that LibStar is not attempting to do any WP:BEFORE searching. I deprod Saoud Obaid Daifallah and then LibStar, after doing almost nothing all day, PRODs Tang Kam Man a few minutes later. Once I deprod that, he prods the clearly-notable Park Tae-min (weightlifter) within minutes. After that is deproded, within a few minutes he makes this PROD, followed by Boston Simbeye the very minute I deprod this. And you know how one can tell there isn't BEFORE searching? Because it takes almost no effort to find extensive coverage on him (e.g. 1 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per sources already identified by BeanieFan11 and the following:
  • Full page of coverage on him here (more than 1100 words): "Minning: Svaoar Markússon aðstoðarbankastjóri" [Memory: Svaoar Markússon assistant banker]. Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). No. 255. 3 November 1976. p. 22. Retrieved 21 August 2025 – via Timarit.is.
  • Three pages of coverage: "Svavar Markússon, aðstoðarbankastjóri" [Svavar Markússon, Deputy Governor]. Bankablaðið (in Icelandic). 1 December 1976. p. 20, 21, 22. Retrieved 21 August 2025 – via Timarit.is.
  • 110 words: "Íþrótta maðurdagsins" [Sportmen's day]. Morgunblaðið (in Icelandic). 16 December 2015. Retrieved 21 August 2025.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Door to Dusk (song)

Door to Dusk (song) (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. UnregisteredBiohazard! 23:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. UnregisteredBiohazard! 23:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, delete, this fails NSONG as it is not the subject of significant coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - Fails notability. Should be redirected to Door_to_Dusk_(album). Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Move Door to Dusk (album) to Door to Dusk; Redirect Door to Dusk (song) to Door to Dusk (album); delete the hatnote there; and delete G14 Door to Dusk (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Put another way per Liz's request below: Redirect to Door to Dusk (album). But because that page would then be the only page with that title it must be moved to the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm always open to alternatives to deletion, but this is not a good candidate for redirection: not only are there no in-depth sources, there aren't even any passing mentions as far as I can find. Do we really want to have a redirect for every song that graces one of Billboard's 20+ genre-specific charts? --Tserton (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete failing WP:NSONG as Zanahary stated in the first comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Shhhnotsoloud, please simplify your argument because I can not follow what you are arguing for. You should be advocating ONE action and "Move" is not an outcome that can come from an AFD, that is an editorial action, not an AFD action (Keep, Delete, Draftify, Merge or Redirect are your options).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as clearly fails WP:NSONG. Merge and redirect to the album is appropriate given they have the same name. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Move Door to Dusk (album) to Door to Dusk; merge/Redirect Door to Dusk (song) to Door to Dusk (album).4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Az Liz stated above, "Move" is not an outcome that can come from an AFD. UnregisteredBiohazard! 02:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. In this case it seems reasonable since we would be creating a situation which violates our disambiguation rules by eliminating one of only two topics with this title. In a case like this I'd say it's mandated and that we must move in order to comply with Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 you can move it after the Afd. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge – There is little in-depth coverage of the song so it would be ideal to merge.Yennavo (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yennavo: See WP:ATD. We are encouraged to consider merging as an alternative to deletion at AFD. I suggest altering your vote. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I’ve changed my vote, thank you for the nudge Yennavo (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails notability. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Door to Dusk (album): however the latter article should ideally move to Door to Dusk as the disambig page only has the EP and the song sksatsuma 15:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Yugoslav Offensive on Prizren

Yugoslav Offensive on Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is a single sentence, cited to a non-RS. Fails WP:GNG. Rest of the information is unsourced. Griboski (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and merge/expand on Kosovo War --Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Userify/Draftify – currently not much of a page, but I don't feel confident in saying there isn't enough coverage available for it be a page. It is a pretty new page that hasn't even existed for a full month, and the user seems to be new to Wikipedia. I think it could benefit from going through the WP:AfC process if the creator is willing to keep working on it. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure that there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. If people can provide references to demonstrate otherwise, I'll gladly change to a keep. IJA (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – I agree with the comments above. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify and require to go through WP:AFC. It's possible offline foreign language sources or sources behind paywalls exist on this topic. I'd be willing to let this incubate in draft space for that reason.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

British Caribbean Airways

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

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

Article has been tagged as needing more sources since April 2013; single reference that was there is deprecated under WP:PLANESPOTTERS Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: there do seem to be potential sources out there, though so far I've found mostly passing mentions, e.g. , not sufficient for WP:NCORP. I also note that there was an earlier airline with the same name that became a part of BOAC via BSAA, see . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps the solution then is to merge into the main BOAC article and redirect this article to the relevant section?

  (Also friendly reminder to sign your comment :D) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry about forgetting to sign, and thanks for doing it on my behalf. This article is about a short-lived airline from 1986, whereas the one that was absorbed into BOAC was from the 1940s, so we can't just merge the article there. If this article is kept and information about the 1940s BCA is added to the BOAC article, a hatnote would no doubt be the solution. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Don't fret about signing - we all forget it every so often! And ah, I get you now - I misunderstood your original message :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've just looked on newspapers.com and there does seem to be enough coverage from newspaper sources that establishes notability - aware these can be very difficult to find through regular search engines, so highly recommend making use of the Wikipedia Library and requesting access for eg. newspapers.com as it has been so helpful to me for finding information on many topics! I will do a cleanup of the article when I have the time, but here are various examples of newspaper coverage: Staten Island Advance Sun, 09 Mar 1986 ·Page 86;The Palm Beach Post Fri, 21 Mar 1986 ·Page 17;San Francisco Chronicle Sun, 24 Aug 1986 ·Page 130;Florida Today Wed, 22 Oct 1986 ·Page 28;Press of Atlantic City Sun, 03 Aug 1986 ·Page 76;Hull Daily Mail Fri, 28 Feb 1986 ·Page 2;The Miami Herald Mon, 17 Mar 1986 ·Page 179 I would say this is a varied range of papers and they're all independent and reliable. For some of these sources, the coverage is less extensive and for others it is quite detailed, but all show a focus on the airline. I hope this helps and once again I will try to do a cleanup when I have the time using these sources! Greenleader(2) (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

KEEP. Given @Greenleader(2)'s findings I would say keep.

Dualpendel (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources identified by Greenleader indicate the topic passes WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Inedo

Inedo (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)

Previously tagged for soft deletion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inedo). The article is supported mostly by primary sources, appears to have been written by someone closely affiliated with the subject, and contains promotional content, for instance, covering a kickstarter for a 2014 card game called "Release!" ("The Kickstarter for Release! was supported and fully funded in under a week") and another one in 2016 called "Code offsets". Cool stuff, but not a good fit for Wikipedia. :) I agree with the previous nom that the article may not meet WP:NCORP. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per my previous nomination. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Most proffered sources are about offsets and other irrelevant subjects. The subject does not possess independent notability as a corporation. Perhaps, later on. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Open Britain

Open Britain (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:V and WP:RS: article is outdated, misleading, and based on dead or unverifiable sources. Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:N.

This article should be deleted because it fails core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:RS. Almost all of the information is significantly outdated and misleading, with references that are either dead or do not verify the claims made. As a result, the article does not reflect a neutral or accurate representation of the subject, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Attempts have been made to address these issues through all proper channels: declaring a conflict of interest and editing transparently, submitting edit requests, engaging on the talk page, and even proposing deletion through WP:PROD. However, the fundamental problems remain unresolved. Without reliable, independent, secondary sources providing verifiable and up-to-date coverage, the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements (WP:N).

In its current form, the article promotes misinformation rather than providing encyclopedic value, and this misinformation is actively harmful to the organisation it describes, since the content is inaccurate and misleading to readers. For these reasons, I believe deletion is the most appropriate outcome. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep needs updating but there is an abundance of reliable, independent sources that could be added, I think WP:BEFORE is needed here. Comment RoseOpenBritain has declared their COI on their talk page but not in this AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep clearly passes notability requirements with extensive independent and reliable sources that cover the organisation, particularly for its activity during the main "Brexit" years, so deletion seems inappropriate here. I do however completely understand the points raised by the nominator (who I note has a disclosed COI) about the current state of the page, and will try to update it accordingly using more recent sources that ensure the page's claims are verified and accurate. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Additional information and COI declaration: Thank you for your constructive responses. I should formally declare here that I have a conflict of interest as I work with Open Britain (this is also noted on my user page). To clarify the current issues: Open Britain has changed significantly from its historical role during the Brexit campaign and now operates as a pro-democracy organisation focused on electoral reform https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/voter-id-elections-chaos-new-rules-polling-station https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/04/keir-starmer-rejects-call-for-fairer-votes-despite-mps-voting-in-favour-of-proportional-representation/. However, the current Wikipedia article contains severely outdated information - of all directors listed, only Mark Kieran remains registered with Companies House, with the rest having resigned. This outdated content is actively harmful to the organisation's current work. The organisation manages the largest APPG in Parliament and will play an essential role when the government announces its upcoming elections bill. Therefore, it is key that members of the public can find accurate and up to date information about Open Britain. I have prepared a fully sourced and current draft (User:RoseOpenBritain/Open Britain Draft) that demonstrates how this topic can be covered accurately with proper sourcing. If deletion is not the preferred outcome, this draft could guide necessary updates to address the verifiability and accuracy concerns I've raised. Given the organisation's current prominent role in electoral reform, having accurate information available is important for public understanding. If dramatic changes are not made to this page, Wikipedia will be platforming misinformation which actively harms the organisation - this is concerning. Thank you for your help so far. ~~~~

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. While I can sympathize with Rose's desire to control content about her organization, wikipedia is limited in what we can say by the content we have in WP:Reliable sources which for our purposes mean the content found in independent WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. We are also an encyclopedia which means we have an interest in documenting the entire history of an organization and not just its current activities. In looking at the materials being used by Rose in user space, many of them are not independent and are therefore not usable on wikipedia. Others don't entirely verify the proposed text, and there appears to be WP:SYNTH with conclusions which can't be found in any one source. Currently I can't see adopting most of the proposed text or incorporating most of the materials on that page. @RoseOpenBritain: Rather than try and control what wikipedia is writing, I suggest that Open Britain works toward grabbing the attention of independent journalists and academics and try and generate interest in writing on what Open Britain is currently doing and how it has evolved across time. Once independent sources start documenting and publishing material on how Open Britain has changed wikipedia can cover that evolution. By nature, our encyclopedia has delayed coverage of events because we rely on journalists and academics to do their work first. Inevitably we do have systemic bias because of our reliance on external sourcing. That isn't something we can change because of our policies about WP:Verifiability and our strict policies in independent sourcing for writing on WP:Organizations.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Golden Age of Television (2000s–2023)

The result was keep. Consensus is this is the WP:WRONGFORUM. Nominator may pursue a rename through the proper forum at Wikipedia:Requested moves. (non-admin closure)‎ 4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC).

Golden Age of Television (2000s–2023) (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 should be re-titled "Golden Age of Television (2000s-2020s)" since some articles mentioned shows like Shōgun,^[1] The Studio and Adolescence^[2] that were made after 2023 (the supposed end of this Golden Age of TV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espngeek (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Woah there. If you want to change the title, you should've started a move discussion at WP:RM or something similar. This is awkward... Carlinal (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. As already noted, an article deletion request is not an appropriate place to suggest a name change on this site. It feels like you're reacting to the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shows considered as Peak TV, and trying to do the same with this article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, History, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: The nominator has provided a rationale as to why the article should be renamed, but not for deletion. This would be better suited for requested moves. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - As is, this is confusing to the readers, as the so-called Golden Age was the 1950s and perhaps early 1960s. After that, it was just the evolution of each style (comedy, news, drama, etc), But calling each decade or so a new golden age, is misleading. The CNN source "The new, new TV golden age" was just sticking a label on it. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Deletion still seems way too extreme, and there can be multiple golden ages for something if enough people agree on it. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but rename/move. I can tell you, there was nothing worth watching until 2001, and likewise, nothing worth watching after about 2017. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Opinions on decent television are irrelevant here. Please. Carlinal (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, Jackie Gleason and others will be waiting for you in the parking lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This deletion nomination is frivolous. The subject matter of the article is clearly notable and well-documented. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Unlike my Peak TV list Espngeek (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Personal jealousy and bad faith retribution are absolutely not grounds for deletion of an article. We do not own these articles. They are a collaborative project released under an open-source license. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, this is a broader article covering more. jolielover♥talk 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep as a misuse of the AFD process. Nomination is a non sequitur in that it requests a page move (which I had nominated before, but the discussion led to no consensus). Furthermore, even if there is still programming in the style of Peak/Prestige TV being made, it does not mean the age is ongoing or that those shows are part of that era, especially if those programs do not reflect the norm (just as the evidence of Camera Three continuing to air until 1980 and other teleplay anthologies into the 1960s did not mean that the original Golden Age continued through the 1960s and 1970s). The preponderance of evidence shows that television has seen a visible decline since 2023, a result of the streaming wars, the decline of cable and the labor disputes as discussed in the article. A change in the article name was necessary since the opinion of it being ongoing was becoming much more of a minority view and more difficult to justify. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep no deletion rationale. Note that there is a Delete vote, so I don't think it can be speedy kept, but voter @Maile66: feel free to start an actual AfD after this one is closed. I can't see people actually voting to delete at this point. jolielover♥talk 08:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. @Espngeek: you rationale should not be on an afd. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Computational fluid dynamics for phase change materials

Computational fluid dynamics for phase change materials (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)

Discussion at WT:PHYS#Computational fluid dynamics for phase change materials reached a stalemate on deletion vs. redirecting. This discussion is at the talk page of this AfD. In summary, there is concern that this highly technical article is low-quality, and that the use of hand-numbered references (instead of the <ref> tags per WP:REFLIST) suggests possible copyright infringement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Physics and Computing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not an expert in this area, so I don't know if it's notable. It's not a good quality article though as written. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Smells like original research, but I'm not an expert either. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify There does seem to be an encyclopedic topic here, but the page as it stands is part badly-formatted, copyvio-looking text and part uninformative presentation slides. It has by all appearances been abandoned by its creator, who commented at WikiProject Physics that the text is now outdated. Let's remove it from article space but retain the possibility of improving it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:DRAFTNO, draftication is only possible for recently created articles (within 90 days). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  That says to "generally avoid" draftifying older pages, not to avoid doing so in all circumstances whatsoever. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  True, but there isn't anything exceptional in the way this article was created to make the general rule invalid, and 11 years is far beyond the limit. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, too narrow for an article, just a application of CFD Johnjbarton (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Compare, from doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.10.004, not even used in the references

Two main thermal characteristics of phase change are the enthalpy–temperature relationship and temperature hysteresis. Commercial PCMs tend to have varying enthalpy–temperature relationships due to the fact that they are blends of different materials, while pure PCMs have a more localised relationship, which can be approximated by single values for the enthalpy and phase change temperature. Hysteresis is the phenomenon whereby the PCM melts and freezes in different temperature ranges and with different enthalpies, i.e. a different temperature–enthalpy curve for melting and freezing. Hysteresis is related to the chemical and kinetic properties of the material [23].

with the Computational_fluid_dynamics_for_phase_change_materials#Phase_change_model

Two main thermal characteristics of phase change are the enthalpy-temperature relationship and temperature hysteresis. PCMs tend to have varying enthalpy temperature relationships due to the fact that they are blends of different materials, but pure PCMs have a more localized relationship, which can be approximated by single values for the enthalpy and phase change temperature.

Hysteresis is the phenomenon which causes the PCM to melt and freezes in different temperature ranges and with different enthalpies, which results in a different temperature-enthalpy curve for melting and freezing. Hysteresis is related to the chemical and kinetic properties of the material.

Also, from (predatory journal) doi:10.9734/jerr/2024/v26i121357, extremely close paraphrasing, again not referenced.

The governing equations are discretized using an explicit Finite Volume Method. The Fractional Step Method is employed to resolve the velocity-pressure coupling. By utilizing the enthalpy method, a fixed grid can be used instead of tracking the interface, simplifying the process. Additionally, the momentum source term, which accounts for the presence of solids, only needs to be included in control volumes containing both liquid and solid, rather than in volumes with only solids. The coefficient (S) of the source term assumes a particular form based on the approximation used to describe the flow behavior in the mixed-phase "mushy zone". While the solid-liquid interface should theoretically have zero width at constant phase change temperature, our simulations impose a minimum width of one control volume. Therefore, the physical formulation of the source term is relatively unimportant, as long as it successfully reduces velocity to zero in predominantly solid control volumes and becomes negligible in purely liquid volumes (Reddy et al., 2024; Ogunsiji et al., 2024).

And from the Computational_fluid_dynamics_for_phase_change_materials#Process

The Governing equations are discretized using an explicit Finite Volume Method. The velocity-pressure coupling is resolved by adopting a Fractional Step Method. The adoption of the enthalpy method allows working with a fixed grid instead of an interface tracking method.

The momentum source term intended to model the presence of solid is only needed in the control volumes that contain solid and liquid, not in the pure solid containing volumes.

The final form of the source term coefficient (S)depends on the approximation adopted for the behavior of the flow in the “mushy zone” (where mixed solid and liquid states are present). However, in the case of constant phase change temperature, the solid-liquid interface should be of infinitesimal width (although it cannot be thinner than one control volume width in our simulations); therefore, the formulation used for the source term is not very important in a physical sense, as long as it manages to bring the velocity to zero in mostly solid control volumes and to vanish if the volume contains pure liquid.[11]

Also ref 11 article the source is not Reddy et al, nor Osunsiji et al as in the source.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The first example does look to be copyvio. I the the second is reverse copyvio. The second paper was published in 2024. That text has been in the Wikipedia article since it was created in 2014. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as COPYVIO. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as sufficiently full of copyvio that nuking it is the simplest and most justifiable course of action. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Break a Neck

Break a Neck (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:NSONG; should be redirected to Odetari. UnregisteredBiohazard! 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. UnregisteredBiohazard! 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. The Paper article only contains a passing mention of the song, while it is not in the TotalNtertainment article at all. Everything else is a primary source, and I have failed to find any other sources via a WP:BEFORE search. Leafy46 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Mohammad Rafique (musician)

Mohammad Rafique (musician) (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 reliable source except the paid reviews and news of his debute albums. Rht bd (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete was declined three times before finally accepted. Even then, Tavantius retired from Wikipedia. Idk this seems kind of strange to me. I tried finding some links, but they all repeat PR BS--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – The article now cites multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject:** Dhaka Tribune – 26 June 2025 feature (“Mohammad Rafique brings Bengali romance to life through soulful new duets”)** Dhaka Tribune – 27 July 2024 profile (“The rising star: Mohammad Rafique”)** Jugantor – 7 July 2025 feature (“মোহাম্মদ রফিক ও ন্যান্সির কণ্ঠে প্রেমের আবেগ”)** Samakal – 28 August 2024 interview/feature (“আন্তর্জাতিক শ্রোতাদের কাছেও ‘সংগীতের জাদু’ পৌঁছাতে চান রফিক”)

These are major Bangladeshi newspapers providing repeated, in-depth coverage over multiple years. This satisfies both the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the specific notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). The current version is neutral, fully cited, and policy-compliant. SM (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

SM, formally Lazybones2016, formerly Islamrafique360, is a single purpose account dedicated to creating pages about Mohammad Rafique across multiple language versions of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

While most of my edits have been related to this topic (including creating versions in different languages), this reflects my editing interest rather than any external involvement. I understand that my contributions outside this topic are limited, but my work here is based solely on reliable sourcing and Wikipedia’s content policies, not on any relationship with the subject. SM (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete A Wikipedia biography is the result of gaining significant attention by the world at large, not the other way around. Publishers Dhaka Tribune, Jugantor, and Samakal are reliable for news coverage. They are naive about things outside of their area of competence, such as Tulsa, Oklahoma, musicians. Their pieces about him are not independent, they are press releases. Telltale signs are the lack of bylines combined with WP:PUFFERY that neither imparts nor plainly summarizes verifiable information: "building a loyal following among listeners who crave sincerity in sound", "solidifying his place as a visionary in the world of music", "incorporates his life experiences and cultural heritage, which leaves a mark on the hearts of the listeners", etc. For what it's worth, the topic has already been deleted on the Bengali Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia for being non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing this.I’ll respect whatever outcome the community decides. SM (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete this poorly sourced excuse of a promotional brochure, masquerading as an encyclopaedic article. -The Gnome (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Maitland Secondary School

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

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

Not finding any secondary coverage, so doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. There's an Australian school with a bit more coverage with the same name, but it doesn't appear to be notable either. Plausible ATDs: redirect to Maitland, Cape Town if a sentence is inserted there. List of secondary schools in the Western Cape appears to list only notable schools at the moment, although may be a good target if cleaned up. Suriname0 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Suriname0 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Where did you look for coverage? I find it surprising that there would not be any coverage of a high school that claims more than a century of history. Meters (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Hmm... is this the Maitland High School here https://www.maitlandhighschool.com/home ? If the map included in the article is correct then they are the same, and there may be puffery about its founding going on. The school's own webpage https://www.maitlandhighschool.com/about-us says it was only formed in 1991, out of a junior high that was founded in 1979. Meters (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Cape Town per the norm for non-notable schools without a suitable school board article as a redirect target. The content about the early founding was added by an IP in 2021 , and appears to have incorrectly added (copied, actually) information about an Australian school with a similar name (Maitland High School) https://maitland-h.schools.nsw.gov.au/about-our-school/history.html. Meters (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC) changed redirect target per my following post. Meters (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Western Cape Education Department. Possibly a better redirect target would be Western Cape Education Department. Per https://wcedemis.westerncape.gov.za/wced/findaschool.html Maitland Secondary School is in the Metro Central District of the Western Cape Education Department, but Wikipedia does not have an Wikipedia article for the district. Meters (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC) added a formal !vote redirect to the education department. Meters (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

      I support the redirect to Western Cape Education Department. Waynejayes (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Western Cape Education Department per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, West Champaran

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, West Champaran (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 school fails basic notability, and there appears to be no substantial coverage discussing the school individually. I advise a redirect to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, India, and Bihar. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

*Keep – Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are part of a national system of government residential schools run by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti under the Ministry of Education, Government of India. This institution is notable under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG as it is part of a centrally administered scheme with nationwide significance. Similar pages exist for other JNVs, so retaining this article maintains consistency and encyclopedic coverage of the Navodaya Vidyalaya network.Arman Shaquille Qio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC) SOCK

• Delete. Only one source that is primary, school website. No secondary independent sources. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing independent coming up for this school. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

2025 National Highway 66 collapse at Kooriyad, Malappuram

2025 National Highway 66 collapse at Kooriyad, Malappuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most ...accidents...), whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, India, and Kerala. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. A highway collapse is not an everyday traffic accident, and this seems to have become something of a regional political issue with a fair amount of fallout. Coverage seems to meet general notability. -- DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Road collapses as part of regular construction are a regular part of life and despite the road's construction being an issue culturally in the area, no loss of life, and the most that came out of this is the generic 'screaming Indian news channel condemnation' result where the construction company was punished absurdly (two days after, they were blacklisted, which is retributive) and minor injuries as part of a wedding party. Nathannah • 📮 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to National Highway 66 (India), but only the key information. This is a news story and a brief part of the highway's history, not an independent historical event or case study. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Comment I would agree on merging the details, but this title as a redirect is very long and implausible. Nathannah • 📮 00:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Good point Nathannah, I suggest leaving at least multiple redirects such as:

  • "2025 National Highway 66 collapse"
  • "Kooriyad National Highway 66 collapse"

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree to that merge and redirect to a finely-targeted redirect name. Nathannah • 📮 23:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and zero enduring historical impact.

Celjski Grad (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to National Highway 66 (India) per Thebiguglyalien. We may want to move the redirect to a new name per Nathannah's observation. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Not clear the topic is WP:DUE in National Highway 66 (India). We don't have enough distance to tell whether this really is worth covering in that article and should avoid WP:RECENTISM bias. As such, oppose merge because mentioning it there doesn't seem justified per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Md Shohil Aktar

Md Shohil Aktar (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Sam Sailor 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Google Scholar finds four unpublished papers by MDS Aktar but no citations to any of them. Nothing in the article rises to the level of WP:PROF or any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The article creator, User:GUIDE3, is moving a lot of pages about physics into main space. It would help if some of our experienced editors who are knowledgeable in this field could quickly review them and see whether or nor they are any good. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz, I just found then. So far I have AfD'd two to enforce draftification as @GUIDE3 has moved them back overriding prior draftification without material changes. I have left him a warning, and I am checking the rest; harsher action may be needed.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  N.B., I have changed my AfD noms to delete, as we are in clear WP:NOTHERE territory. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Per David Eppstein. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom, article clearly does not meet WP's notability standards. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. I suspect autobiographical based upon the article creation history of the editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Is he even just a non-notable researcher? I can’t believe it! Gedaali (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: As per the nomination. Clearly a self-promoting article. Zuck28 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Listing travel reimbursement as an award really does betray how not notable this subject is. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a promotional article. The degree of significance of the subject fails to meet notability and does not warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. The comments above are quite revealing. What a wretched text! -The Gnome (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as this trash is very AI-GENERATED sounding. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Josef Seger (athlete)

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference in the article is a database, and all I could find elsewhere was a couple of sentences of coverage at []. Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Liechtenstein. Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liechtenstein at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liechtenstein at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where his name was mentioned. Tiny country without sources that are easy to find. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – – Ike Lek (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Ike Lek (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete since subject lacks significant and independent notability.

Forensics on Ike Lek's sources:

This one is simply a listing of the athletes participating in the 1948 Olympics, in which our subject is name-dropped; here the name "Seger" does not even appear; the next two, here und hier warm the font-lover's heart with their neat teutonic font but offer no more than reportage from the Olympics on Herr Seger - yet this AfD does not contest the man's participation; some more progress in the decathlon, a sport of some duration bu its nature, so one more report from London; and so on, and so forth. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I get it is easy to miss things with this typeface, but I need to note that you made some errors. In the one that you said does not mention "Seger", he is indeed mentioned by name near the bottom of the far right column in the last full section. Josef Seger is mentioned by name in both articles mentioning "Herr Seger", with his first name being listed at least once, and "Herr" meaning something akin to "Sir" or "Mister" in many German dialects. Neither are one-off mentions either, each containing at least a paragraph about him. I do not see why these would not meet WP:GNG. Ike Lek (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per above and the source analysis:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Geschichte

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://olympstats.com/2023/09/28/more-1948-olympic-mysteries/		~ Blog, i.e. self-published	Says outright that nothing is known about his life, no date of birth etc.	✘ No
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000476667/161/LOG_0012/	~ Published by the "Principal Government", a degree of self-promotion	Not really relevant since it does not cover Seger	Mentioned in a picture byline - why bring this up?	✘ No
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000469834_1948/192/LOG_0050/			Three sentences of routine competition coverage	✘ No
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000469834_1948/257/LOG_0066/	Travel letter from "unsere Mannschaft", i.e. from the Olympic squad itself	~	Routine and primary coverage (on how the Liechtensteiner team in England settled in)	✘ No
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000469834_1948/261/LOG_0067/	~ Unclear who wrote it, cf. above	Probably	Detailed coverage of the decathletic competition, we can't ask for much more. Only WP:1E, though	~ Maybe
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000469834_1947/249/LOG_0063/	Report about setting a national record in the high jump (1.80).		Only three sentences – though it would definitely be used as a source, had there been enough for an article	✘ No
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/image/000469834_1946/240/LOG_0061/	Irrelevant	Irrelevant	Hard to make out what this was supposed to contribute to. Turns out it mentions Josef Seger as the chief fireman in the voluntary fire brigade of Vaduz from 1906 to 1907. Clearly another person of the same name	✘ 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}}.

Close

• Seger's mediocre scores also do not indicate that he achieved success in the sport. Geschichte (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liechtenstein at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ibrahim El-Dessouki

Ibrahim El-Dessouki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference is a database and a search on the MENA database along with the Internet Archive turned up nothing. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Dualpendel (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete on account of the lack of sources that support the subject's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Niko Ruffin

Niko Ruffin (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)

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH as he has played very few games in his college career and has never won all-conference or national awards at the college or high school levels of basketball. Furthermore, he fails WP:GNG because most coverage about him is related to his celebrity parents. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about the subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - the article seems to have many independent sources but almost all are standard game reports that barely name the subject, which are not usable to demonstrate WP:GNG. And of course, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Rikster2 (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - in one instance, there is a legitimate enough source to prove he is of WP:GNG for this platform. Just that references have not been properly sorted. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - just noting this “keep” is from the creator of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article that is entirely original research containing considerable entries in a directory-like fashion. Many of the entries are included via external links and claims are not appropriately supported via reliable, independent sources WP:NOTLINK. Unclear criteria for inclusion in this list makes it difficult to upkeep, as cleanup is regularly required by editors to remove promotional activities and to prevent link farming. No indication of notability on this topic itself or why it is relevant to the encyclopedia. Relevant policies for deletion include WP:ORIGINALITY and WP:NOTGUIDE Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - unclear that "JavaScript-based source code editors" is even a relevant categorization. Does that mean VS Code forks? Brandon (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I have to admit I have found this page very useful, but it doesn't really belong here on Wikipedia. I have copied it to the software wiki. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Interval Learning

Interval Learning (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)

Available sources on this edtech company are limited to press releases and unbylined announcements, which do not satisfy the WP:NCORP criteria. The article likewise carries a press release tone. Yuvaank (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, India, and Kerala. Yuvaank (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The references in the article are not reliable; only one piece from The Hindu BusinessLine is somewhat acceptable, but that too is just routine coverage. Therefore, the subject completely fails to meet WP:NCORP. Baqi:) (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Poor to unreliable sources. Not a single source is available which can be considered WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Boogami

Boogami (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 or WP:WEB: no independent,secondary and in-depth coverage. Only brief local 2008 pieces. LvivLark (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. LvivLark (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, fails WP:GNG. Seems like a brief flurry of news from the time; WP:NOTNEWS. jolielover♥talk 17:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Brandon (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – The search service lasted for about a year, more than 15 years ago. Svartner (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hickey Field

Hickey Field (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)

Does not meet GNG. I suggest it should be merged with Loudonville, New York under places - landmarks. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and New York. jolielover♥talk 17:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Loudonville, New York – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above. GiantSnowman 10:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Loudonville, New York#Landmarks where it can be added. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Siena Saints - college sports venues that are not independently notable are often redirected to the team article, and that's a better target than the town. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Rina Brown

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

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

Non notable film. Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Rht bd (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• [edited See below].Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 2017: a reasonable alternative to deletion, the standard one for released films with notable cast and verifiable information. The more standard target would be the director but her page has also been taken to Afd. - E. Ux 18:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Eva_UX. Merge into List of Bangladeshi films of 2017. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Would you consider a merge of Rina Brown into the director's article? It would not be unprecedented. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The book Ethical Encounters: Transnational Feminism, Human Rights, and War Cinema in Bangladesh (Elora Halim Chowdhury, Temple University Press, 2022) ) begins with a description and analysis of this film, and there is further discussion of it later in the book. In two other books (Women's Transborder Cinema: Authorship, Stardom, and Filmic Labor in South Asia, University of Illinois Press, 2024 and Bangladesh in Anglophone and Vernacular Literature: Cultural Imaginings of a Postcolonial Nation, Taylor & Francis, 2025 , the authors refer to the film and Chowdhury's analysis of it. The latter has a 6 line description of the film. There are also other articles about the film here and here . I have not yet searched using the Bangla form of the film's name, so there may well be more sources in Bangla. However, I think the fact that 3 scholarly books in English describe and analyse the film shows that it is indeed notable. The sources could be added to the article to provide more information about the theme, plot and characters, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

●changing to Keep. per RebeccaGreen. Thank you!--- E. Ux 09:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The sources listed above appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per RebeccaGreen. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the scholarly sources identified by RebeccaGreen in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Cutee B

Cutee B (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 page is just a redirect to Bob Sinclar. L1amw90 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep. AfD is the wrong venue. Go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you think the redirect is inappropriate. A Google search shows that Cutee B is an artist who Bob Sinclar has collaborated with. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Milorad Dodik

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

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

This is a complicated topic on wich we do not have answers yet. We will remake it again after we see the outcome. King of Croatia1 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. King of Croatia1 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Automatically notable as a province's president or prime minister, and passes WP:GNG as well. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. 17:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. 17:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Most definitely meets WP:GNG. This nomination rationale makes no sense. jolielover♥talk 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @King of Croatia1:, pages are not deleted for being "complicated". Many pages on complicated events/figures exist. Even during periods of uncertainty like elections, when news changes rapidly, pages are still not deleted. jolielover♥talk 17:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. That is not a valid reason to delete. If you think that the article has issues, you should discuss them on the article's talk page. Articles can be updated when there is new information. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Jermaine Dupri videography

Jermaine Dupri videography (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)

Unsourced and does not meet WP:NLIST. Should perhaps be merged into Jermaine Dupri. Gommeh 📖/🎮 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Gommeh 📖/🎮 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Normally, this sort of information is just documented in a discography, since singles and music videos go hand in hand. So it'd be pretty easy to just merge/tack it on to the bottom of Jermaine Dupri discography, which isn't all that big. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge per my comment above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Jermaine Dupri discography UnregisteredBiohazard! 00:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per above, to Jermaine Dupri discography. Lorstaking (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add the text of the videography article to a new section in Jermaine Dupri discography and redirect Jermaine Dupri videography to that section. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Order of precedence in Pakistan

Order of precedence in Pakistan (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 refs on the page since 2014. We need references to WP:V the contents. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom. And if you look at other related articles from other countries, they're all in a terrible state without sources. A broader debate should be held about whether this type of article is within the scope. Svartner (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Government employees in Pakistan

Government employees in Pakistan (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)

Tagged for possible AI use. I'm nominating because this seems to be an unnecessary page that simply copies (or possibly hallucinates) information from other sources. It doesn't really seem encyclopedic, quite a lot seems to be off-topic or random trivia. If one really wanted to find pay scales for government employees, one might be better looking elsewhere WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Typically, cabinet staff members change quite frequently, with most positions lacking any encyclopedic interest. Svartner (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio

Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio (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 J. M. G. Le Clézio is obviously notable, the article does not cite any sources and fails WP:NBOOK. I was unable to find evidence that "Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio" has been the subject of any published works, let alone independent ones, failing criterion 1. The Nobel Prize website mentions the book, but the site does not specifically mention the book itself as having won any major awards, which makes me doubt that it meets criterion 2. I feel that if the book had made any contributions to sciences, humanities or arts or anything else, then there would be something mentioning it in the article -- there isn't, so I doubt it meets criterion 3. I was unable to find anything relating to the book being used as a subject of instruction at any schools, failing criterion 4. While the author is at least somewhat significant, he's not significant enough so that any of his works are considered notable- he's not a common subject of academic study, in other words. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Literature, and France. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I added two published reviews, to me taking this book over the threshold of having multiple independent and in-depth sources (WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep. It also appears in an index of reviews of the Times Literary Supplement, though I don't have access to that publication. There seem to be many French reviews but are a victim of the very poor digital access of French periodicals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Per above reviews. The TLS review is in issue 3638 on Friday, Nov. 19, 1971, p. 1442. I'll add it to the article, though the review itself is a bit short. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The reviews that have been added to the article are enough for NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Withdrawing this (speedy keep due to sources now being present). Thanks everyone for your contributions! Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Social media use by Azealia Banks

Social media use by Azealia Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage of a famous individual's social media accounts does not mean "Social media use by Azealia Banks" is a notable topic. Suggest mergeing back into Azealia Banks#Disputes and controversies, as this does not meet any criteria in WP:NWEB. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete seems like there's a danger here of a series of pages in this vein which get increasingly ridiculous. If the current page gets too long maybe someone will create another one about the subject's use of Instagram or whatever. Nope, we don't need this. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia not dissecting every word that a celeb writes on social media. WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.--Launchballer 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'll refrain from officially saying "keep" since I am the primary contributor to the article. Moreover, I think that trimming is necessary to focus on solely the most notable aspects of this topic. Banks' notability does not give this topic inherited notability per WP:INHERITWEB because of her celebrity status, if there was an article for Social media use by Taylor Swift or a similar celebrity, I would agree that it should be deleted. However, Banks is equally an internet personality as much as she is a musician, and if her article were to cover both her music and internet presence in-depth, the article would be far too long. We can see that Banks' social media activity this in the eyes of the public, as evidenced by the routine spikes in pageviews for both Banks' page and this page whenever a controversy surrounding her arrises. We also see this in the eyes of the media, given its obviously extensive coverage visible in the ref list. I would also push back against the usage of WP:ROUTINE here. Many of Banks' inflammatory statements (for example, calling Thailand "a septic tank of a country") do not make the news or only receive minimal coverage. Media coverage of a specific Banks-related controversy doesn't necessarily fall under WP:ROUTINE, but instead proves Banks' activity is a notable cultural phenomenon. Per WP:WEBCRIT itself, a variety of independent, third-party, reliable sources across different mediums confirm that her behavior is notable as well. That's my rationale on keeping it, however I think it would also be best to loop in WikiProject Internet culture too to see their opinions. 1dagsvlieg (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I think there's probably a notable topic based at least on Banks' feuds with other celebrities. There are multiple RS that have published articles on her feuds collectively as a distinct topic: e.g. Complex, Billboard, The Independent. I could see the case for either keeping or merging this article, so I'm holding off on giving an actual !vote for now, but I think the sources indicate that there's more to this topic than just an arbitrary list of routine incidents. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that the topic covered is notable, though perhaps the way it was framed may not have been the most ideal. As the creator of the article, I would actually say to move the article to something along the lines of Feuds involving Azealia Banks or Incidents involving Azealia Banks, as her feuds, shile notable, aren't necessarily confined to the internet, a notable example being her feud with Russel Crowe. 1dagsvlieg (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge back - her social media use has been controversial (for example, posting about Lil Nas X), but better to place this in context. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (undecided) - I agree with the Comment from ModernDayTrilobite above. Azealia Banks is known for her social media beefs, perhaps more so than for her music as many of her targets have retorted. Her social media practices and feuds have received reliable coverage as a phenomenon in their own right by several reliable media publications, far outside of her music. I am leaning toward merging this material back to her main article, but there is so much of it that the main article would become lopsided. On the other hand, if this social media-specific article is kept we don't need a list that drones on and on about every single one of her beefs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Ridiculousness is not a disqualifier of a page's inclusion into Wikipedia. Wikipedia constantly includes pages that are just as or even more ridiculous than this page. For example, Wikipedia feuds/controversies have their own pages, even though they're a. nowhere near as culturally relevant as Azealia Banks and b. nowhere near as popular as Azealia Banks. I think someone might've mentioned this but forgive me because I'm skimming, Azealia Banks' Wikipedia page views spike once she's said and done something controversial. This demonstrates a clear demand for information and Banks' relevancy in pop culture today. It's easy to dismiss pop culture and its happenings as not relevant and not necessary to document, but it's also important to understand that people are actively looking for sources on these conflicts and happenings, and there's no reason at all to remove this page. If there is, then you're going to have cull many, many pages on Wikipedia which is a. a waste of time b. unnecessary and c. just a detriment to the human base of knowledge and our sense of fun and whimsy. Of course, decorum is important, but don't be mutilating peoples' sense of cultural awareness just because it appears "silly". This attitude gets reflected in things like sports, music, etc. but we look now into past encylcopedias to understand what pop culture and its controversies looked like back then. Who's saying in 30 years, our children won't wonder what Azealia Banks did to get such a controversial name? Smallmandarin (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Addressing the last sentence: WP:CRYSTALBALL, we have to judge in the present jolielover♥talk 05:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in WP:NOPAGE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Kelly Kalm

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Estonia. Let'srun (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage in Estonian. 1 2 3 Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Per sources provided by Seacactus 13, plus further sources here, here, here, here, etc. Clearly passes WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep due to the sources given by @ExRat and @Seacactus 13 SDGB1217 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - per extended sources provided after nom.BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No one appears to have actually read the linked sources?? They are all press releases, interviews, or routine event reports containing almost zero secondary coverage. 1. Simply repeats/summarizes what the subject says in an interview N. 2. 100% of this is written from the perspective of Kalm, and it's from a non-independent governing sports org anyway N. 3. This routine event report has two sentences on her, only one of which is (partially) secondary N. 4. Routine event report with passing primary mention of Kalm N. 5. Press release from her training center N. 6. Press release from Spordipartner ("19-year-old CFC club pro Kalm, who skipped the Doha World Cup group stage, said the following in a brief comment to her new employer's press service"). Literally nothing satisfying the requirements of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Based on on the mentioned sources. Also can't agree with previous commentator's summary. For example source #5 - is not a press release from training center. It's a proper source. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Pelmeen10, that source is written by "Urmas Poldre, sports director of Juri Gymnasium"... This article is required to have a citation to a source providing independent, secondary SIGCOV, which does not include interview content or passing mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Jüri Gymnasium is a school, not a training center. The guy is not related to cycling at all. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  And so is still clearly not independent...? JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm confused here. @Pelmeen10, are you claiming that the subject isn't connected to the school? Let'srun (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's a secondary school but not a secondary source, in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Completely agree. My reply was to Pelmeen10 and why they think it is such. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per the following:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Geschichte

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://sport.err.ee/604040/teist-aastat-jarjest-eesti-meistriks-tulnud-kalm-oli-kirjeldamatu-voistlus	Almost only direct quotes		Not in detail	✘ No
https://www.ejl.ee/kelly-kalm-pikendas-lepingut-belgia-klubiga-isorex-ladies-cycling/	Sports federation		Not very detailed	✘ No
https://sport.postimees.ee/3743613/kelly-kalm-krooniti-naiste-grupisoidus-eesti-meistriks			Three sentences about Kalm	✘ No
https://sport.delfi.ee/artikkel/86254635/eesti-meistrid-kriteeriumisoidus-on-rait-arm-ja-kelly-kalm			2 ½ sentences about Kalm. You will also notice the picture focuses on thee men's winner	✘ No
https://sport.delfi.ee/artikkel/86254635/eesti-meistrid-kriteeriumisoidus-on-rait-arm-ja-kelly-kalm	As was said, it describes Kalm as a student at Jüri Gymnasium and is written by a staff member of the same school	Promotional tone: "We, sports fans of Rae rural municipality, are cheering on Kelly Kalm's achievements ..."	This is detailed - this is what we would want, only from an independent source	✘ No
https://sport.postimees.ee/3743613/kelly-kalm-krooniti-naiste-grupisoidus-eesti-meistriks			Same three sentences as above; ExRat's third source is literally the same as Seacactus 13's third	✘ No
https://sport.postimees.ee/3743613/kelly-kalm-krooniti-naiste-grupisoidus-eesti-meistriks	~ Builds on a press release		23 words in quotes, one third of the total, i.e. 48 words of non-quote coverage. Changing clubs to "an amateur team based in Gavere", what is significant or notable about that?	✘ No
https://sport.postimees.ee/3685511/mulgi-rattamaratoni-voitsid-alges-maasikmets-ja-kelly-kalm			1 sentence and a quote	✘ 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}}.

Close

The only promising source I found was this. Weighing in is also the facts of the matter: Kalm only became national champion in a small cycling nation, joined an amateur team at age 20, never made a mark at a major tour, following abysmal tour results in 2017 she did finish 19th in the 2018 Grand Prix de Dottignies. Geschichte (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Notable cyclist in Estonia. She meets WP:NCYCLING under point 2. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Per consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022, the subject must have at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV in the article under WP:SPORTSCRIT regardless of the relevant SNG's. Where is this source? Let'srun (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  There are plenty of sources covering her. Some people argue about the depth of the sources, however per WP:NBASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  You must have forgot the rest of that, which says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.". I'm sure that was just a mistake. Let'srun (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  At first I don’t like your writing tone and that is not how you should discuss “You must have forgot the rest of that… …I'm sure that was just a mistake”. What I wrote is literally one of the two bullits of the Basic Guideline: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. And 1) “usually” means not always. 2) Sources, including listed sources, are not trivial mentions. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't override the more recent global consensus requiring a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has been upheld in thousands of AfDs. Trivial coverage would include the primary, routine reports she is mentioned in here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NBASIC is the basic; not for instance wp:ATHLETE. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A recent global VPP RfC that found strong consensus to require all sportsperson biographies to cite a source providing IRS SIGCOV most certainly supersedes any weak provisions for non-substantial coverage that could be applied here. Note that BASIC also says "not substantial" rather than "not significant", and anyway would not include primary match reports. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete on the basis of Geschichte's excellent source analysis. WP:SPORTSCRIT is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per JoelleJay and especially Geschichte's analysis. This subject doesn't enjoy significant coverage by WP:RS. This subject fails WP:42 no matter how big the WP:REFDUMP. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC per for the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Temple Reef

Temple Reef (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)

Advertisement for the company Temple Adventures. As part of their diving tourism operations, they created some "reef" (by tossing debris and refuse into water), which is non-notable. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NGEO (or WP:NCORP for that matter). —Alalch E. 13:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and India. —Alalch E. 13:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: As per nomination. Fails GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hantec Financial 1

Hantec Financial 1 (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 4 times for notability issues at AfC, then finally rejected with no indication of notability. Author moved to mainspace.

I see no indication this company meets WP:NORG qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: The author is a paid editor and should never have moved this into the main space past AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no indication of passing WP:NCORP paid marketing promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. jolielover♥talk 15:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NCORP and creator needs blocked for the bludgeoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Agreed, fails NCORP and should be removed. I note there is a related article Hantec Markets which looks like the same company and could be merged, but that article is poorly referenced and still not meet NCORP and probably should also be removed. -- Sargdub (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hantec Group (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I created an article about Hantec Group, the parent company of Hantec Financial and Hantec Markets. The parent company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the Economic Daily News [zh], the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Sing Tao Daily, and the South China Morning Post. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with this. qcne (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Chris Pinset

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

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

Non notable musician/producer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of namedropping but notability is not inherited from anyone he worked with. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. jolielover♥talk 15:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Also, he has fewer than half of my followers on Instagram, and I'm not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - He is a longtime behind-the-scenes guy who has been involved in a lot of projects by famous people, but is only ever listed briefly in the credits. He has no dedicated coverage of his career in its own right. This article is probably a promotional attempt to bring in business for his production company. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Taarak Mehta Kka Chhota Chashmah

Taarak Mehta Kka Chhota Chashmah (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. The references are mostly routine announcements, with no significant independent coverage. Per WP:NTV, it lacks production and reception detail and ends up reading like a program guide. Notability has not been established, could be merged into Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Media Mender (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. jolielover♥talk 15:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – There is at least one review (OTT PLAY) that may contribute toward notability and the show's placement in the BARC top five ratings could also be relevant. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: As per nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Anthony Phan

Anthony Phan (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 a non-notable politician. Sources are all hyperlocal. Google didn't bring up anything further. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep – This article meets notability standards under both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.

• Automatic notability: Per WP:POLITICIAN, “Politicians who have held international, national, or sub-national office” are presumed notable. As an elected Milpitas City Councilmember (a city of ~80,000 residents in Santa Clara County, part of the San Francisco Bay Area), Phan passes this criterion outright.
• Significant coverage in reliable media:
  • San Jose Mercury News (Bay Area News Group) has covered him extensively, including his election in 2016,^[1] FPPC investigation and fines (June 2017),^[2] public disputes with city staff (Feb 2018),^[3] and cyber-piracy allegations (Feb 2022).^[4] The Mercury News is the region’s newspaper of record, not a “hyperlocal” blog.
  • San Jose Inside (Metro Silicon Valley) reported on his involvement in the 2018 political mailer scandal.^[5]
  • Milpitas Post (Bay Area News Group) ran multiple stories, including his public apology for the 2018 mailer.^[6]
  • Milpitas Beat covered controversies during his mayoral run (Feb 2022), which were then picked up again by Mercury News.^[7]
• Independent and long-term coverage: These are not one-off mentions. Reporting spans from 2016 through 2022, documenting his election, governance, controversies, and campaigns. This demonstrates enduring notability.
• On the “hyperlocal” argument: While some coverage comes from Milpitas-based outlets, the majority of substantial reporting is in regional, widely recognized newspapers (Mercury News, Bay Area News Group, Metro Silicon Valley). These are independent and reliable under WP:RS.

For these reasons, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and the article should be kept. Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like an LLM post Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Local city office is not "international, national, or sub-national office". Sub-national means state, not anything smaller than a country. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. These sources are entirely local to the area, and we generally avoid articles on local politicians whose coverage is routine and confined to the local area by local sources, which these are, even if spanning multiple terms. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject fails WP:NPOL as a municipal politician. While any notable local politician will have a bulk of sourcing come from their local media market, it would appear the entirety of this person's sourcing comes from their local media market. If local coverage of a local official was all it took to meet GNG and NPOL #2, it would render those things meaningless. None of the misconduct covered in the article (and it sure is weird that there only seems to be his alma mater and misconduct in this article about this supposedly well-sourced person) rises to the level of WP:CRIME to justify a subject-specific individual article. These are small potatos in the world of politicians.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as it explicitly states that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable, whereas the subject was neither of those. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPOL, and any media coverage is routine coverage for local politicians which has never warranted a Wikipedia page. I also would like to note that the user who created the page has only ever contributed to this page on Wikipedia, which is irregular and could possibly suggest an undisclosed COI. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. City councillors have to pass WP:NPOL #2, not NPOL #1 — "subnational" means state legislatures, not city councils, while city councillors fall under the criterion for local politicians, not "subnational" ones. But this is not sourced nearly well enough to secure the notability of a city councillor, at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Councillors do not pass WP:NPOL#1. GNG (which is NPOL#2) is not met either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Timeline of three longest supported deck arch bridge spans

Timeline of three longest supported deck arch bridge spans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or redirect to List of longest arch bridge spans § History of largest spans. This article has an unusual scope. An article titled History of the world's longest bridges (akin to History of the world's tallest buildings) wouldn't be as surprising to find as, say, Timeline of three tallest stone buildings. The content being presented in the format of a graphical timeline may also make it susceptible to the sorts of problems that motivated the deletion of Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe and Graphical timeline of the Big Bang. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. BADFORK, and NOTDB, given that there are no sources talking about the subject. And I'm not seeing the value of a redirect, given that I don't think anyone ever searches for this. Then again, redirects are cheap. LightlySeared (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering. jolielover♥talk 15:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per LightlySeared. Niche interest, but too random to pass LIST. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Graeme Smith (radio presenter)

Graeme Smith (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Two notices expressing serious concerns about the page have been up for approximately six years.

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

Debabrata Sen

Debabrata Sen (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 I can find are fabricated sources from a WP:BEFORE search. The five sources in the article are unavailable with no wayback archives. Fails WP:GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, India, and West Bengal. jolielover♥talk 09:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – The subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Outlook India, Free Press Journal, The Hindu, and Times of India. Dead links do not mean sources are fabricated (see WP:DEADREF). He has received notable awards and recognition, meeting WP:GNG.Sweetabena (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Sweetabena, please link those articles here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Here are some sources I could find. I don't really like this page and I'm not sure I want it here, nonetheless:

1. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-leader-revolutionizing-ayurveda-with-generational-wisdom-and-modern-innovation

2. https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india/ar-AA1K5HUw

3. https://www.republicbiz.com/initiatives/dr-debabrata-sen-a-visionary-blending-ayurveda-with-modern-science-for-a-healthier-india

4. https://www.indiablooms.com/health/parampara-ayurveda-founder-dr-debabrata-sen-shares-wellness-strategies-for-desk-bound-professionals/details

Kvinnen (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

All of the above sources are either sponsored or unbylined, as disclosed in the sources themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a problem with unbylined sources? I understand why sponsored sources might raise problems. Thanks! Kvinnen (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Unbylined sources usually aren’t that reliable since a lot of them turn out to be press releases or sponsored pieces. You don’t really know who wrote them or if they even went through proper editorial checks. With bylined articles, at least you can look up the author’s past work and get a sense of their credibility. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Response – While I agree that sponsored content is not independent and should be discounted, not all unbylined articles are automatically unreliable. Major Indian outlets like Outlook and MSN India frequently run unbylined staff pieces, especially in their health or features sections, and these still go through editorial review. Per WP:RS, reliability depends on the reputation of the publication, not whether an individual journalist’s name is attached.

That said, I agree we should prioritize clearly independent coverage. The Hindu and Times of India pieces cited are standard news reporting (not sponsored), and they provide exactly the kind of significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Even one or two such articles, combined with his awards and professional recognition, are usually sufficient for notability.

In short: let’s remove or de-emphasize any PR-like sources, but the existence of mainstream coverage in The Hindu and TOI still supports keeping this article.Sweetabena (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Cut the AI crap and link those articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sweetabena and @Kvinnen:, Unbylined sources (or even "bylined" sources) that are obvious promotion are unreliable and should not be take seriously. For example this sort of wording is indicative of undisclosed sponsored content, native advertising, PR promo and WP:ADMASQ: "His life’s work is a shining example... of "his extraordinary contributions", credited for creating "new paradigms" with no back up by reliable medical sources, BTW; or ..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."Beyond clinical excellence...", is an obvious marketing strategy, "through his pioneering work"...the man is a "beacon of selfless service"......etc. this is straight up, transparent public relations firm marketing copy, it is not news, nor journalism. Sources like this should not be used, and they do not confirm notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Number 2 is just a link to number 3. Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete no apparently reliable sources. Some sources appear to be fake. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge source appears to be fake/hallucinated. Jahaza (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - This Ayurvedic physician is not notable. It seems there is a western physician with the same name, therefore one has to be careful when searching for sources, because they are different people. I could not find anything in an online BEFORE search to substantiate this Debabrata Sen's notability. The current sources in the article are either dead links or poor quality or as mentioned above, fake. The sources brought to the table by Swetabena are sponsored content or PR puff-pieces not journalism, for example wording like: "Dr. Sen has redefined the landscape"..."he has created new paradigms"..."His brainchild, (is his) brand"..."through his pioneering work"..."Beyond clinical excellence...a beacon of selfless service"..."His life’s work is a shining example..."his extraordinary contributions"...etc. etc. is pure unadulterated promo that can't be taken as serious news reporting, especially not for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per statements above. Svartner (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• KEEP I wrote the article, and all dead/expired links are now live. Hummer9713 (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - a single bylined source isn't significant coverage; it's original research. The other sources are unreliable as discussed above. I'm sorry, but unless it's hard news, we must be suspicious of certain media outlets. In ordinary times, we could tolerate a poorly sourced BLP, but in 2025, we must be cautious. The proponents of this BLP have failed in their burden of proof. I'm sorry, but this is a terrible time to treat us like we're LinkedIn. Don't take it personally, but it's for our continued existence. Maybe you can try again in 2029. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The deletion reasons make sense, no reliable sources exist.Gedaali (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: As per the nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete' . Do not find any awards notable. After looking at sources that are rather poor, I find that the subject's role as Ayurvedic physician is not notable and does not have any significance to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: As per nom Mehru13 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

XPlay

XPlay (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. Drive-by nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

QQLive

QQLive (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and China. jolielover♥talk 09:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Feng, Liju; Yang, Jie; Zhou, Wenli (November 2009). "Research on active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICNIDC.2009.5360863.

     The abstract notes: "Based on the analysis of QQLive protocol, an active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system was presented by the in-depth study of characteristic message and characteristic payload in the communication process of QQLive. The system acquires the channel list and program information, at the same time monitors the viewing user information by forging the client to send message to the server. Theoretical analysis and experiments demonstrate that the active monitoring based method has higher controllability and accuracy in comparison with the passive monitoring based method. The active monitoring based real-time information acquisition system provides an important data foundation to the content detection and user behavior analysis of P2P streaming media."

     The aritcle notes: "QQLive is large-scale video broadcast software developed by Tencent. It uses advanced P2P streaming media playing technology, the more users the more fluent playing and more stable. ... The communication process of QQLive will be described in detail, which has provided an important basis for the real-time information acquisition system design."

  2. Yang, Jie; Li, Yin-zhou; Dong, Chao; Ma, Zheng; Cheng, Gang (October 2012). "The impact of typical applications on network traffic". The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications. 19: 98–103.

     The article notes: "Many researches showed that the usage of P2P applications is growing dramatically and typical P2P streaming applications such as PPLive, PPStream, and QQLive become very popular. ... QQLive (a commercial video-streaming application that is delivered through P2P) ... PPStream and QQLive belong to P2PStream. ... So we can know that HTTP, PPStream, HTTPFlash, QQLive and Thunder play an important role in network traffic. ... QQLive has the lowest correlation coefficient both on Thursday and Sunday, and the values are 0.991 and 0.986, which remain considerably high. "

  3. Wang, Jingqun 王敬群; Yang, Wang 杨望; Ding, Wei 丁伟 (2010). "部分应用软件使用UDP协议调查" [Investigation on the Use of the UDP Protocol by some Application Software] (PDF). 第十二届海峡两岸信息（资讯）技术（CSIT2010） [The 12th Cross-Strait Information Technology Conference (CSIT2010)] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "QQLive:QQLive 是一款由腾讯开发的网络电视软件。对抓包结果分析可知，QQLive 可以同时兼容TCP 和UDP 方式，但以UDP 协议主。软件启动后，UDP 较少（低于5%），正式播放后，UDP 逐渐增多，最终所占比率大于 80%，其中包含使用 UDP 封装的QICQ，STUN 应用层协议和没有应用层的UDP协议。图6为其中的一次抓包结果。"

     From Google Translate: "QQLive: QQLive is an online TV application developed by Tencent. Analysis of packet capture results shows that QQLive is compatible with both TCP and UDP, but primarily uses UDP. After the software is launched, UDP traffic is relatively low (less than 5%). After live streaming, UDP traffic gradually increases, ultimately exceeding 80%. This includes QICQ using UDP encapsulation, the STUN application layer protocol, and UDP without an application layer. Figure 6 shows the results of one such packet capture."

  4. Zhang, Renfei; He, Side; Jia, Yanyan; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Leilei (2012-04-06). "Traffic Analysis of Popular Peer-to-Peer IPTV VoD Systems". ICEICE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering. Vol. 3. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 958–962. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The abstract notes: "In order to gain insights to the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics of the VoD systems of the four most popular P2P IPTV, namely PPTV, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live, this paper develops and deploys a passive network measurement with a sniffer tool in the experiment test bed designed, then analyses the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics. The key findings include: 1) PPTV uses TCP protocol with port 80 to send the video streaming, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live use UDP protocol with Non-well-known port to send and receive the video traffic, 2) The download rate of PPTV, PP Stream and Kankan is periodic, QQ live does not show any obvious pattern, 3) CCDF of the download-peers lifetime of PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live follow a Weibull distribution."

  5. Wang, Wenxian; Chen, Xingshu; Wang, Haizhou; Zhang, Qi; Wang, Cheng (2014-03-19). "Measurement and Analysis of P2P IPTV Program Resource". The Scientific World Journal. Vol. 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/101702. ProQuest 1561736104.

     The article notes: "PPTV and QQLive only offer 6-level popularity. Thus, we must normalize the number of viewers according to the number of online viewers of various IPTV applications. In June 2010, the maximum viewers of PPStream, UUSee, PPTV, and QQLive are about 20.0, 2.0, 11.0, and 6.6 million, respectively. ... While hierarchy depth distribution of QQLive is quite different from that of other applications, its 4-hierarchy programs account for 57.22%. Thus, its programs are prone to used short name."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: per Cunard's sources and no evidence of a WP:BEFORE by the nominator, who created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  There's a lot more - see

  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#IP improperly PROD'ing 50-100 software articles per week

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Wasabi (software)

Wasabi (software) (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

1. https://uit.stanford.edu/storage/wasabi-cloud-storage

2. https://www.cloudwards.net/wasabi-review/

Are these links referring to the subject of the article? Thanks Kvinnen (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, these do not seem to be related to this article. Clenpr (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  There's also been an ongoing problem with PRODs which has not stopped since this ANI report several months ago:

  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#IP improperly PROD'ing 50-100 software articles per week

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Traverso DAW

Traverso DAW (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Vuforia Augmented Reality SDK

Vuforia Augmented Reality SDK (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. No evidence of WP:BEFORE; nominator created 7 AfDs in as many minutes and has previously been warned for nominating without evidence of BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Microsoft Video 1

Microsoft Video 1 (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 Clenpr (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 09:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Covered in depth in multiple independent secondary sources, including many books, some of which I have now cited in the article. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per work by DigitalIceAge and WP:HEY. See also WP:BEFORE for what to do before nominating at AfD. (There are usually better solutions than deletion.) -- GreenC 16:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Jojo Cyriac George

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

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

Only routine coverage tied to film promotions such as Bloodline: Vengeance Unleashed and Don Vasco. The available sources, including a brief The Hindu mention, are primary or non-independent event listings and do not provide the multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources required to demonstrate notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ACTOR. LibStar (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Kaattu Vithachavar

Kaattu Vithachavar (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 NFILM. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rajan case: or to other targets. Deletion is unnecessary. - E. Ux 09:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The page is well sourced and written, the film also has major actors like Tini Tom, JP Kuloor. It also has many refrences and hits on google. Why delete it? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army

Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

The given references do not say anything on behalf of the claimed speeches. The 'History' and 'Chief of Staff of the Army' sections are not trustworthy. Where is strong proof that the appointment 'Chief of Staff of the Army' was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army? It is written here that General Yahya Khan was appointed as 'Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Army' before being appointed as the C-in-C of the army. This flickr photo does not say that the 'Chief of Staff' appointment was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army. PauKau (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)