Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 3

Ostrowski (disambiguation)

Ostrowski (disambiguation) (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 disambiguating WP:PTMs. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• keep there is a significant exception to PTM: when the name of the thing can be colloquially abbreviated in context. Most notablle example is names of schools eg., Lincoln (disambiguation): "My daughter goes to Lincoln". Other example "Nobel for Medicine", etc. --Altenmann >talk 00:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  P.S, Oh, the guideline does contain this clause, with examples! --Altenmann >talk 00:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I've done some cleanup. There are two awards and two counties (in Polish). That's enough, barely. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep this seems to fit the exceptions to strict PTM, as the others are plusable alternate common-(short)-names. TiggerJay (talk) 04:06, 6 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.

1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash

1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash (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 on a wartime crash of a C-47 in Oman during World War 2. No significant, lasting coverage of the incident that would fulfill the requirements at WP:NEVENT. nf utvol (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, South Africa, Oman, and United Kingdom. nf utvol (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This crash Involved 32 fatalities during World War II transport mission and occurred in a modern-day in Oman. It is the deadliest C-47 military crashes in Middle East region and has been recorded by multiple aviation archives such as [Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives](https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-douglas-c-47a-dakota-iii-near-salalah-32-killed) and others. These independent sources provide verifiable documentation, fulfilling the criteria at WP:NOT and WP:NAV. While coverage is limited due to the wartime context, the scale and historical relevance meet the threshold for inclusion. Yousuf31 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  What do WP:NOT and WP:NAV have to do with this? The requirement for events such as this are covered under WP:NEVENT. It must have lasting, historical significance or effects. In this case, that would include significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources published after the fact, not merely 'fact of' mentions in databases. It is unclear as to whether or not the database you've referenced actually meets the requirements even for WP:RS. The BAAA About page makes it appear as though it is a self-published enthusiast database with an official-sounding name that does not actually have any official backing or established editorial standards. It is probably good for referencing otherwise-notable events, but simply having an event listed in this database shouldn't be used to establish notability. nf utvol (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the sources come from the same publisher. Not enough sources to claim verifiability. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• delete This is a textbook example both of a failure of WP:NEVENT and of the reasons we shouldn't gather up entries from exhaustive databases. Unsurprisingly, accidents happen during wartime, often quite bad accidents. And almost all of them get recorded somewhere, at least if we're talking modern western countries, because they keep meticulous records. But what then? Other than the official records (which seem to be the only source here) did anyone have anything to say about this weeks or months or years later? Not by the testimony we have here. It was a bad accident, to be sure, but it was also one of many, many such losses during the war, only some of which attracted any lasting attention. And even if we accept these databases as reliable, they are deliberately indiscriminate, so that scraping them for article subjects is a sure way of including non-notable topics. It may have been one of the worst aviation accidents in what is now Oman, but we don't you saying that; we need RSs writing about the accident because it was so bad. And this, we do not have. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and per WP:WHYN, "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. From my searches, besides databases (which are tertiary sources) and/or unreliable sources, there are simply no sources that establish notability. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event, a wartime plane crash, lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The article got now reliable sources and independent sources that verify the content WP:RS, meeting Wikipedia's verifiability WP:V and notability requirements WP:N. Yousuf31 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  You already voted above. Protoeus (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Okay sorry! Yousuf31 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There is some source remembering the victims of the crash. 

  https://www.tracesofwar.com/sights/146400/Crash-Site-Douglas-Dakota-Mk-III-DC-3-KG690.htm

  https://www.southafricawargraves.org/search/view-paginated.php?page=1&DoD_YYYY=1944&DoD_MM=07&DoD_DD=31 Zaptain United (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. Neither of those sources are even remotely adequate for WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. One is a database of every single South African death during WW2, the other is a user-sourced site similar in nature to Atlas Obscura places articles, which is considered "generally unreliable." nf utvol (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Aviationwikiflight. Verifiability does not equal notability, and very few plane crashes are notable enough that they are studied later on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge all notable data to 44 Squadron SAAF, the unit involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I am undecided on how to !vote here. That being said, there is a serious lack of sources on the accident. If an WP:ATD is possible I would opt for that, however I'm not sure that's realistic in this instance. 11WB (talk) 13:46, 8 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.

Alive in Standby

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

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

Doesn't meet notability. Refs are one review and music videos. Nswix (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Nswix (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: putting music videos in reference tags has an unfortunate negative halo effect here. if you're willing to put those aside then: the reference is one single review, which isn't so bad. Here's two more: CoD Courier, RockFreaks.net - that makes THREE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  CoD Courier is the online newspaper of a minor college; those aren't cosidered reliable source. Under the Gun Review doesn't strike me as a strong source, looks very similar to a blog. RockFreaks.net is an online magazine and it's unknown if it's a reliable source. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. No awards or charting. Haven't found more info other than streaming sites, social networks, Youtube, lyrics, etc. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete YouTube is not a reliable reference, and has no relevance. 200.46.55.60 (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Not meeting musical notability, very few critical reviews or any signs of a commercial release. This is only a mention of a concert given. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Lacking SIGCOV in my searches so far, have not found any hits from Google News even.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:20, 6 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.

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable Landpin (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• delete again, routine legislation covering routine stuff which is probably described elsewhere in an article on British labor law anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 has literally nothing to do with this statutory instrument.

  The regulations were made under the Employment Rights Act 1996

  You can see this where it says "Whereas a draft of the following Regulations was laid before Parliament in accordance with section 236(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996"

  (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3312/introduction)

  Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is therefore an absolutely terrible merge target. Landpin (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - absolutely do not delete - this is the main piece of legislation that gives every mother in the UK the right to paid maternity leave. It goes far beyond both the SSCBA 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. There is a major government review coming of parental leave law. Much same reasons as found at [] Wikidea 11:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Child care in the United Kingdom Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet GNG. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and/or Child care in the United Kingdom. Every country has countless regulations. They are usually best summarized though authorizing laws or the subjects they cover – the right to paid maternity leave is the notable topic, not the implementing regulation – particularly when there are zero independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think the redirect to Child care in the United Kingdom is much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• *Merge/redirect/delete to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Without sources, how will it be verified that it really exists?. 200.46.55.60 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Child care in the United Kingdom. These regulations are not related to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, so unclear why that is being suggested? Mauls (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment the regulations were issued in relation to the Employment Relations Act 1999, which is the statutory instrument that provides for the rights to maternity/parental paid leave - this is not about child care provisions, it is about the replacement of wages/salary when a person is not at work due to child birth. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Merge/Redirect target articles proposed here. Terrible deletion nomination statement here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think a straight deletion would be better than a merger. Landpin (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 does seem sensible an ATD, since the subject as of now lacks SIGCOV sources to warrant its Keep. Found this though for fellow wikipedians more familiar with Law to see if this counts as RS. Draftify can be an ATD if any RS citations can actually be found.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 has literally nothing to do with this statutory instrument.

  The regulations were made under the Employment Rights Act 1996

  You can see this where it says "Whereas a draft of the following Regulations was laid before Parliament in accordance with section 236(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996"

  (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3312/introduction)

  Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is therfore an absolutely terrible merge target. Landpin (talk) 05:44, 7 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.

Kei Tomozawa

Kei Tomozawa (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 doesn't meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article was previously deleted at AfD and recreated but there is still a lack of quality sourcing available. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Too little for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:25, 4 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.

Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)

Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy) (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: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 21:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Here is one source that I think adds notability. ^[1] Czarking0 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is another borderline source ^[2] Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Another borderline source ^[3] Czarking0 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I searched WP:TWL pretty heavily and did not see stuff of note there. Though this may have to do with publication times Czarking0 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Bologna Today and Trieste Prima are local papers owned by the same news company so I wouldn't count them as separate sources. Only the Il Bivio article is in-depth, but Il Bivio is a fringe anti-establishment news site written by university students and high schoolers, so it isn't exactly a high quality source. Yue🌙 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as there are plenty of sources on this party, especially under its previous names. The group has a long history and deserves a Wikipedia article. Please note that also it.Wikipedia, which is quite stricter than en.Wikipedia regarding the notability of political parties, has a long article on the PCR. --Checco (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And what are those sources? Also, if the sources are older and use the organisation's previous names, then that speaks to the notability of the previous organisation, not the present one. If a larger group (the Revolutionary Communist International) co-opts the legacy of a smaller group and makes it a subordinate section, that doesn't make the new section notable because notability isn't inherited. Yue🌙 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

And of course, a topic having a Wikipedia article on another Wikipedia is not a policy-based reason against deletion or for notability (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Yue🌙 19:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please notice that it is the same organisation which changed names a few times. --Checco (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:NORG. References in the article, except the trivial mention in Il Giornale, come from obscure, likely unreliable, affiliated/non-neutral sources. Also, the first source provided here is a press release (Questo comunicato è stato pubblicato integralmente come contributo esterno. Questo contenuto non è pertanto un articolo prodotto dalla redazione di BolognaToday, i.e. 'This press release was published in full as an external contribution. This content is therefore not an article produced by the editorial staff of BolognaToday') and the third one is a trivial mention (Present at the parade were members of Rifondazione Comunista, Alleanza Verdi Sinistra and the Revolutionary Communist Party, that's all). The Il Bivio article, half an account of the inauguration of a local section of the party in Pomezia half an interview to its local leader, is not really secondary and is not enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. I would not oppose a partial merge but I don't see a proper target. --Cavarrone 08:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, per Cavarrone making clear that the provided sources do not meet the bar for WP:GNG. The other arguments seem to be based on WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so aren't relevant in the context of this AfD. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:45, 11 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.

James Underdown

James Underdown (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 bio is entirely constructed on primary or otherwise non-independent sourcing and perhaps as a result reads like a vanity page. The best argument for his notability in the article is that he ran around calling himself a poet laureate in the late 80s (by my reckoning, the only independent coverage in the entire article is for that bit), but at best that's a WP:BLP1E issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, Paranormal, Science, California, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: This is the second "second nomination", as the first attempt at that was made on behalf of a sock (who previously initiated a PROD that was procedurally declined due to the existence of the first nomination) and was itself deleted. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Center for Inquiry where he is mentioned multiple times, there is a photo of him, and where I have added some additional content. His stand-alone biography as currently written doesn't have enough significant coverage for a nonprofit figure, podcaster, comedian, filmmaker, writer, actor, poet, etc., either individually or in combination. To be clear, my vote is for a simple WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT not delete, which for those on the outside reading this, the edit history and talk page are retained. Underdown is overseeing a $500,000 scientific prize that could result in the needed significant coverage in the future, so the article could be restored at some point and without some of the trivial material. 5Q5|^✉ 11:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• RedirectWP:BLANKANDREDIRECT I think a redirect is a great idea. I wrote the article back in ... many years ago when I was young ... er younger than now. And wasn't so skilled at knowing what was trivial and what was a reliable source. I have mostly not touched it since 2021 when I wrote a short description for the article. He does run a powerful paranormal challenge with $500K behind it but don't think that warrants a stand alone article for himself. I've been waiting for more significant coverage to add and haven't had it cross my Google Alert yet. Looking over the references again I see he has had an interesting life but these citations aren't quite enough to pass notability. Would like to preserve the edit history in case the significant coverage changes. Sgerbic (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect- to to Center for Inquiry seems a sensible move to the more notable organization he is related with if the subject on his own lacks enough independent RS to support its keep, did notice a handful are primary sources from the CFI , also noticed like citation 20 which is literally a wikipedia page ,should be removed.Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per Lorraine Crane. The subject may meet GNG in the near future. A redirect would be fine for now. GenuineArt (talk) 08:54, 9 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.

Annette Roque

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

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

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, from Matt Lauer. No independent notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Fashion, Netherlands, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Any coverage i find is about the divorce, or "Who is Matt Lauer's wife" articles, it seems any notability goes through him... Nothing to show notability outside of being the wife of a journalist. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to the more notable subject Matt Lauer whom she is associated with strongly in public. But as standalone I would also agree with Nom's findings.Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Matt Lauer per Lorraine Crane. Attention always surrounds her ex, who is far from important enough to make those who surrounded him notable. A valid ATD exists. gidonb (talk) 16:16, 10 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.

List of skulls used to depict Yorick

List of skulls used to depict Yorick (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:REDUNDANTFORK of Yorick#Portrayals, so no need for a separate, largely duplicative, article. Suggest mergeing there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Theatre. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep as creator. I think this subject passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN well enough to justify having a list article. Additionally, it is not a content fork from the Yorick page at all; that page was in quite poor shape before I worked on it just earlier today, so it now has some information from the list, but did not before. The list goes into detail on each case that would be undue for inclusion on the Yorick page. Seeing the arguments presented by others, I'm changing my vote to merge. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Reading through the article I feel like this is a proper expansion of unique examples that deserve more context, but don't fit within the prose of the main article. Well-sourced and with proper illustrations. Nathannah • 📮 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge: with Yorick. The only source used to meet WP:LISTN is a blog. For a stand-alone list, there has to be source proving that the subject is discussed as a group. Rublamb (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rublamb: The subject is discussed as a group by The Guardian, MentalFloss, and HyperAllergic. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Since the lede is where you explain the reason for the list and its notability, the best and most comprehensive sources should be used there. Blogs are generally not accepted as sources; although it does appear to be written by a scholar. Fixing this will be a huge improvement. Rublamb (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge Yorick#Portrayals puts in prose information about André Tchaikowsky, Fontaine, John Reed, George Frederick Cooke, Juan Potomachi, Del Close, David Tennant, and Jonathan Hartman. I commend ArtemisiaGentileschiFan on his work on this topic, but this list is duplicative, and there is no reason to have a separate page just so it can be in table form with actors' images. Any additional details can still be merged there with no issue and there's no need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Yorick#Portrayals per Reywas92 - The information has been written into prose form on the main article, showing that it can fit very well in that format, and the article is short enough that there is no size concern to warrant a split. Having the same information on two pages, just one being in prose form and the other in list form, just becomes a redundant fork. Any of the good sources and/or info present in the list that is not in the main article should definitely be merged over, though. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Nathannah. This is interesting, encyclopedic, sourced information that does not fit in the Yorick article (for example, because of WP:BALASP) or the Hamlet article, or any one other article, and should be kept as a stand-alone list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals; this is inherently an extension of the section in Yorick's article, and Yorick's article is short enough to where this slots in nicely as a prose addition. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, there is significant content overlap between these two topics, and it is best depicted here alongside other important information about Yorick. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals as the middle ground. There is info here that has enough quality to WP:PRESERVE but we don't need to divide the content to two locations. Archrogue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Would be very WP:UNDUE to list on the main article, and passes WP:NLIST. Yorick as a character has plenty of analysis and discussion beyond who portrayed him. The reason it is mostly about the portrayals is because the person who wrote the article at stake bothered to improve that section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • The Yorick article previously had some character analysis, but it was recently removed as unsourced. I agree that the other sections of the article should be expanded, but that's still no reason to split this off. — Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep While an odd subject, odd does not necessarily mean unencyclopedic, and, in fact, multiple people specifically donated their skulls for this purpose, making it a matter of public and artistic interest. While it could theoretically be merged, WP:NOTPAPER dictates that a merge should only be performed when absolutely necessary such as extreme redundancy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • LOL, NOTPAPER does not dictate anything and says nothing about merges or redundancy, you're making things up out of thin air. It does note that long articles can be split, but this isn't long. Literally no one here has suggested this is unencyclopedic or that it's not of interest, I agree that this is very interesting! But being interesting doesn't mean it needs a standalone page, at any level of redundancy; I merge pages with basically no redundancy all the time. — Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

    Additionally, Wikipedia:ITSINTERESTING. Just because it's interesting does not mean it's independently notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:33, 10 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.

Dan Lader

Dan Lader (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. Because this article was previously brought to PROD, I am taking it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Maryland, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Lader 55 appearances at professional level before disappearing, but lacks significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete, cannot find coverage that suggests notability. SDGB1217 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete- so far lacks SIGCOV in my searches as well, closest I found is this, which mentions his achievements, however is just a brief post. Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:55, 8 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.

Bunty Singh

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

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

All the sources are about his death. SIGCOV: Not Found, Fails NACTOR, GNG and ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Dance, India, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the coverage appears to be occasioned by his death, assessing the career of someone prominent who has died, not about his death, as would be the case if someone was murdered or died in an unusual way. This kind of editorial obituary coverage actually establishes notability under GNG. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Career includes non-notable projects, that too without proper citations. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - tragic, but his supposed great contributions to a niche cinema have no articles and no citations. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete— All WP:BLP1E sources. Even if some dive into his career, the sources primarily cover his death. If the subject were truly notable, there would likely be significant coverage from before their death as well. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or Draftify— The sources so far do hint the subject's potential notability, however been unable to specifically find sources to support it, (english at least) highlighting the subject's pre death prominence instead. This maybe the closest, to complicate matters I have also been getting hits from a another subject with similar name " Bunty Singh" see this hit from Google news as an example, key diff is the subject being discussed real name is Gurmeet Singh, made a check in the subjects alternate language wiki version but seems likely identical citations after a bried MTL check to translate the citation titles. Perhaps if any Wikipedians more familiar with the local news of the subject to add more context to this discussion, therefore Draftify would be my more cautious vote. Lorraine Crane (talk) 08:59, 8 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.

Tom Clare (lawyer)

Tom Clare (lawyer) (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)

Passing mentions only, fails WP:SIGCOV with sufficient reliable sources fully covering the subject and with sufficient depth. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, as it would appear as if the article passes WP:SIGCOV after all, which was the only ground on which I was nominating the article for deletion. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Iljhgtn: how is this Bloomberg article titled "Conservative Power Couple Wage Legal War on Stolen-Election Myth" only a passing mention? And that is just the first source... With all due respect I don't think you've actually done the WP:BEFORE here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I looked at some of the sources, but not every single one. If I missed a key source that invalidates the AfD, I will withdraw it. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  The Bloomberg piece is sigcov, its a feature piece from a major publication. Did you do any evaluation of sources that aren't included in the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Some googling, but I will withdraw the nomination. I think you've shown me enough. What is the best way to do that? I have only ended an AfD once or twice? Since no one has !voted on it yet, I think it would be good to just nip it in the bud. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:WDAFD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  How do I close it then? Or does an admin need to do that? I participate in plenty of AfDs, but have not closed one. Could be a good one to learn how to do that on. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I believe an admin will close it. I have added more recent coverage of Clare to the article. He appears to be doing very well for himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  The article could definitely use more work regardless. Thank you for that. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Can only admin close AfDs? in the WP:WDAFD link you shared, it says, "If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion."

  So if I could just close it as a speedy keep. I could. or just withdraw it otherwise. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  In any contradiction please follow that, I don't have a lot of experience with withdrawals (most likely because in an ideal situation nobody really sees them). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 4 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.

MIDC - Andheri metro station

MIDC - Andheri metro station (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)

Continued disputed redirect with zero in-depth coverage, and no improvements. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• redirect to Aqua Line (Mumbai Metro)#List_of_stations as is the usual practice for NN transit and rail stations. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 4 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.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station (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)

Again, continued disputed redirect with zero in-depth coverage, and no improvements. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment, unlike some station articles this one does have at least some citations to reliable sources. Unfortunately all the ones to newspapers are about the construction and opening of the metro line, and are not about the station. The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd citation contains good information about the lifts and escalators available and other station facilities - but the Wikipedia article makes little use of this. The one positive feature of the Wikipedia article is the infobox - with its little street map, photograph, concise information, the best case for keeping the article is the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Just a dude from earth: I have found independent sources that are just about the metro station, and also one with a small but interesting mention of the station. There might be a good case for keeping this article if more can be found.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - I was able to find examples of independent reliable sources about the station, and things that happened when the station opened - some of which have since been used by the article's creator. I find his/her argument that there will be more in future persuasive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The concerns regarding a perceived lack of in-depth coverage specific to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - T1 metro station have been actively addressed. I have recently added a new section. This new content demonstrates the station's distinct notability, moving beyond general metro line construction news and providing dedicated, verifiable information about its function and importance within the Mumbai public transport network. As a critical gateway to one of India's busiest airports, it is highly probable that over time, the station will naturally garner increased independent media attention regarding its operations, passenger experience, and any future developments or events, further solidifying its long-term notability. Maintaining this article allows for the organic growth of verifiable information as the station continues to serve a vital role.

Just a dude from earth (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• redirect to Aqua Line (Mumbai Metro)#List_of_stations and merge some of the information about how it isn't actually at the airport. Claims that it will become more notable in the future are not, in my experience, borne out unless something shocking and unanticipated happens. The rest of the material in the article is the usual padding that transit station articles get to make them look more significant, but really, other than the "it's not actually at the airport" bit, the rest is all routine material which a list of stations ought to be presenting. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. The new sources do not have WP:SIGCOV of the metro station, with the possible exception of this one -- the others either discuss the terminal/airport or the metro line as a whole. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 11 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.

Minneapolis DFL

Minneapolis DFL (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)

Notability isn't established, content is POV, and edits were only made on the first two days of the page's existence (June 1-2). There's a lot of POV content here right now, which isn't well-sourced (e.g. ideology in infobox). In part, this article feels like a way to include POV claims about the DFL that would be erased sooner on a more-viewed page.

The History section is not especially specific to the local endorsing unit but rather to the history of the DFL and general history of Government of Minneapolis, repeating information already on, or better suited to, those pages, and is poorly sourced. The founding date claim in the infobox copies the state DFL, and "recent activity" just summarizes existing pages on those elections.

I propose MERGING the structure section, and possibly other relevant info, to the Party Organization section in Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (which could also mention other localities if needed), and MERGING composition history (currently under Election results section) to the election pages Minneapolis City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis. Some of the content here would do better as a general "politics in Minneapolis" page, which would be a more appropriate place to discuss political party strength over time. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Minnesota. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep I tried to AFD some similar local party articles in New York to no avail. This one seems to have some notability as a major local party. And there are mentions in media of this organization. POV is a separate issue, certainly. Metallurgist (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge into Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party per nom. The local branch of the party isn't notable enough on it's own, but as it is in Minnesota's largest city, it is worth noting in the party page. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 02:38, 4 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.

Michael Edem Akafia

Michael Edem Akafia (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)

Other than press releases masquerading as news stories about his appointment to the Ghana Mines position (you can tell by the very similar wording in all of them), searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Disputed redirect without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Ghana Chamber of Mines looking at the sources on Google, I agree these these are really press releases and do not quality as reliable independent sources. Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep I believe the subject meets WP:GNG and has in-depth coverage . Also concerning the the rationale "Disputed redirect without improvement."The redirect was disputed by me at 10:01 UTC, and the article was nominated for deletion 30 minutes later. I had already begun working on improvements based on nominator's reason in the edit summary. Nominating for deletion at this stage is premature; the article should be improved, not removed. -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - the timing of the nomination shows the importance of using edit summaries. When the article creator reverted the redirect, they gave no indication that they were working on improving it, or even planning to work on it. If they had, I wouldn't have nominated it at that time. But since it has been nominated, if they do supply the necessary sourcing, I'm sure it will result in a KEEP result. Since the article contains numerous sources which do not go towards notability, I would suggest to the KEEP vote above that they let folks know here what the 3 best in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources are, in order to help editors ascertain notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate your good-faith approach. Just to note: I had intended to use the "undo" option to provide an edit summary, but I mistakenly used rollback, which didn’t allow for that. That was my oversight and I appreciate you pointing it out. While I believe the subject meets GNG, I also acknowledge that the article can and should be further improved. @Onel5969 Please see, ,. , -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input on the three sources identified above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - an up and coming but run of the mill mid-management business person. We are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the subject as a "run-of-the-mill mid-management business person." The subject has held high-profile national positions, including being the President of the Ghana Chamber of Mines, which is one of the country’s most influential industry bodies. I believe the subject passes WP:GNG with SIGCOV (, , and and deletion would be premature. Best -

  Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is so not a run of the mill mid-management business person, how can we consider someone who is the President of the Ghana Chamber of Mines to be a mid-manager? The article, surely needs improvements but this isn't a low level / mid level personality. He forms part of coalitions and many others who are leading the charge against illegal mining issues in Ghana. Ampimd (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; I still see no consensus. We need participants to directly address the depth and quality of sources identified by Robertjamal12 above, and that has not happened yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:23, 3 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.

List of CAx companies

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

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

This article is a massive spam magnet, and I fail to see how it complies with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We have a list of products, a list of open source CAD software projects, "in-house CAD software"... Not only did this expand way beyond its scope, but it's largely unsourced to boot. I'm unable to see the encyclopedic value of these product listings... Even the lead itself admits that the list is "very dynamic", because "almost every month new companies appear, old companies go out of business, and companies split and merge". Most companies listed here do not even have a standalone article. MediaKyle (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Computing, and Lists. MediaKyle (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: List of non-notable companies, without any sourcing. Not sure what I'm supposed to review, short of spending the next two hours googling each company... No meeting notability for the lack of sourcing, could likely be a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Needs a lot of sourcing and work, but possible candidate for a cleanup and keep? Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:59, 9 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.

Left Opposition of PCE

Left Opposition of PCE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I searched and found https://www.academia.edu/36395195/Radical_Left_in_Portugal_and_Spain_1960_2010_ but that is not enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Spain. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Workers' Communist Party (Spain). There is nothing to merge because nothing is reliably sourced in the article. The Workers' Communist Party was the formalisation of an informal organisation (the OPI-PCE) into a party, so it is a suitable target. Yue🌙 19:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:03, 3 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.

Socialist Equality Party (Australia)

Socialist Equality Party (Australia) (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 party that was deregistered due to lack of members. I was unable to find any significant coverage about, only minor mentions. I ignored WSWS and Mehring Books's coverage about the party, as both of the organizations are controlled by International Committee of Fourth International. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Prior its deregistration, the party never won any seat as it consistently scored less than one per cent vote in all elections and finally without members. Patre23 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep NPOL is not an exclusionary criteria, failure to satisy NPOL does not indicate a lack of notability. The SEP's forerunner was the Socialist Labour League, the Australian affiliate of Gerry Healy's SLL/WRP. The SLL played a not inconsiderable role during the rise of the far left in Australia politics in the 1960s and especially the 1970s. It is discussed across numerous texts examining far left politics in Australia of that period (and to some extent Britain as well); WP:NEXIST. Will post sources shortly. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn that would likely however justify an article on the SLL, but not on the SEP. If it's a "successor" to that as you say, then we'd typically consider it a different organisation (not least because Gerry Healy's organisations were a different one). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Unless there's a reason due to size or significant ideological break, ongoign parties are redirected from their original names. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Splitting from Healy’s organisation would be a significant ideological break in this case. There seems to have been a big bust up in the original Fourth International (colour me shocked) and the ICFI split away from Healy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Leaving aside who split from whom, the SEP identifies with Healy and the SLL, no one else in Australia claims to be the successor party to the SLL. The ICFI is just one of the many Trotskyist internationals, but it is the one founded by Healy and the one the contemporary SEP parties worldwide claim as their international. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The various elements around the splits seem vague at present. I'm still however minded that the SLL (unless we've got evidence of electoral activity) should be treated as a separate organisation, and therefore doesn't carry notability over to SEP. This would be similar to consensus elsewhere, such as for Socialist Appeal (1992) and CWI which both treat successor groups as not inheriting notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to International Committee for a Fourth International or Delete. No demonstration of notability, sources online look to be largely from the group itself (WP:ABOUTSELF). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Sourcing on the SLL/SEP (Australia): two pages on origins and scope of the SLL,^[1] news report on Australian state government investigation into the SLL,^[2] party's newspaper from the 1990s held in the IISH's archive,^[3] multiple discussions of ASIO surveillance of the SLL and its contacts with Libya and Iraqi diplomats in Australia,^[4] discussion of the party from former member,^[5] discussion on the SLL and SEP from author with another party (SWP/DSP) of the Australian far left,^[6]

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for input on Goldsztajn's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I'm personally not convinced on these sources being relevant, it's a bit hard to justify notability of a party that was formed in 2010 based on sources that are all discussing a forerunner from 50 years ago. What it suggests in fact is a complete lack of notability for the Socialist Equality Party, given an absence of RS about this incarnation. They might by able to justify a short/stub article on the Socialist Labour League if someone wanted to create it, but that's as far as I'd go. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems pretty clear that the Socialist Labour League is notable based on Goldsztajn's sources (here are a few additional newspaper sources: ), the question is just to what extent the Socialist Equality Party is a true successor. This source calls the SLL the "forerunner" of the SEP. This description of an item in a university library catalogue says The Socialist Labor League (SLL) is now known as the Socialist Equality Party, and still has a presence in Australia. This book refers to The Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League. Those obviously aren't particularly good or definitive sources, but in the absence of strong evidence otherwise and given that we don't have an article about the SLL, it's enough for me to think that it's reasonable to consider both names for the party to be within the scope of this article. A split or move could always be considered later. MCE89 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  "The Trotskyite Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League..." (Political Handbook of the World, 1999 p.58), "In 1983, more than 60 agents were working inside target organisations, including the Socialist Labour League, the forerunner of the Socialist Equality Party." Mike Head, (2017) "ASIO's 'official history': More unanswered questions." Alternative Law Journal, 42(4), p.308 doi:10.1177/1037969X17732710. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Question, how can a book from 1999 refer to the name of a group only called the "Socialist Equality Party" in 2010? Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Based on this catalogue entry referring to a document titled "From the Socialist Labour League to the Socialist Equality Party : perspectives resolution of the Socialist Labour League, adopted unanimously at its 17th National Congress, June 8-9 1996", I reckon the current article is wrong and they actually changed the party's name in 1996. This source says In June 1996, the SLL held its 17th National Congress to begin the process of transforming itself into the Socialist Equality Party. None of the current sources seem to support the claim that they changed the name in 2010. MCE89 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  WSWS is its own website though, which we should be avoiding as much as possible. This is in a nutshell why all these Trotskyist group pages on this site are so painful to untangle, because the only people that really seem to care about them are themselves and other groups, who will all run multiple websites and faux "publishers" in an effort to make themselves seem far grander and reputable than they are. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Oh agreed, I'm not suggesting that it's a source that contributes towards notability — I'm just saying that it indicates that the 2010 date in the article is probably wrong and that the party actually changed its name in 1996. MCE89 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is why I think for now we could have this moved to Socialist Labour League and sourced up for that, but as the Socialist Equality Party we don't have anything to say why it should be considered notable since becoming a political party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Without getting bogged down in the minutae of Leninist party orginisational theory, the difference between 1996 and 2010 in this particular party's own terms is irrelevant. What's clear is that the common name for the party from 1996 onwards was the SEP. The fact they even report their own electoral results prior to 2010 *as the SEP* reinforces the point (2004 federal election, 2007 federal election). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  That may be the case @Goldsztajn, but even if you move the start date from 2010 to 1998, we still run into the problem that the sources still predate and are instead concerned with the SLL.

  We needs sources to establish the notability of the SEP on its own terms. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's a content discussion, not a notability discussion. Notability of the SLL/SEP has been established. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, that is a notability discussion too. And while I agree the SLL has been established to be notable, the SEP still fails notability in line with prior discussions we've taken part in where a move to becoming a political party was treated as a major enough change that it required a new article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Which "prior discussions we've taken part in"? Do you mean this discussion? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  The two that come to mind in terms of discussions have been what to do with CWI and Socialist Appeal where successor groups didn't inherit notability. In practice this also seems to have been observed with how Socialist Party (England and Wales) is its own article despite a rebranding of what was Militant tendency (or at least those who hadn't split off).

  So not carrying over notability and thereby having an article for SLL and then justifying the SEP on their own merits would be the norm from my experience of this subject. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  What about a joint page that is like SLL/SEP. The title could be figured out but the article just discusses all this Czarking0 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Patre23, the subject fails WP:NPOL. If that changes or there are better sources, ping me. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  NPOL is a section of Notability (people) and applies to politicians/judges, not political parties. I assume you mean that the party fails GNG? And is there a reason that you found the sources presented by myself and Goldsztajn to be insufficient? MCE89 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, and possibly rename. The notability of this entity has been established by the sources above - the name change, regardless of its timing, does not appear to be contentious, and as such is incidental. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still doesn't look like a consensus for me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 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.

Iftekhar Rafsan

The result was keep, though there is also consensus that the balance of coverage in the article should be reworked to better match the sources.‎. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Iftekhar Rafsan (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 about a non-notable youtuber. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: He is a popular media personality in Bangladesh and has a YouTube channel with over 3 million subscribers.Here Also has broad media coverage.[1][2] [3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

While the subject may be a well-known media personality in Bangladesh with a sizable YouTube following, having a large number of subscribers or general popularity does not automatically confer notability. Notability must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond routine interviews or brief mentions.The only good cited source is from The Business Standard which itself is a primary-style profile/interview, which, while from a reliable publication, is not enough on its own to establish encyclopedic notability under WP:NBIO or WP:CREATOR. At present, the article lacks the kind of in-depth, sustained, and critical secondary coverage required to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.Thilsebatti (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/@RafsanTheChotobhai/about	His YouTube channel			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20250126232959/https://www.tbsnews.net/glitz/rafsan-chotobhai-debut-small-screen-270826	Press release			✘ No
https://www.tbsnews.net/glitz/rafsan-chotobhai-it-was-challenging-and-thats-why-it-called-acting-276256	Interview			✘ No
https://www.tbsnews.net/feature/food/iftekhar-rafsan-i-want-make-my-viewers-part-my-journey-86299	Interview			✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/news/rafsan-becomes-first-bangladeshi-invited-youtube-apac-hq-3544621	Facebook churnalism	The gushy promotional tone and content of this piece are not up to The Daily Star's usual standards.		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/@RafsanTheChotobhai	His YouTube channel			✘ No
https://www.dhakatribune.com/feature/182939/%E2%80%98i-want-to-keep-doing-this-for-the-rest-of-my	Interview			✘ No
https://www.hltv.org/player/14840/Outlaw			Esports stats page	✘ No
https://steamcommunity.com/id/IftekharRafsan	Self-published gaming bio			✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/shout/cover-story/news/beginners-guide-competitive-gaming-bangladesh-1657507			Merely quotes him	✘ No
https://www.adsoftheworld.com/campaigns/words-hurt-stop-cyberbullying			TV commercial cast list	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TsEo-y3iSY			Primary source TV commercial	✘ No
https://markedium.com/airtel-reaches-out-to-all-the-single-people-this-valentine/		No reputation for accuracy or fact-checking	One sentence "review" of TV commercial	✘ No
https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/yexv6d9f19			~ 114 words in connection with BLU electrolyte drink	~ Maybe
https://www.tbsnews.net/markets/drinkblu-fined-tk30000-lack-packaging-certificate-853766			Passing mention	✘ No
https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/lifestyle/others/top-5-food-vlogging-channels-in-bangladesh-on-facebook			~ 72 word review of food vlogging	~ Maybe
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/356418/rafsan-thechotobhai-fined-16l-over-unauthorized				✔ Yes
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

• Delete. My assessment of the sources cited or mentioned in this discussion is that there is one independent, reliable source containint significant coverage of him: Two other independent and reliable sources contain more than a passing mention but less than significant coverage. The available material does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. If kept, the esports career and television commercial sections should be removed for balance, which should emphasize what is verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems to have had legal issues , , probably with source 5 in the article, we have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

sd 76.180.73.205 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

When I checked there are multiple reliable sources like the Dhaka Tribune, The daily star, The financial express. Ascendant301 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep – Although I haven't gone into depth on each of the sources, it seems notable enough for an article due to the size of the channel, which is significant. Svartner (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep notable as a youtuber and as per above comments by different users. Behappyyar (talk) 03:50, 10 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.

Bengal potatoes

Bengal potatoes (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)

Contested WP:BLAR. Does not seem to be significantly covered by independent and reliable sources.

Noting that I strongly oppose redirecting/soft-redirecting this title to a WikiBooks cookbook. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Readers use Wikipedia to read encyclopedic articles. If we do not have any encyclopedic content for this term on any page, it should be a red link per WP:REDLINK, indicating we have no encyclopedia content at this time. We should not WP:SURPRISE readers by sending readers to an unreferenced list of ingredients, telling them how to cook non-Wikipedia-notable potato recipes, when they wanted to read encyclopedic information about this topic, which would go away if this is deleted. This is an encyclopedic term, and this is all of our encyclopedic information on it (which contains more references than the cookbook does at this point in time). There is also List of potato dishes. Could be retargeted there, if desired, but if this goes away then the entry probably should as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete If you don't like soft redirects to Wikibooks (I really don't care; I'm fine to see this become a redlink, and that was just an ATD that I'm not aware of being disallowed), the solution is not to restore a crappy article with a single crappy source, it's RFD as was indicated at the previous AFD, so thanks for bringing this here now so I didn't have to. I was unable to find any substantive sources on this as being a specific notable dish, just some different recipes using this name. There's infinitely many recipes people can come up with so List of potato dishes should only be notable ones and the other redlinks there removed as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) AfD is the location to discuss the deletion of article content. Pages that contain substantial history as an article (this page was an article for 18 years, and a soft-redirect for 5) that end up at RfD, usually get restored and sent to AfD. This should not have gone to RfD; the article should have been restored before the first AfD nomination occurred, because AfD is the best location to discuss the notability of the article content that has existed between 2003-2020. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of potato dishes (where it is listed) and merge anything worthwhile (e.g. the source) from the article there if appropriate. There are a few other redlinks there, so fairly comfortable with that for now. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect – Per Godsy. Svartner (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 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.

Prestige Hong Kong

Prestige Hong Kong (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 has been effectively unsourced from its creation in 2007. Not finding anything on a Google search (string: ["prestige hong kong" -prestigeonline.com]) or anything passable as a source in history (SOPA is 404-compliant, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052630/http://www.sinarmasprintawards.com/english/all.asp seems thoroughly broken). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Fashion, Popular culture, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. It's unfortunate that the article has been completely unsourced for so long, and a cursory search of any independent secondary coverage turns up blank. Even then, I would support a case of TNT-ing and starting over given that it's almost exclusively original research.  GuardianH  13:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Seno, Alexandra A. (2008-05-17). "The Glamour And The Gloss". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

     The article notes: "Wearing three-inch stilettos and a giant Chanel ring on one hand, Anne Lim-Chaplain strides purposefully to a shelf in her office. The managing director of the lifestyle magazine Prestige Hong Kong picks up a prototype of her third-anniversary issue, due on newsstands in September, and tosses the 800-page volume on her desk, where it lands with a thud. Even compared with 2007's record profits, advertising for the first quarter of the year is up 41 percent. ... Peter Comparelli, editor of Prestige Hong Kong, says that he aims to uphold the standards of fairness, quality and good design, but believes readers understand who butters his bread. ... The approach is paying off handsomely: this month Comparelli's publication, which has a circulation of 30,000, offers 328 pages of beautiful frocks, as well as articles on recent soirées, the new Mercedes sedan and fine wines."

  2. "The World: Hong Kong - CR Media and 3cm launch Prestige in Hong Kong". Campaign. 2005-06-10. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

     The article notes: "Prestige magazine is set to launch in Hong Kong in a joint venture between the publishers CR Media and 3cm Media. The magazine, which blends luxury lifestyle content and fashion with interests and social issues, is being launched as a direct competitor to Tatler. The editor has been named as George Paddy, the former editor of Cathay Pacific's Discovery magazine, while Brian Chow will be the publisher."

  3. Eaton, Matthew (2008-08-10). "Prestige lands with a 3 kilo thud". Marketing-Interactive. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

     The article notes: "Prestige Hong Kong will celebrate its third anniversary next month by giving readers a whopping 808-page special issue, weighing in at more than 3kg. Published by Hong Kong-based entrepreneur Brian Chow, the magazine has seen a five-fold increase in advertising revenue, driven by luxury advertisers. The magazine's circulation has also grown by 50% to 30,000 copies each month."

  4. Li, Benjamin (2011-02-17). "Peter Comparelli returns to Prestige Hong Kong as Paul Ehrlich resigns". Campaign. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

     The article notes: "Paul Ehrlich, the current editor of Prestige Hong Kong, an affluent lifestyle magazine published by CR Media in Singapore, will resign from the company for family related reasons, while Peter Comparelli, its former editor who left the magazine in 2008, will return to fill the editor’s post. ... CR Media took over publishing duties for Prestige Hong Kong in January 2010, pulling the license from 3cm Media."

  5. La Rosa, Erin (2012-09-19). "Kim & Khloé Kardashian Cover Prestige Magazine and Dish About Having Children and Finding "The One"". E!. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

     The article notes: "Two is always better than one! At least that's what the folks at Hong Kong's edition of Prestige magazine must have thought when they paired up Kim and Khloé Kardashian to be their cover girls for the September Issue. The shoot features the two sisters in white—one of their fave colors—with Kim in a lace dress with plunging neckline and Khloé donning a sexy fitted tube dress."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. "Asia's luxury infatuation under pressure during economic woes". Fashion Network. Agence France-Presse. 2008-10-14. Archived from the original on 2025-07-26. Retrieved 2025-07-26.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Glossy magazines heave under the weight of high-end adverts, with a recent 808-page edition of Hong Kong-based lifestyle monthly "Prestige" tipping the scales at a handbag strap-ripping three kilograms (6.6 pounds)."

     2. "Dancing With Clouds". Macau Daily Times. 2013-10-11. p. P15.

        The article notes: "With the sound of bossa nova playing in the background, I grab a copy of Prestige Hong Kong magazine and start to read and relax, sitting back in my chair at Grand Hyatt Macau’s Lobby Lounge. On the cover is Monica Bellucci, with her full red lips and sultry smoky eyes, staring out of the magazine and looking like a goddess. ... As my fingers keep flipping through Prestige, one of the Singaporean dishes I have ordered arrives."

     3. Gottlieb, Richard, ed. (2015) [2000]. Nations of the World: A Political, Economic & Business Handbook (14 ed.). Amenia, New York: Grey House Publishing. p. 802. ISBN 978-1-61925-288-2. Retrieved 2025-07-26 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Prestige Hong Kong (www.prestigehk.com), is a glossy lifestyle and society magazine ..."

     4. Noonan, Tim (2016-12-30). "Opinion | From the editor's office to the baseball field, Peter Comparelli was a man for all seasons". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2025-07-26.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

        The article notes: "He left the media business temporarily to work for the Hong Kong government before coming back for two stints as editor at Prestige Hong Kong."

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

  Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  The "Less significant coverage" bits are not coverage at all. They are just passing mentions. Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could we have other editors review the recently found sources to see if they contribute to establishing notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Maybe the first two sources listed above, I'm unsure about the rest, but we have found enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Cunard has rewritten and expanded the article (excellent work!), and sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the current article appear to provide significant coverage. Besides, the magazine was covered by Chinese-language media such as Campaign China and Sina, and its cover art also attracts considerable media attention, having been reported by Yonhap News Agency, SET News, HK01, United Daily News, etc. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 11:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for finding these additional sources and adding them to the article! Cunard (talk) 08:18, 9 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.

Patrick Naughton

Patrick Naughton (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)

Secondary sources about his programming career don't show any significant coverage, only sparse mentions of him alongside many other Sun employees. Being part of the 13-people team that developed the earliest versions of Java does not make one worthy of a stand-alone article. He briefly appeared in the news due to a criminal prosecution, but not everyone who is prosecuted for a crime deserves a stand-alone page either. The defense used in his trial was scarcely "novel" or invented by his lawyer, because it had already been successfully used in 1995, 5 years prior. The crime was not unusual even for the time and the trial was immediately forgotten by the media after it ended. V. S. Video (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Almost notable as the programmer, the crime doesn't seem that notable either. Sources are brief mentions, as explained. I don't see much more about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  ZDNet contributor piece from 2000 , I really don't know how RS that is. ZD Net was a big deal back in the day. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Computing, Internet, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

delete: The book he wrote could have saved this but it's also non-notable. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 12:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment There is an obvious redirect target: Java (programming language). The article subject is mentioned in the History section. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: There certainly seems to be in-depth coverage in reliable sources. AFAICT the ZDnet coverage (1 2), WSJ (3), and others (Google news) satisfy GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

These sources are all about his prosecution. People who are discussed in depth by secondary sources for only one event are usually not notable. V. S. Video (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 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.

Shanghai Mini

Shanghai Mini (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. Very little content with a lack of sources required to provide notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete I found one review . Not seeing anything else. Timur9008 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Reviews by IGN: and Pocket Gamer magazine: . Borderline notable game, 3 reviews, 2 on the shorter side but I think it's just enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Per demonstrated reviews, it clearly does not fail the GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be enough coverage in reliable sources, but I'm relisting this anyways to hear feedback from more users
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The reviews are enough to pass GNG. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep this basically comes down to: do three small reviews constitute notability? I say yes

Czarking0 (talk) 23:16, 4 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.

Jim Rossignol

Jim Rossignol (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)

Questionable notability. Minimal notability from scarce documentation of his RPS career and founding Big Robot. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Video games, and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Minimal citations exists in the article, but co-founding RPS arguably meets point 3 of WP:JOURNALIST. Nil🥝^Talk 03:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun – On further analysis, this probably doesn't meet NJOURNALIST, and wouldn't meet NAUTHOR either. As he is most notable as a co-founder of RPS, a redirect to there would be the best option. Nil🥝^Talk 23:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete RPS is not a significant "creative work", but a commercial site that aggregates smaller articles. I do not believe WP:JOURNALIST is passed here, as it might be if it was a major work of investigative journalism or the like. There is no separate notability criteria for a businessperson. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would also support redirect to Rock Paper Shotgun due to his major association with the publication and mention there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  This AFD is very much a follow up from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Robot. I support the redirect suggestion. IgelRM (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 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.

Tampa Bay Thunder Drum and Bugle Corps

Tampa Bay Thunder Drum and Bugle Corps (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 drum corps that was short-lived and saw little competitive success. Media coverage is lacking, despite what the section in the article says. No suitable merge or redirect target. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, and Florida. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I was able to go through the references and other content. I deleted the links that has the 404 errors and all live links references accurate information to further prevent the deletion of this page. Brasilianman (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Oh, wow! The two citations in the Media Coverage section brought up 404 pages, as did the KiwanisKavaliers page, and none had been archived by the Internet Archive, even though two of those sites were tagged as archived in the article. I did find three mentions in the Spantanburg Herald-Journal in 2000 that the corps was competing in a competition there, and would play "Tragedy at Sea". That's it, I found nothing else. - Donald Albury 20:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I was able to correct and fix the dead links with correct ones through alternate sites with relevant information. Brasilianman (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Not notable per WP:GNG. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:19, 5 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.

Coldplay jumbotron controversy

Coldplay jumbotron controversy (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)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Byron which largely focused on this has just been closed as delete. Many of the arguments there are valid here, especially WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this incident has gone viral and gotten coverage, but it's difficult to see how it meets any of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. There is no "enduring historical significance" nor will this event have "a significant lasting effect." Our criteria also say "Routine kinds of news events (including most "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." It is also hard to believe there will be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this viral news story, which will soon be forgotten. That's before we get to the elephant in the room that there are serious WP:BLP privacy concerns here. Valenciano (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I would think that WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT apply here. This is a flash in the pan incident that people will no longer remember in a years time. Knitsey (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Impact_of_the_Music_of_the_Spheres_World_Tour#Affair_scandal_in_the_US, where Andy Byron was redirected after the AFD (not deleted as the nom claims). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It actually was deleted. Per the closer, "the result was delete and redirect." The difference is not a semantic one. With a redirect close, the content is preserved in the page history. With a delete and redirect, it isn't. Valenciano (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The difference between an outright deletion and a "delete and redirect" is also not a semantic one. It seems pretty clear that this should not be a standalone article per the previous AFD, but redirecting to the tour page as a plausible search term (WP:ATDR) seems fine as long as that page has content about this stuff. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a MAD violation. From what I am getting, we kept the content from Andy Byron and put it at Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour, while deleted the edit history of Andy Byron. Do I have this right? --Super Goku V (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

From a quick look at the edit history of the tour article, I think the three articles (tour, CEO, company) developed in parallel, unless someone did an improper merge. By the time the CEO AFD closed, there was already a section to redirect to. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean redirect? If so, why? I'll also confirm that you erred in claiming the first BLP was not deleted. Is there something about these living persons that requires redirecting? JFHJr (㊟) 17:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"Retarget" is used at WP:RFD. Technically "redirect" would be the more correct term, but the outcome is the same. The original BLP was ultimately redirected to the tour article, which has a section about the incident, which makes these valid redirect targets as plausible search terms to that content. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 19:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect the nom hits the nail on the head when they quote WP:NEVENT: Routine kinds of news events (including most "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. There's no evidence of lasting significance to the event, and also BLP issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Knitsey, and Hemiauchenia; also per WP:TENYEARTEST, which is not a policy or guideline but is helpful. This recreated/retitled article is still a WP:BLP violation in regards to WP:LOWPROFILE, concerning living persons who are not public figures. JFHJr (㊟) 17:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear: my !vote above does not include "redirect" because it's not merited. These living people have zero place in an encyclopedia for mention let alone redirecting. JFHJr (㊟) 17:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the CEO of a billion-dollar company counts as a low-profile individual. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NEVENT about covers it. Nobody will be writing about this tabloid-gossip-column-style nothingburger long term, given that it clearly has the "enduring historical significance" of a wet fart. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and don't redirect, we already have a perfectly good redirect from Andy Byron to a section in the Coldplay tour article which is frankly already too big. I have no idea why people want to stuff Wikipedia full of tabloid gossip, but it needs to be deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, I agree. I opened a discussion at the Coldplay tour impact talkpage. JFHJr (㊟) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per previous arguments, WP:BLP1E applies here, not to mention concerns about the privacy of non-notable individuals. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour § Affair scandal in the US. The section already covers the incident with more than enough detail. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  That whole subsection should be removed. It's a WP:BLP violation. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  The incident was covered by newspapers such as The New York Times, The Guardian and The Telegraph. I share your concern on Wikipedia not being a gossip page, but a good amount of what happened has surpassed the tabloid sphere. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep for now - Significant incident indeed. If this cannot be kept, it (and the Andy Byron article) should be redirected WITH HISTORY to Impact_of_the_Music_of_the_Spheres_World_Tour#Affair_scandal_in_the_US. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  There's a separate process for the alternative you're describing at WP:RFU. The scope of this discussion doesn't involve restoring a different article to make it into a redirect. That's properly at the undeletion requests forum, and for you to do as the proponent (not for a closing admin). JFHJr (㊟) 20:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: No one thought these people were notable three weeks ago. No one thought this company was notable three weeks ago. No one's going to remember them this time next year. "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Ravenswing 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 13:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant event without encyclopedic value. It's the type of social media furor du jour story that everyone covers for clicks (and to be able to write about anything to distract from all the horrible real things going on). What little that should be said about it in wikipedia can be done concisely in the article on the tour. This is a single incident that fits in the category of transient "news" that has no encyclopedic or historical value. Schazjmd (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G4. No need to redirect as it is not a plausible search term, unlike Andy Byron. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete without reasoning of existence, trivial subject 200.46.55.111 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Astronomer (company) as WP:ATD, that is also where Andy Byron should have been redirected instead of where it was, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails NEVENT, not an event of enduring historical significance, adequately given the passing mention it deserves in the company's article. The redirect is an implausible one. We don't have to ATD at all costs, if it means creating an implausible redirect, and this isn't even the well-known title - that would have to be 'Coldplay kiss cam incident' or something. Local Variable (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• We could merge the content to an article, then rename the redirect. The edit history would still be preserved, thus meeting our attribution requirements. That seems to resolve both issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour#Affair scandal in the US Kailash29792 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Utterly insignificant flash-in-the-pan salacious clickbait and zero evidence of WP:SUSTAINED. Come back in a year or two and if this event is still receiving notable coverage then write an article. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, this isn't really encyclopedia worthy Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to any/all: Astronomer (company), Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour, List of Internet phenomena - This is why we have alternatives to deletion. A large amount of this is discussion about the article not being notable enough. Not enough discussion is about considering the possible alternatives. In this case, given that there is decent coverage and indications that it is a meme, I believe that that this should be merged into List of Internet phenomena at a minimum. I wouldn't mind if it was instead merged into other articles, but I do believe that the main issue here is standalone notability instead of the content. (For those that want to see more evidence of the meme coverage.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with List of viral videos: List as "Coldplay Gate" / "Coldplay jumbotron controversy", and redirect there. Parts of the article can also be merged with Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour and Astronomer (company). Nil🥝 04:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per all the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Byron. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Move if kept because there is no controversy here. I've seen no sign (and the article provides no sign) of anyone arguing over it. (Perhaps the closest comes in the identification of the third person, but that's clearly not the interesting part of the matter.) So it's a scandal, perhaps, but not a controversy. (Suggested alternate title: Coldplay concert kisscam canoodling calamity.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 9 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.

Alpine (G.I. Joe)

Alpine (G.I. Joe) (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)

Fictional character from the G.I. Joe universe with no indication of real-world notability. Tagged as of questionable notability for over a year. He gets some hits on Google Scholar, but, as far as I can see, nothing more than a passing mention; the first hit, for example, is from Analyzing the Marvel Universe, and the full extent of the mention is "Other African Americans were the winter warfare expert (Iceberg) and mountain war expert (Alpine), either role not ordinarily associated with African Americans in war comics." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge since this is almost entirely a plot summary and merchandise, with no info on reception or cultral significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Seems to fail WP:GNG, I don't see the reliable sources demonstrating standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 7 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.

MERA25 Hessen

MERA25 Hessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "consider merge or redirect to MERA25 as preferred WP:ATD". However, like I always do prior to prodding, I did consider a redirect to MERA25, but it is not mentioned at that target, so that would be inappropriate. And there is really nothing of substance to merge. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I added more references from neutral websites. Also there will be Hessen elections in 2026 and the party is going to do its campaign soon, which might increase its relevance. So please let's keep the discussion open for now. AlphaCentaurianZ (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on comment regarding upcoming campaign which may increase conversation participation and likelihood of an established consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect In general I oppose redirecting if it isn't mentioned in the target. In this case though half the name (and the most important part) overlaps. Readers are smart enough to understand that a redirect means that we don't have a page on the local affiliate but that it is a local group that is part of Mera25. I think redirecting is generally helpfull in this case. Rolluik (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - I suggested this as a possibility in my deprod and am happy to join a consensus to do so. The rationale looks good. ~Kvng (talk) 23:18, 5 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.

Emma Harvey (singer)

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

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

This article was originally submitted to AfC, but got moved to mainspace by the author without being accepted. The article is mostly unsourced, and what references we do have do not establish notability. This is essentially a puff piece as far as I see it. Not to mention the fact that the article is one big BLP violation. MediaKyle (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No valid secondary sourcing to prove notability, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Instagram and Bandsintown are not WP:RS. I agree with every word of the nominator, it's WP:TOOSOON. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to unreliable sourcing that is not support for notability, such as social networking posts and YouTube and Q&A interviews on blogs — and the one relatively solid third-party source in the entire article is Indie 88, which is a short blurb that isn't remotely substantive enough to vault her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-crap footnote in the entire article. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable without significantly better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Failed on WP:NSINGER, WP:BLP and sourcing Instagram is not reliable per WP:RS. Much like it was a WP:PROMOTION article. ROY is WAR Talk! 16:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No sigcov. The only media I could found are: , , and . First one is about her as an instagram personality, and the other three aren't quite enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Also the article should be about the band, not her, as that's were the minor press coverage has been. Nil🥝 04:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I see that most sources are from social media which is why they are excluded when calculating when determining notability. She has almost no (significant) coverage outside of social media. JuniperChill (talk) 00:10, 7 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.

Auton (film series)

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

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

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I assume the nominator's intended alternative to deletion redirect suggestions are actually BBV Productions (not the BBV disambiguation page) or Nestene Consciousness and Autons (Nestene Consciousness and Auton does not exist, but is probably little more than a typo). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Wcquidditch oop, thank you for the catch. I've amended my nom statement's links for clarity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think coatrack applies as the films are obviously connected on the same subject by the same producers and the same distributors. Regarding the book source for critical analysis "Downtime - The Lost Years of Doctor Who" by Dylan Rees it would be considered more reliable if it has been used in scholarly sources ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Atlantic306 I don't deny the Downtime source, but the fact it's quite literally the only reliable piece of SIGCOV is the biggest problem. An article relying basically exclusively on one source is a huge issue; I've found substantially more content comparatively on other BBV films, these ones definitely seem to be the outlier in terms of actual SIGCOV that exists. If there's any more out there I missed I'd be happy to see it though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; specific opinions on outcomes for this article would be very helpful, since I see very little of that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The first film stars Reece Shearsmith so for that reason alone the page should be left. I'm watching it now, have spotted an actor who looks like Reece Shearsmith, so looked on Wikipedia to check! QED 2A00:23C8:3B00:BB01:8454:C8C2:377C:F541 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL. That's not really a valid vote for keeping when notability and coverage is the concern right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 8 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.

Hindustan Murdabad

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

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

Per WP:GNG, WP:WWIN, it's content should be merged with Anti-Indian sentiment, a redirect could be left just like "Pakistan Murdabad". — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 14:10, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-Indian sentiment, per nom. Yue🌙 02:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-Indian sentiment, as per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 05:32, 8 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.

Suneel Sarfaraz Munj

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

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

There is a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most available information appears to be primary or affiliated with the subject's own ventures. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable, mentioned references are primary and unreliable. Behappyyar (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Has unreliable and primary sources and references...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:51, 3 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.

Burl Stafford Bridge

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

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

I think Burl Stafford Bridge should be considered for deletion because it lacks any demonstrated significance and the minimal sources contribute no meaningful support. The sources – two copies of the legislation naming the bridge and an obituary of the wife of the bridge's namesake – provide biographical details of Burl Stafford, who sounds like a wonderful person, but I don't think the sources establish his significance for a Wikipedia article, let alone the bridge named for him. There may also be a concern with an article contributor who has acknowledged that he's the son of the subject of another article and who wrote in that other article that his father "is the grandson in law of Burl Stafford"; i.e., IMO this article appears to be a tribute to his great-grandfather. Pemilligan (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and West Virginia. Pemilligan (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is an article about a bridge, not a person. I see no basis for notability for such a tiny generic bridge, nor for the namesake. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No indications of notability. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE. nf utvol (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable bridge. No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet GNG. It could also be merged into Delbarton, West Virginia. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pigeon Creek (West Virginia), the creek that it crosses. Absolutely no individual notability; it's an utterly run-of-the-mill bridge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable bridge. All mentions appear to be primary or self-published, and none exist that I could find that would fulfill requirements at WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. nf utvol (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect: I believe it should be redirected to Pigeon Creek (West Virginia). Themeparks (talk) 13:37, 8 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.

Alejandro Michelena

Alejandro Michelena (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) 12:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Uruguay. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Uruguay at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Modern pentathlon – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:04, 3 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.

Stephen A. Werner

Stephen A. Werner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I tagged this BLP about a teacher and writer with notability concerns in 2023, and started a discussion on the Talk page. Two years on, the article has not changed much and no other editors have commented. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added a citation to a book review in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, but cannot find more to add. There are few other references in the article which are not to Werner's own work. There are three reviews in local papers of his plays, which I can't access. There is also an article in American Catholic Studies which accompanies the statement "Werner is particularly knowledgeable about Catholic history in the St. Louis area", where the actual text in the article reads "The vast knowledge of the entire region possessed by our great friend Steve Werner greatly enhanced my confidence and made it possible to urge students to consider sites beyond the St. Louis metropolitan area. Steve took us on scouting trips to such locales as St. Mary's of the Barre"; this is not significant coverage of Werner. I do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, and Missouri. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've added some more reviews of his books. There are two reviews (and a mention) of his The Handy Christianity Answer Book, two reviews of his book on Joseph Husslein, and two reviews of his book on Daniel Lord. That, with the three reviews of his plays maybe eeks it out on WP:AUTHOR. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - fails as an academic, but oddly enough passes as an author. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete As per NOM, a large number of the references are cites to his own writings, which are also listed in the list of writings. If these are removed then the statements like "He wrote a biography of ..." are not sourced; if they are not, then this is OR. I think they should be removed, at which point there isn't much left.Keep based on reviews in what appear to be academic theology journals. Cleanup is however needed: There are non-reliable sources such as the "Elvis Information Network". Lamona (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  If [self-citations] are removed then the statements like "He wrote a biography of ..." are not sourced; He's written two biographies, of Joseph Husslein and Daniel Lord. Both of those books are cited to reviews, the first in the Journal of Religion and Catholic Historical Review, the second in Catholic Library World and Homiletic and Pastoral Review

  
  

  Of course, it doesn't help that @InquisitiveInvestigator has been crufting the article, which has made the (slim) case for WP:AUTHOR harder to find. Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, Jahaza. I hadn't realized those were reviews. I will change my !vote to keep, citing NAUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Tacyarg, "There are three reviews in local papers of his plays, which I can't access" Can you tell me more? I'm willing to try and get access to add these sources. Ckoerner (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, Ckoerner, I was unclear. I meant that there are three citations in the article to local papers which I can't find online, so can't look at the content; if you are able to find them to see whether they supply SIGCOV of Werner himself, that would be great. It's the refs currently numbered 29-31: Southside Journal x 2 and St. Louis Post Dispatch. Tacyarg (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Proquest archives the St. Louis Post Dispatch, but unfortunately it's not included in the Wikipedia Library Proquest subscription. Jahaza (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I need to make full disclosure here. I have a conflict of interest. I have been adding to this Wikipedia page which is about myself.

When I started, I had assumed that others would add to it. But that has not happened. I have to admit I did not think this out. And I had not looked in enough detail at Wikipedia’s rules.

I apologize.

Wikipedia is great. I do not want to be undermining its standards.

Do whatever you think is best with this page: remove it or give it time to get fixed.

Again, I apologize.

InquisitiveInvestigator InquisitiveInvestigator (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep has written multiple books that are notable, so a pass on NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 6 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.

Wahroonga Public School

Wahroonga Public 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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable school. If anything, it should be nothing but a Redirect to Wahroonga#Schools in accordance with WP:BLAR where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wahroonga#Schools: Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wahroonga#Schools. Australian primary schools are rarely notable. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 5 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.

Consecration of the Ram Mandir

Consecration of the Ram Mandir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is promotional about the event that failed to gain WP:LASTING coverage. The article on Ram Mandir is enough for any initial coverage. Orientls (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Ram Mandir#Consecration already has enough details. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: The consecration did not have WP:LASTING coverage and is WP:UNDUE to have an article on itself. I agree with ZDRX that the Consecration section in the Ram Mandir article already has all the important and notable details of the event. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into Ram Mandir#Consecration. The rationale for a standalone article is weak: the consecration needs to be mentioned in the parent article, but I don't see so much material that it cannot all be covered there. I don't see a case for outright deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and EarthDude. Behappyyar (talk) 05:01, 8 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.

Huỳnh Châu

Huỳnh Châu (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. Did not finish race. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vietnam at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Boxing where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Redirect to Vietnam at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Cycling. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why would you redirect to boxing when he's a cyclist? LibStar (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Oops! I accidentally suggested a redirect to Boxing. It should be Cycling. Ugh, this happens all the time. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 04:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Vietnam at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Cycling – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vietnam at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Cycling is agreeable as ATD, as subject on its own lacks SIGCOV to support its keep. Been unable to find more citations to add in.Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:12, 8 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.

Hamadi Camara

Hamadi Camara (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) 08:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Judo at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 93 kg. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Judo at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 93 kg where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:04, 3 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.

Eemoh (artist)

Eemoh (artist) (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 seems like the artist has met GNG in that he was mentioned by many sources. However, I'm nit sure of his notability in WP:MUSICBIO Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment he only has to pass WP:GNG to be kept Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 200.46.55.111 (talk) 01:45, 10 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.

Lutuma Diabateza

Lutuma Diabateza (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) 07:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zaire at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Boxing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zaire at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Boxing : Can't find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:08, 8 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.

Bang Bang Machine

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

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

Not notable band and possibly written by someone close to the subject. GamerPro64 06:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. GamerPro64 06:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient citations to demonstrate meeting WP:MUSICBIO, added to the article since nomination. This includes a substantial broadcast segment on national radio, critical coverage in reliable sources, and #10 in the UK Independent Singles and Albums Charts. ResonantDis_tortion 09:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, having a song at #96 UK singles chart should be enough for notability Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: per Microplastic Consumer. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. per WP:MUSICBIO. ROY is WAR Talk! 16:22, 4 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.

Bangladesh Liberation War and Islam

Bangladesh Liberation War and Islam (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)

Argumentative essay.I'm sceptical that this is its own distinct topic from Bangladesh Liberation War, but regardless this is a candidate for WP:TNT. There is no encyclopedic version to revert to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Religion, Islam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Seems unencyclopedic at best. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The article appears to cite social media activists like Pinaki Bhattacharya, whose book's credibility is questionable. His neutrality is questionable considering his activities on social media. I highly doubt it'd maintain neutrality with little-known scholars. Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, poor sourcing. Behappyyar (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. - Rht bd (talk) 18:33, 8 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.

Shaikhs of Rajasthan

Shaikhs of Rajasthan (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)