Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 14

BetterSleep

BetterSleep (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 app. No significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Polygnotus (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I can only find the app mentioned in a list of others saying how they work, like source 5 is. , is about the same, I don't think that's enough coverage4 for an article here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN, les affaires) in which the app is the only subject of the article. Note that #2 is the only one made after the rename to "BetterSleep" in late 2021 (see press release); all other sources use the app's old name "Relax Melodies". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  I just added the press release as source #1 as the rename was uncited, so by "the six sources cited" I mean what's currently sources #2–7. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu Note that CNN Underscored is completely separate from CNN and has complete editorial independence. And of course they use affiliate marketing to make money, and when there is money to be made it is not an independent review. If one of their contributors says that a product sucks, they won't make money from affiliate links. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I still think they should be reliable, just like the NYT Wirecutter. They have "rigorous" editorial policies, a publicized listing of the members of the editorial board, provides independent analysis and criticism, and does not have a reputation for errors. It should be a reliable source in its own right.

  I'm surprised there hasn't been an RSN discussion on affiliate marketing in general, but past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest. See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#The Bully Breeds. Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice. The Verge for example also uses affiliate links no matter what or how good the product is: "HP has found an exciting new way to DRM your printer!". (You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things.) Not to mention Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu But it is not CNN that reviewed the product (a well known media organisation), but something that uses the CNN brand and leverages its (perception of) credibility and reach to generate income.

  I still think they should be reliable Agreed, they should be, but aren't. And they aren't WP:INDEPENDENT because of their massive conflict of interest.

  NYT Wirecutter is slightly different in the sense that The Wirecutter was a different company that was then acquired by NYT, but of course they also have a massive conflict of interest.

  And you can't use conflict of interest spam to claim notability of course.

  They have "rigorous" editorial policies No, they do not. CNN does, maybe. provides independent analysis and criticism no, they do not. How can they provide independent analysis when they make money with every sale? I know you know what independent means. does not have a reputation for errors It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. They have complete editorial independence, see the link I posted, so why do you act as if they are CNN?

  past discussions of sources did not consider affiliate marketing a conflict of interest That seems irrelevant, there are other sources who might've been considered reliable sources in a different context in the past according to some random anonymous Wikipedians, but does that mean that we can therefore ignore our notability guideline and common sense? If you spend an hour digging in the archives you'll find a lot of bad ideas and opinions.

  Adding affiliate links to every product is standard mainstream product-reviews practice For companies who make their money by promoting products and services and get a kickback for every customer they bring. But not for a reliable source.

  You also have to preserve your reputation by not recommending bad things CNN Underscored has no reputation. CNN does, although it isn't great, and they are using it for some quick cash so I doubt they really care about it.

  Retailers and brands cannot influence our coverage in any way — neither through sending us unsolicited products nor by paying for coverage. While we do run sponsored content, that is handled by a team separate from our editorial team and is clearly labeled. People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage. But the point was that you wrote: Every one of the six sources cited independently offer significant coverage of the subject, including two (CNN as if it was CNN who reviewed it, to prove notability, but it is not CNN and since they are getting paid it is not independent and therefore cannot be used to claim notability. https://info.wrightsmedia.com/cnn-underscored-licensing Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I meant to concede that it wasn't CNN with my "Thanks"; sorry that wasn't clear. I'm saying that Underscored seems to be a good source (though not nearly as stellar as CNN) in its own right.

  I put "rigorous" in quotes because I was quoting the page you linked: Underscored team works with complete editorial independence and adheres to rigorous standards, make better purchasing decisions through rigorous and unbiased reviews. CNN does, maybe How do you know that they are rigorous? Is it not RSN's longstanding tradition of checking for page with published editorial guidelines and members (especially long ones), as Underscord also has? How do you know that Underscored is not rigorous? How can they provide independent analysis I think I meant "original" here, hence not just parroting the press releases; my bad. It does not have a reputation at all. People just skip the ads. I strongly disagree. A lot of people trust and use this site. As I've said before, even though they're not CNN, they're a mainstream reviews outlet. And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up.

  some random anonymous Wikipedians i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. We should start a discussion at RSN on whether affiliate marketing links count as sponsored content. I personally do not think they should, as they do not give any specific entities additional attention. Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability: either there's a pattern of exaggerations and falsehoods and lies or there's not. And even if you argue affiliate marketing emphasizes things too positively, any outlet can be too positive with or without affiliate links. I fail to see a practical reason to factor in the presence of affiliate marketing into whether material is usable or how that'd impact coverage in ways we can't assess otherwise.

  But not for a reliable source. I do not know an MSM product (hardware, software, and accessories) reviews site that does not use affiliate links. In fact I don't even know any RS product review that don't except for some blogs like DistroWatch. You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. It's a lucky thing we're in the subscription streaming age, or your proposal would probably extend to film as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't even know any RS product review On second thought I'll trim that down to "product review outlet". You can't deny that MobileSyrup, CBC('s Life column which doesn't appear to be an independent thing like Underscored is), and USA Today have stellar reputations, and their reviews averaging about seven paragraphs each without any affiliate links should be enough to satisfy GNG on their own. Which makes the question of affiliate links rather moot. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu And like I said, if they persistently recommend bad things, consumers wouldn't trust it, and revenue would dry up. In an mathematically perfect world where every reader buys every product/service mentioned and then uses them and compares them to the others and forms a reasonable opinion about whether the advice given was correct, taking into account factors such as price and convenience and the needs of the average consumer. But in reality people tend to buy 1 of a product category, do not compare that product to every other product mentioned by Underscored, and have no clue if the advice given was good or bad.

  I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories: the best bridal hair accessories, the best outdoor home security cameras, the best face sun screens and the best compost bins. It can easily take a decade or two to become a product category expert in, for example, laptops. So it confuses me that you keep defending Underscored when you (like most) are not in a position to judge them accurately. And since Underscored uses many reviewers in many product categories it is very very unlikely that one person can know all those product categories well enough to determine if Underscored makes good recommendations. You'd have to form a team and spend a very significant amount of money if you want to judge Underscored as a whole, right?

  A lot of people trust and use this site Well, that is news to me.

  i.e. consensus, WP:Consensus. Nah, a handful of sentences by a handful of random people does not consensus make; there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions.

  You're proposing us throw out millions of citations on hardware, software, music, games, just because they have affiliate links. No, I am saying that if a website makes money from writing a review or an ad, we can't use the fact that its mentioned in that review or ad to say the product is notable. Because notability is derived from WP:INDEPENDENT sources. See WP:GNG. I am saying we need to follow the guideline (which describes the consensus).

  Practically there's no impact of affiliate-linking everything on assessing reliability If you review a popular product and you think it is shit, and you know as a product category expert that there are many cheaper and better alternatives available that are far far less popular, wouldn't you be incentivized to be very positive about the expensive popular product instead of the cheap unpopular alternatives? Because promoting expensive and popular products keeps you employed and indirectly pays your rent, and telling people not to do that does not. More people will click the link if the product is popular and the site will get a larger commission. Of course you are an honest person, but not everyone on this planet is... see perverse incentive and Choice-supportive bias and all that. If I am a review website owner, and one of my reviewers consistently says that cheap Aliexpress alternatives are good enough for most people, and warns people not to fall for the hype and buy popular overpriced trash, why wouldn't I part ways with them?

  Something like this is not a review but an ad for a Luxottica-owned brand, which artificially inflates the prices, gives discounts and then tells DiffusionPR to promote it. Diffusion left no stone unturned and connected with reporters well ahead of these busy shopping holidays, securing a consistent drumbeat of coverage in outlets like USA Today, Buzzfeed, Forbes, HuffPost, CNN Underscored, Insider, Rolling Stone, CNET, Mashable , and many more. They probably use the veneer of a review site because it is more effective than straight up sponsored content, although the process is the same. I do not live in a world with a lot of unbiased review sites who use affiliate links but just happen to be overly excited about boring products. Something like UserBenchmark is famously biased. Polygnotus (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  They don't have to compare them; they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article. there are plenty of people with bad minority opinions. But that was clearly not the minority. It was the entire discussion save for one or two that argued it could disqualify, the actual minority.

  I don't know anyone whose opinion I would trust in all these categories Would you trust any single person whose opinion you would trust in all of the following: the Californian housing crisi, the impacts of the MTA's bond issuance fees, the latest season and contestants of "Island of Love", the movements of warfare in Ukraine, Kenyan killings and protests, Asian creepy furbies called "Labubu"s, and a warm front across the Northeastern United States? Which is why we all trust large editorial boards that hire an expert for each area. This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT.

  I don't understand; why is independence important for notability but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? [[WP:WHYN|The entire purpose of notability] is so that the wikivoice in articles can stand, so that articles that can cite such wikivoice exist. I don't see any reason to decouple this.

  Expensive purchases are also a lot less likely to be bought, especially impulse-bought. There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I can also stretch more people will click the link to absurdity by citing ads on websites and saying websites with ads will promote and exaggerate human-interest stories, giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent.

  The glasses article does not have affiliate links. I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Underscored does not make money from this article. Underscored writes articles on deals and sales and they were provided with the content from their mission statement on a silver platter and so they published it (cf. how the Heritage Foundation's free content gets parroted greatly even in liberal media, see Davis & Owen 1998). I don't see any reason that glasses article should be uncitable.

  I don't think the case of UserBenchmark says anything. An experienced editor I had never previously encountered once fervently used all kinds of bad-faith arguments and tactics to try to remove or deface an article I created. I heavily doubt either of those were paid and think that both were just fanboying. It doesn't make sense for UserBenchmark to demean potential affiliate-marketing revenue sources either. Intel and AMD compete in very similar price ranges.

  Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting and I'd rather wait for the in-general RSN discussion to continue this debate, especially as there's other sources cited that don't have affiliate links, which already give notability on their own, and definitely with the les affaires piece. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  they just have to get a bad experience that doesn't match what they read from the article If I have a disappointing experience with a single product, and I've never bought another product in that category and I know nothing about it (for example I buy the recommended face sun screen and I still get burned) I would assume I did it wrong and blame myself and not the review.

  But that was clearly not the minority. The people who want to abandon WP:GNG and no longer want to require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY are a (tiny) minority.

  This argument does not apply to Underscored any more than NYT. Indeed, but you are arguing they are reliable, and I am saying you can't judge their reliability unless you spend a lot of money and assemble a team of experts who know about photochemistry and pharmaceutical formulation and compost bins et cetera.

  I don't understand; why is independence important for notability See WP:GNG. We demand independent sources to establish notability because otherwise anyone can throw some money around and be notable. If people independent of the subject of the article do not even mention it, it should not have a Wikipedia article.

  but not citing the same claim in undisclaimer'd wikivoice? That is a different discussion, perhaps best suited for another venue.

  There isn't much of an advantage to disproportionately because of the big difference in sales. I think there is a word or two missing in that sentence.

  I can also stretch "more people will click the link" to absurdity...giving every subject a soft-news spin because it pays the rent. No, ragebaiting for clicks pays the rent. But not in the review site business.

  The glasses article does not have affiliate links. Because it doesn't need to. Look at the HTML of that page. There are using a bunch of ways to track people.

  I don't see what you mean by "artificially inflates the prices". Luxottica#Criticism

  Underscored does not make money from this article. Ha! They must be publishing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Bless them.

  Frankly this thread is a bit exhausting Agreed.

  especially as there's other sources cited Yeah it kinda confused me that you focused on the Underscored thing because it is the weakest source you could've picked to defend, other than the press release perhaps. Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  So do you agree that the other sources are enough? (I disagree that it's weak b/c I disagree about affiliate links but whatever.) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu No, I wouldn't AfD an article about a subject I think is notable. But I do think reasonable people can disagree, and we don't really have a line in the sand, so of course there is gonna be a gray area. Some people disagree with WP:GNG and that is fine but they are a small minority. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a reason you don't think les affaires, CBC, MobileSyrup, and USA Today are enough? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu Note also that the les affaires article is not independent, BetterSleep was co-founded by Simon Alex Bérubé who has known Alain McKenna (who wrote the article) for years. They are the people on the left- and righthand side on the couch. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  All I see from that is McKenna interviewing Bérubé for their tech podcast a month after McKenna wrote the review. At least from the translated subtitles I don't see anything about a conflict of interest or years-long friendship. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu What do you think about merging to Teladoc Health? BetterSleep was acquired by Teladoc Health in 2021. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  The BetterSleep article can be expanded to cover the features the reviews found. I don't think that can be done if it were merged. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed may be of interest. Would you be interested in collaborating on improving these articles? For example, the paid editors who promoted Teladoc Health seem to have forgotten to mention the fact that it infringed on privacy on a massive scale, and shared sensitive health data with the likes of Meta. Google something like "Teladoc FTC" and you'll find plenty of stuff. Same with BetterHelp. There are also the class action lawsuits of course. So its not just the customers who feel like victims; the investors do too. I think it would make more sense to follow the advice in WP:SPLIT and do a SIZESPLIT when there is enough content to warrant that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would be interested. I don't like making the page history more complicated by merging this in just for an inevitable split. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu Unsurprisingly, in my view that split is far from inevitable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you can cover the features, even just the features mentioned in the reviews, in a merged article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Sources from CBC and CNN are reliable, cover the subject in-depth, and are sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability. The other sources are also probably reliable, but this alone is sufficient to establish notability. I don't think it's reasonable to delete an article on the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated Have you read the above? the unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review That is not what we were talking about... And of course these people were compensated for their work; did you expect them to be volunteers? sufficiently independent from the app creator(s) to establish notability Have you read WP:INDEPENDENT? You seem to be using your own definition. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflics of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Aaron's argument is far simpler than yours, and I'm much more inclined to prefer simple arguments to complex ones. Thanks for your time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I can tell. Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Why so snide? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@HyperAccelerated You appear to be implying that I made an unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review. which is a weird thing to claim because no one actually said that. We are talking about the notability of a subject of an Wikipedia article. To jump in with such a statement is counterproductive, because then the conversation turns into a meta-conversation about who said what and why and how that should be interpreted. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That was based on the following: "People lying on the internet? In the context of marketing? How dare they! Of course you can buy coverage." Again, most of your arguments are contrived to begin with, so if this isn't what you meant, then you only have yourself to blame. My !vote stands as is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

So you admit I didn't make the alleged unfounded assumption that an author has lied about being compensated for writing a review? Polygnotus (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that you did make such an assumption, but we have high-quality sources here, and your fixation on one part of one sentence of my rationale is clear evidence you're missing the forest for the trees. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Polygnotus is concerned that you don't understand his rationale of concern over affiliate links. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

They should be, because their argument is total nonsense. There is a world of difference between sources with affiliate links and the sources WP: INDEPENDENT attempts to exclude. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Once in a while someone shows up who claims that the words in the PaGs actually have a secret other meaning, which diverges from how any English speaker would interpret them. They'll say that they and they alone know how to interpret the mystical coded language. Following these prophets is very dangerous. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article does not have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references appear to be either trivial mentions, routine coverage (e.g., app listings, short reviews), or press releases. Yolandagonzales (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  App listings are not routine coverage. Is there a reason you believe they are?

  And seven paragraphs is not short. And les affaires is independent and their entire article is about the app. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to what Aaron said. If it was a directory of apps (e.g. sourceforge), your argument would make sense, but these are independent reviews that are more than a trivial mention. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - CNN Underscored does have a rigorous editorial process. However, it still receives commission for products it ultimately decides to write about. As such, it cannot be considered independent as they have a stake in people reading and purchasing what they review. The Les Affaires reference looks good after a quick Google Translate. I am not sure there is a connection with the author other than speculation but if there is I would be open to hearing more. Can anyone point out WP:THREE that talk about the app in-depth (and do not have any type of stake in the game with affiliate links)?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  les affaires, USA Today, Mobile Syrup Aaron Liu (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing The USA Today source is 6 sentences. Polygnotus (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that meets SigCov. I chose it over the CBC article because the information feels more "processed". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu In my opinion 6 sentences in a list of similar stuff is not indepth sigcov. Jen O'Brien's articles are branded content, which is not the same as independent journalism. While I am not theologically opposed to lifestyle writing (or whatever you wanna call it), calling content marketing 'independent journalism' is a bridge too far in my view. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any policy basis for that opinion? It directly addresses the subject in detail.
  What do you mean "branded content", and what principle of independence does that article fail? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  See Branded content and Content marketing.

  Is there any policy basis for that opinion? I assume you mean PaG basis, or PaGaE if you include essays. We only have a few policies. See WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:COMMON. Note that the fact that someone bothered to write something down does not make it more true, and that there has never been a sane way to determine CONLEVEL and re-order stuff based on that. Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  By "that opinion" I was referring to 6 sentences in a list of similar stuff is not indepth sigcov, sorry for being unclear.

  I don't see anything in the link you provided that shows O'Brien's articles are funded by advertisers. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu I mean it is pretty hard to go in-depth in 6 sentences. Is there a phobia for ending sentences? Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Product reviews are fine for establishing notability. However, according to WP:PRODUCTREV, it must be more than a list. It must show that the product was actually used and in the case of USA Today, that does not appear to be the case so could not be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the MobileSyrup article a product review, and I think the CBC first-person–POV article clearly shows use. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Who called MobileSyrup a product review? I literally stated "USA Today."--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that you were talking about USA Today but b/c you said there was only one source presented that satisfies the criteria below I assumed you thought you'd addressed all three sources. Am I correct in assuming the one source that meets ORGCRIT you mentioned is the les affaires one, and could you explain what's the problem with the remaining source? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the online review industry isn't not built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements... but I'm also not not failing to avoid saying it isn't, you know? Polygnotus (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a very bold claim without a source you're implying against a crown corporation that doesn't even use any affiliate links. Failure of the Canadian public broadcaster to properly disclose its sources of revenue and conflicts of interest or screen contributors for such things would approximate corruption. Where does it end? Are you seriously "not not failing to avoid, y'know" conjuring fingers towards every single product review out there, for which as CNMall points out has guidelines regulating use? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I am speaking in very general terms about an industry. Also I used enough negation that I have plausible deniability that even I don't know what I am saying anymore. Polygnotus (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Then why are you even saying it about specific articles written by this specific person? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I am? I thought the sentence started with I'm not saying the online review industry?? Polygnotus (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

First, you said O'Brien's articles were branded content. Then, when I asked why, you said #c-Polygnotus-20250711221800-Aaron_Liu-20250711213900, using grammatical structures designed to bring things up while being able to deny bringing such things up. I do not see a possible reason for those two sentences to be said other than you wanting said thing to enter the conversation. In fact you even used the wrong number of negations in the second sentence of your comment to say "I'm also [not cancels out not] [failing to avoid means you are] saying it isn't [not built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements]," hence "I'm also saying the industry is built on kickbacks and quid pro quo arrangements." Again, this was in the context of answering "Why are O'Brien's articles branded content?", or more specifically "What does O'Brien's output have in common with branded content?" So, again, I ask: If not, then why did you make that comment? What point did you intend to make? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Aaron, I love you buddy (as a friend), but perhaps this discussion is not the most productive use of our time? I'm just weird. Maybe that explains things. And thanks for confirming I have plausible deniability. Also we probably passed the badger(x3) stage a while back and maybe its time for other people to voice their opinions. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Based on my comment prior to re-listing. I can only find one source that meets WP:ORGCRIT and I have not been presented with any others that may fall into that category. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete — Delete per reason for nomination but further improvement of the page is definitely alright. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:21, 18 July 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.

Henry Bool

Henry Bool (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 has been in a sorry state since it was first created in 2006, having spent almost two decades as a perma-stub without any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. It seems his main claim to fame was when Ithaca newspapers called for his business to be boycotted, after he had defended anarchists in the wake of the assassination of William McKinley. A cursory Google Scholar search turned up very little, mostly passing references to him. As I can't verify the subject's notability, as I can't find significant coverage of him in the source material, and as I can't think of any reasonable alternatives to deletion, I'm proposing this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Grnrchst (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I've added newspaper articles from 1922 (obituary) and 1976 which discuss Bool. His legacy is obviously long-lasting in his field. More research, perhaps using newspapers, will likely produce more coverage.--User:Namiba 16:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• weak keep: I suppose the sources from 1901 and 1974 in the current sources are helpful, I don't really see much of anything about this person. I tired a New York State newspapers search or the Lib. of Congress ... There are hits on the name in Ithica newspapers, but more about routine events (Bool is leaving town, Bool's business)... Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:26, 14 July 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.

Mwebantu

Mwebantu (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 does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are from blogs, press releases, or user-generated content, which do not establish encyclopedic notability. The tone is promotional and may reflect a conflict of interest. Without multiple independent in-depth sources, this article does not warrant a standalone entry. Icem4k (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Scholarly sources analyze this media source as a major news source for Zambia, for better or worse. See , . The article is in dire need of cleanup but there are fortunately a lot of scholarly sources with which to write a balanced article. Probably the company's marketing team will not like the article that gets written though. Marked with cleanup tags; I may be able to help clean this once the AfD is over. FalconK (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: One academic paper, no matter how well-researched, is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability per WP:GNG. There's no mainstream or sustained coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Mwebantu is not profiled by any major media outlets, has no significant awards, and no long-term impact demonstrated in third-party sources. Cleanup cannot substitute for notability.--THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that cleanup and notability are orthogonal, but I suspect the desire to delete this article is in large part due to the absolute mess the article is. The sources discussing it, many of which are very critical of its coverage, are considerably more than one single academic paper. I found two after searching for less than 5 minutes. It is also treated in , and described in Matambo, E. (2025). Zambia's Youths and the 2021 General Election. I would agree it is marginal and the article would be both completely different from this one and much shorter, but unfortunately this site seems to be a reasonably major part of Zambia's media landscape. FalconK (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as per sources provided in this discussion. When determining WP:GNG notability, one doesn't even need to look at the content of the article per WP:CONTN. Subject notability is independent of the article.

I will also throw in and for consideration. More sources also likely exist in other languages.

- Ike Lek (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I say delete cause Based on the sources presented in this discussion so far is, Mwebantu appears to have some coverage in scholarly and academics publications that analyze its role in Zambias media landscape. However, the question will always remains whether this coverage is sufficiently significant, independent, and reliable to meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for a stand alone article on wiki. That is why i say delete. --Chise95 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep per WP:GNG Jdn2004 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to daft: This article covers a kind of notable Zambian online news platform, but it currently contains promotional language, lacks sufficient independent reliable secondary sources, and needs restructuring to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Moving it to Draft space will allow editors to improve sourcing, tone, and format without the risk of deletion cause while Mwebantu may be recognized locally as a Zambian online news platform, the article currently fails to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline). Most of the cited sources are either not independent or lack significant in-depth coverage about the subject. Without reliable secondary sources that establish its broader impact or recognition, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards in its current form. It may be better suited for user Draft space until further improvements can be made or just delete it.

ZedKuChalo (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom and per ZedKuChalo

GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I have noticed some cleanup on the article, but the links in the references do not correspond to the claims they are supposed to support. In most of them, the sources either do not mention the subject at all or discuss entirely different topics. This raises concerns about the reliability and relevance of the citations.Icem4k (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis by an experienced editor will be of great help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been updated but references provided do not offer significant, independent coverage of Mwebantu as a subject. Instead, they are primarily mentions (such as photo credits or articles authored by the agency) and fail to establish the organization’s notability. There is no evidence of sustained, in-depth reporting by reliable secondary sources about the company’s history, impact, or operations. Without substantial coverage in independent, reputable publications, the topic does not demonstrate the level of encyclopedic significance required for inclusion. --Icem4k (talk) 14:21, 15 July 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.

Northwest Airlines Flight 327

Northwest Airlines Flight 327 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents or incidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. I don't see any sustain coverage that isn't on YouTube. Zaptain United (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 14 July 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.

Longtail Aviation Flight 5504

Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. Zaptain United (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 15 July 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.

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. Zaptain United (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• @Zaptain United: this has already been up for deletion twice this year already - people aren't typically happy when something keeps getting nominated for deletion, and the last AfD recommended a 6 to 12 month cool off. I don't disagree with you but I suggest you withdraw this for now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 14 July 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.

Agrabad Government Colony High School

Agrabad Government Colony High 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)

Was kept at 2011 AfD per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Since the February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing that would meet WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to List of schools in Chittagong (the division) is a possible alternative to deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of schools in Chittagong per nom. The sources in the article are passing mentions and I couldn't find anything better either. Toadspike [Talk] 10:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the redirect option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete — I tried to improve the page and found only one source about a controversy in the school, the article only has one reliable source from BANBEIS, needs 3 reliable ones, not enough for a separate article so delete. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:56, 16 July 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.

Serenity Cox

Serenity Cox (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 by @A person of sorts: (your edit summary was cut off, by the way - feel free to explain further here). After removing a bunch of policy failures (see my edit summaries), I'm not seeing how this meets WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search shows only interviews. Launchballer 15:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Serenity is prominent figure within her industry and heavily featured and quoted on both AVN and XBIZ (online and print) frequently which are both reliable sources. As mentioned in that post, with these basically being the only "reliable" industry publications if we reject them there would not be much we could write about in the adult industry. (SanDiegoDan (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC))

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep.

I thank you for setting this discussion up and being willing to hear me out. The one point I missed that I do not contest the removal of the LADBible and Daily Mail articles - they are not reliable and I acknowledge my mistake.

As User:SanDiegoDan mentioned before, AVN itself is acknowledged as a reliable source. Not sure about XBIZ but I believe it is as well. The articles provided are frequently about Cox and not just interviews. As of current revision, citations 4, 8, 11, 14, 17, 24, among others are not reliant on interviews. This proves notability in the frequency, reliability, and verifiability of the citations provided. A person of sorts (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that this was initially closed by @Svartner: before being relisted per his talk page. Having just spent several hours cleaning this up, and given that ref 2 at least is not a press release, I'm inclined to withdraw this unless either of you intend on renominating immediately afterward.--Launchballer 21:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: If you're willing to withdraw (which was previously not known to me), I'd consider that to be consensus for our purposes, please feel free to do so. Left guide (talk) 21:17, 14 July 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.

Bill Saylor

Bill Saylor (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)

Biography of a local television journalist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis that establishes the significance of their work -- but three of the five footnotes here are self-published by directly affiliated entities (two from his own employer and one from the funeral home that held his funeral), and thus are not support for notability at all, while the two footnotes that are properly independent third-party coverage are a very short blurb about his death and an article about a local book signing event in his own hometown, which are both fine but don't add up to enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of his sourcing is primary.
Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman, a batch of several other journalists for the same television station this guy worked for who also largely aren't sourced any better either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pennsylvania. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, appears to meet GNG, see e.g. 1 2 3 (p2) 4 (p2) 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep, There are newspaper mention of him here Bill Saylor The mythical one (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more feedback on sources offered above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - There appears to be significant coverage of him with multiple profiles in newspapers. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 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.

Telangana Gaddar Film Awards

Telangana Gaddar Film Awards (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)

Also see Telangana Gaddar Film Awards of 2024 up for deletion. Notability tag was objected to here so I did a thorough WP:BEFORE and found only announcements, press releases, and the typical churnalism that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The only thing it could possibly be notable for would be this controversy but do not think that rises to the level of notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is linked to notable article of Telangana Gaddar Film Awards the 1st ediiton, stop your non sense. I dont understand why you editors waste time of yours and others by nominating every new article for deletion. Stop your non sense going forward. It is common sense if academy awards are notable, the 1st edition is notable. Dont you have common sense. The article is widely covered by all media houses and it is highly notable than academy awards. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep Who are you to decide it is not notable I am asking? Are you from Telangana state of India? In what way you decide that it is not notable when you dont understand its film culture, state, country and geography ? There are already tons of sources I cited and it is widely covered by all media houses. A street beggar in Hyderabad knows about these awards.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The street begger will need to come to Wikipedia and voice their !vote. In the meantime, please see WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep Yes. You are not even part of the respective country and culture. You talk about the Telugu culture related article's notability which is extensively covered by all media houses of India. I dont understand how agenda driven editors such as you find time in wasting everyones time here. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sukshmadarshinisrilanka you can't !vote multiple times so I suggest striking the Strong Keep part of your responses. S0091 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I am not starting by listing sources because there's already ample coverage here. And yet, valid Indian sources are being dismissed wholesale under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. That guideline was never meant to blanket-discard Indian sources at AfD but rather to serve as a cautionary flag for closer scrutiny against paid-for news. In practice it has become a slippery slope where Indian entertainment journalism is reflexively deemed unreliable and articles are sent for deletion.

• Take The Hindu here as a case in point, one of India's most reputed newspapers. The nominator has flagged one of their articles as unusable in their rationale, likely because it lacks an author byline. But that's only one of the indicators to be cautious about when assessing whether a source is paid in NEWSORGINDIA, it is not a conclusion in itself. In Indian journalism, lacking bylines is often standard practice for entertainment pieces. Other than film reviews, most entertainment coverage in The Hindu appears under the generic "Hindu Bureau" byline. There is no indication that all such articles are unusable as many deal with real-world events and provide critical coverage that is clearly not paid for. Is this article on The Devil Wears Prada 2 resuming filming from Hindu Bureau also an example of NEWSORGINDIA? That would be an absurd conclusion to draw based on the criteria at hand.

• Now, to the awards themselves: they are the highest accolades in film given by Telangana, the home state of the Telugu film industry. For unfamiliar editors, this is the same industry that produced RRR. These awards are directly comparable to those instituted by other Indian states with comparable film industries, such as the Karnataka State Film Awards, Tamil Nadu State Film Awards, Kerala State Film Awards, Nandi Awards, Maharashtra State Film Awards, and Odisha State Film Awards.

DeluxeVegan (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The article meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:NAWARD. The article cites multiple reliable, independent sources, including Times Now, Deccan Herald, and Deccan Chronicle, which provide significant coverage of the awards’ establishment, winners, and controversies. These sources demonstrate sustained media attention, including a reported controversy about the jury’s selection process, which further underscores public interest. Charliehdb (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal so holds no weight. S0091 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:SUSTAINED. Similar for WP:NEVENT's WP:LASTING. This is new award held in 2025 for films released in 2014-2024 which aimed to replace the defunct Nandi Awards. All the sources, except South First, are dated May 30th with South First dated a couple weeks later in June. The ones dated May 30th are standard announcements/press releases about who won so are primary sources thus do not help with notability. South First is excellent, outlining the history, controversies and that many awardees did not attend (most of which is not reflected in the article). However, one source does not establish notability and still leaves the issue with SUSTAINED/LASTING. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: There're additional sources in The Indian Express and The Hindu (Frontline) that are bylined and talk about the awards in a political/critical space. These plus discussion per above is sufficient for keep. WeWake (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both of those were published in mid-June, same as First South, so still have the issue with meeting WP:SUSTAINED. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  S0091, Honestly, I don't feel there's been enough time to warrant a deletion per WP:SUSTAINED. Given WP:NTEMP, I'm sure these concerns can be revisited if needed. — WeWake (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair response, @WeWake. It's not enough for me to flip but I get it. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep as discussed above clearly Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You have already !voted. S0091 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So all western country awards are notable, and Asian country awards are not notable. But I thought this is Wikipedia right? not wikipedia for the Americas? Pls correct me if I am wrong. It is covered by all third party media houses. It is as notable as Golden Globe Awards, no second thought in that. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sukshmadarshinisrilanka the Golden Globe has existed since 1944 so that is not good comparison because this award is brand new. See Category:Asian film awards which has hundreds of articles but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make in an AfD. S0091 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This honestly echos the same veiled accusations put on by the SCOT sock farm so please do not go there. Notability is notability and there is nothing about notability that depends on location. It is about sourcing and there are none here that show it. Please see WP:ATA as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I Disagree with you. You are not getting it these are "Official Government Awards" to recognize (Telugu cinema). There is no other Govt Award from the state of Telangana. These are not private Awards. These Awards are going to continue in the coming decades. It is not a one off thing. We have to retain the Main article.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You have a right to disagree, but your argument is now WP:CRYSTALBALL. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No It is not crystal ball or cricket ball. These are live awards given by Government no presumptions or speculations here. Just because you read wikipedia text book doesnt mean you post all wikipedia jargon here. Learn to explain in simple words. Dont use wikipedia business and admin jargon. It wont make you more knowledgeable than me. Using wikipedia jargon has become a fashion to wikipedians of the Americas.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You keep bringing nationality into your argument which is disheartening. I would advise heeding the warning left for you by OwenX. Will need to be addressed at WP:ANI should it happen again.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However south-asian related articles are not respected in wikipedia. It is disheartening for me. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Per User:DeluxeVegan and User:WeWake. I find their arguments compelling and the sources they presented sufficient to keep the page.- Eva Ux 23:09, 20 July 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.

Evo zore, evo dana

Evo zore, evo dana (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 was made in 2008 and nobody contributed a source since then. The existence of this song is definitely verifiable, and has occasional bursts of mentions that may indicate notability, but I tried doing a Google Books search and I only see cursory mentions, nothing substantial from e.g. historians or musicologists. Can someone else find some? If nothing of value can be found, maybe we can merge the gist of this under Ustaše#Symbols, and get rid of the copy&pasted lyrics, the existence of which seems to give undue weight to these fringe ideas? Joy (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, History, Military, and Croatia. Joy (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Easy enough to pull up things in Gscholar and mention it, plus many others. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b what does the first one say? I don't seem to have the login for that, sorry. The second one says on page 350:

  NDH symbols, different publications and songs (e.g. “Evo zore evo dana”, “Hrvatska se vojska diže“, “Pjesma poglavniku”) were increasingly present in everyday life in many parts of Croatia.[45]

  That article is pages 337-369. So in a 32-page article, this song gets a single mention that says nothing other than it being a symbol of the NDH (the state of the Ustaše). This is exactly what I am talking about in the nomination. Where is the significant coverage of the song itself? --Joy (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's an article of the same name as the first one in Kolo at , and that's another mention.

  [...] pjesma »Na Kordunu grob do groba« nema spomena Srba pa je nepotrebno dokazivati da to nije srpska pjesma, tim više što se pjevala na melodiju budnice ustaške crne legije: »Evo zore, evo dana, evo Jure i Bobana«.

  [...] sve partizanske pjesme koje sam ranije čuo imaju i svoju ustašku inačicu kao i napomenuta »Evo zore evo dana evo čete partizana«

  So we learn that another set of lyrics were used with the same melody during the war, that this song was promoting the Black Legion (Ustaše militia), and that it was common for songs to have both a Partisan and a Ustaše version. This is, again, worth a paragraph in a larger article and a redirect to put things in context, but does not indicate a need for a separate article. --Joy (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Could we merge it to that article perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, as I proposed originally :) if no one can find something better --Joy (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Ustaše#Symbols: The article has no sources, so a delete could work. But others have found sources, so a merge would be better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 16 July 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.

Hermann Volz

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references are databases, and I couldn't find anything better elsewhere. A redirect to Germany at the 1928 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Europe, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Delete – So little information about him. This blog(?) lists him as an Olympic mystery because of how little is known about him. Would love to find a way to save the article, but it just doesn't seem plausible. I'm against redirecting because of potential confusion with the painter by the same name. – Ike Lek (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with little information (I've found some records, but not enough for a bio) - but moving to Hermann Volz (weightlifter) before redirecting solves your concern and preserves history, which I would support. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think that is a suitable solution. Ike Lek (talk) 23:14, 15 July 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.

Osagie Elegbe

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

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

Does not meet GNG and references provided are dead links. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Insufficient coverage to establish NACTOR or GNG. The references to non-existent webpages is also a glaring red flag. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails NACTOR and GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 20:15, 18 July 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.

William Azanor

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

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

No notable sources found per my research on Google. I was also able to find Archivi.ng, a free website which provides an archive of many Nigerian newspapers. No mentions located on there either. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Nigeria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Archivi.ng has some Nigerian newspapers, but the search function works poorly (they seem to show every match for "William" by looking up William Azanor; they don't let you specifically search two names). He was the third-best boxer in Africa at two different championships. That is something that would have coverage. Furthermore, that you can't find "any mentions" at all in newspaper archives proves that those aren't great newspaper archives, given that American newspapers literally mentioned him 100+ times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then what coverage do you have or can find which demonstrates that Anzor was notable? Not everyone can access every archive. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have access to Nigerian newspapers. We should have someone who does have access look before we delete subjects that are extraordinarily likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then draftify. If a subject is likely to have sources but we don't have them yet, that's what draftification is for. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how I'll be able to access Nigerian newspapers in six months. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well you did say that you got 100+ hits on the American newspapers. Do those demonstrate notability? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  They don't, but clearly there's something wrong with the Nigerian archives you're checking if there isn't even a single match, given how many times American newspapers mentioned him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  So what else can we search? If we can't, there's no SIGCOV, and no SIGCOV means no article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Two Americans(?) with no access to Nigerian newspapers not finding SIGCOV on one of the best boxers in Africa/Nigeria with a Google search hardly demonstrates that there is no coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well if I have access to Archivi.ng, that means I do have access to some Nigerian newspapers. And if nothing is coming up there... InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  It means that Archivi.ng is very incomplete since American newspapers mentioned him over 100 times. It is insane to think that the U.S. would cover the top Nigerian boxer over 100 times and Nigeria would cover him 0. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  We're going on the sources that we can find. Unless you have stuff you can find...no SIGCOV, no article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  And as I said, it is ludicrous to delete articles on African champions when next to no effort is being put in to look for sources. We need to have someone check offline Nigerian newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  And if we don't have that person, then draftify until we can. But if nothing comes up, again, no SIGCOV yet, no article yet. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  This feels like the clearest example of WP:NEXIST. Notability is based on the existence of SIGCOV, not its presence. Ike Lek (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Which we still don't know if it exists. And if archives don't pull up anything, nor Google. It's also worth reading the end of NEXIST - However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  See also WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - The above discussion is a clear example of someone wasting editor time with groundless claims of notability and unreasonable demands for checking of offline databases. I would hope that the editor in question reflects on this.

This article fails for lack of IRS SIGCOV. I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription, but a search of the NewspaperArchive through the Wikipedia Library turned up 11 hits, none of them related to the subject, all just people with similar names or bad OCR. The chances are pretty good that many/all of the hits discussed above are of the same nature. FOARP (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nigeria at the 1980 Summer Olympics I don't see evidence to support him having an individual article. He was knocked out in the first round of his first fight at the Olympics. He doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NBOX or any other WP notability criteria. A redirect seems to me to be preferable to outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect, no evidence of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 19 July 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.

Langa Mudongo

Langa Mudongo (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; my Google searches plus my looks at Botswana's sunday standard newspaper found nothing except passing mentions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Botswana. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Botswana at the 1980 Summer Olympics, lots of passing mentions, but I didn't find anything in-depth. Although according to the info about him on that page is incorrect. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not seeing coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Botswana at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 08:23, 15 July 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.

Reiherbach (Edersee)

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on de.wiki which could be added. It feels like there ought to be some RS on a 10km river, but I'm not seeing anything. Interested to see if others find anything to consider against the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• @7&6=thirteen: I'm curious about your difs 1 and 2 which were both large. Did you copy and paste these from an llm? JMWt (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  To comment on my own question, the originator of those edits has left a comment on my talkpage. I can't answer further questions about this because I don't understand what is going on. JMWt (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment the majority of the added content is not about the Reiherbach but is about the Edersee. It's not encyclopedic and not on topic WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 14 July 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.

Enchanted Hills, Indiana

Enchanted Hills, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

OK, so this is something of a test case. This is unmistakably a suburban development, one of many built on the shores of Lake Barbie. It has been made a CDP, and this is making me reconsider our generally automatic inclusion of these, because except for one thing there seems to be no notability of this place in itself. That one thing, however, is that it was the location of the notorious-at-the-time Phillip Danner murder, which resulted in the youngest conviction of a child as an adult in Indiana history. (Unsurprisingly we do not appear to have an article on it, BLP nightmare that it is.) So, are these things enough to get the place over the notability hump? As an aside, one article on the case described Enchanted Hills as a neighborhood of Cromwell, which is questionable: there is some two miles of empty farmland between them. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep It is a legally recognized place, as are all CDPs, and per Wikipedia community-wide consensus.Djflem (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus anymore that the phrase "legally-recognized place" means something definite; we have argued this out over and over. It seems to me that there is no dispute that incorporated places are legally-defined, but I for one do not agree that a statistical construct in the census counts as legal definition. CDPs exist simply because people ask the census for populations of areas without well-defined borders, so the census simply makes those borders up; but they have no legal status. A great many CDPs correspond to unincorporated cities and towns, but that is not always the case.

And really, that's the issue. Anyone looking at this on the ground or from the air can see that it is a big subdivision. So is it more notable than the many other such arrayed around Barbie Lake just because the census drew lines around it? I'm going to say, No. If this place "enjoys" any notice, it is because of the murder, not because of the census; and even then as a setting it is essentially irrelevant. NO, it's just another subdivision which we incidentally cannot tell the truth about because there's no actual not-needing-to-be-interpreted sourcing that says what it is. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Djflem: please cite that "Wikipedia community-wide consensus" because I don't think that the standing consensus is what you think it is... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shellwood: One can see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive that the broader Wikipedia community since 2007 has consistently keep or redirected CDP articles. It has clearly decided & established a consensus that they NOT be deleted. Djflem (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - per Mangoe ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The consensus to keep CDPs is long standing (decades). A local discussion like this is not the place to change that consensus. If you'd like to challenge or change that it should be brought to a much much larger forum of participants in the Wikipedia community and not just this one islolated AfD. Djflem (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that we have questioned that consensus for going on a decade now, but sure, we can discuss this elsewhere as well: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#WP:NPLACE,_legal_recognition_and_CDPs. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete CDPs are what we in the UK call property developments. They are not legally recognised places, but a development linked to a larger town, including this case Cromwell. There is nothing to merge so it should be deleted.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  CDPs are what we in the UK call property developments This is not accurate. It perhaps is true in this case, but CDPs can represent a variety of types of places. They are an effort by the Census Bureau to provide meaningful statistical breakdown for locally recognized places that are outside of incorporated places (although they are within other civil administrative units, such as townships and counties). older ≠ wiser 14:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for my wording but i meant is CDPs are not denotating a village, town or city as we would in the UK aka legally recognised. Encharted Hills was a property development in the 60s, not legally recognised, so has to meet GNG to have an article, which it doesn't. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  According to the nominator "There is no consensus anymore that the phrase "legally-recognized place" means something definite." The claim that a CDP is a property development is incorrect. Djflem (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  It is a property development. It was started in 1961 as per legal documents. It is like saying St Lukes Park is a place. It isn't, its a property development in Runwell village, which is now part of Wickford. As a property development, it then falls under GNG, which this article then doesn't meet. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, a property development & CDP are not synonymous or the same thing. Djflem (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge. This is interesting. As the article stands at present, the subject is at best barely notable. However, I'd suggest merging into Turkey Creek Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana and keeping as a redirect without prejudice for recreation if additional sources beyond bare geographical and statistical references can be found. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  As the legal papers already on the article, it states Enchanted Hills is "a subdivision of Cromwell", so if you were to merge anything then it should go there. There isn't really anything there to merge, but I think keeping the page as a redirect is an option. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think Enchanted Hills is actually in Cromwell. Cromwell is a very small town and there is quite a lot of unincorporated agricultural land between them. It is possible that Enchanted Hills uses Cromwell for postal service, but that is not the same as being part of the town, especially seeing as they are in different counties. older ≠ wiser 10:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/merge, CDPs are not legally recognized... And even if they were this would still be a delete or merge because it lacks sufficient independent sigcov. Legal recognition (or passing any SNG or the GNG) is not an automatic keep especially when there is a lack of sigcov, I am confused when people treat it as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 20 July 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.

Marcel Pelletier (athlete)

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

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

Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Athletics. No trace of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTCRIT, no known date of death, placed lowly and therefore significantly less reason to believe coverage exists, no hints about coverage in Olympedia or other Wikipedias. Geschichte (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – One source on the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia page for him lists him as having died in 1912, which is probably a mistake as he competed in that year's Olympics; however, if it isn't a mistake, it indicates likely coverage as he competed in that year's Olympics. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Athletics as suggested in nom. This is an unfortunate one that probably had SIGCOV once, but has since had it be lost to time with a fairly low chance of ever being found. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Athletics per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 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.

Traidmarc

Traidmarc (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)

Going through the sources:

1. is an interview
2. is just a quote
3. he is not mentioned
4. seems to be promotional content WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (ends with "Sent from my iPhone")
5. dead link
6. interview
7. broken link to his website
8. broken link to his company
9. interview
10. interview
11. interview
12. interview
13. Amnesty website does not mention Traidmarc
14. press release
15. press release
16. dead link to press release
17. seems promotional WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA
18. IMDB
19. self published
20. self published/dead link

Does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. A search only found more similar sources. 🄻🄰 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. 🄻🄰 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No WP:RS from reliable secondary sources that are in-depth to prove notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 15:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem notable per nomMetallurgist (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I can’t find the independent reliable sources required to pass WP:GNG because WP:NMUSICIAN isn’t met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:29, 17 July 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.

Arjun Deshpande

Arjun Deshpande (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)

Promotional article of a young businessman without any SIGCOV. Sources are paid pieces. No independent in-depth coverage and fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Likely passes GNG but most of the sources are about the company. Zuck28 (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Conducted a WP:BEFORE search and found some reliable sources to the subject but not found significant coverage about him in the references. So, fails to pass WP:SIGCOV. I will support for redirect, If suitable topic to redirect is found. Fade258 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The sources that are cited in the article are not reliable. For it to meet WP:GNG, it needs more extensive coverage from trustworthy sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:15, 18 July 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.

Vicoka

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No reliable, significant coverage of this musician. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• weak keep : Only for the award nomination in 2020. Doesn't seem to have had much critical notice since then, but the award is barely enough. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b. There's nothing to support that claim. The page that that citation links to () is non-existent. I found this article () from the same website covering The Headies 2020 but it does not mention this person. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll adjust my vote then. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Fancy Refrigerator Well, if you checked, I already tagged with AI-gen as it clearly is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Not enough sources, I can't even find any, to substantiate any ramification of NMUSICIAN or GNG. The non-win Headies nomination (which never happened) is insufficient. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete AI text, a non-existent nomination and no sourcing that I can find. Very PROMO. Easy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This could have been speedily deleted.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:48, 14 July 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.

Árpád Ajtony

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

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, France, and Hungary. Zuck28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• keep there is coverage in the obituary here and he won the Sándor Bródy Prize which seems notable. --hroest 18:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – More than a thousand words of coverage in Hungarian here, ~850 words of coverage here, more than 200 words of coverage here and here among others. See the search results. There's an abundance of significant coverage so this meets WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:39, 18 July 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.

Abhinav Chandrachud

Abhinav Chandrachud (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 lawyer, who is a son of some famous personality, but Notability is. NOTINHERENT. Fails GNG & NBIO. Creator is blocked as a sock puppet. Zuck28 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - another run of the mill lawyer who was scammed into buying a listing here. Everyone knows we are not LinkedIn and nor we are a compendium for Nepo Babies. Bearian (talk) 11:49, 18 July 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.

Cross Road, Adelaide

Cross Road, Adelaide (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)

Another non notable Adelaide road that fails WP:GEOROAD. Sources such as google maps and government of South Australia map layers do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This time it's a 8.8 km stretch of unremarkable bitumen. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This is actually a major arterial road in southern Adelaide, highlighted by the fact it has been assigned a single-digit A-road route. Sources such as google maps and government of South Australia map layers do not establish notability ....but they are still notable/reliable as they are from the state's own government department. True, there is certainly more room for improvement and for a better variety of sources, but I don't believe it's solely a reason for deletion. Enough attention might encourage more contributions to invoke WP:HEY if it's not already there Lordstorm (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Being a "major arterial road" does not confer automatic notability. There are literally 100s of thousands if not millions of main roads in the world. Where are the third party sources to support notability? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  A road should either meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD for it to be kept. I don't see that is the case here. Being a "major aterial road", by itself, is insufficient. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  and if you are proposing WP:HEY, please start by adding actual third party sources. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Being "a major arterial road" does not establish notability, only sources do, and none have been provided. Sandstein 17:53, 21 July 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.

Pawan Reley

Pawan Reley (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 regular lawyer, doing his work. No SIGCOV, just press releases, blogs, non-reliable and primary sources, YouTube videos, and passing mentions are used as sources. The creator is blocked as a sockpuppet. Written in a very promotional tone and with a Wp:POV, potentially a case of UPE & COI. Fails GNG & NAUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete: the sources are as described by the nominator. 🄻🄰 14:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - he received several made up in one day awards for being an up and coming but ultimately run of the mill lawyer. Remember, we are not LinkedIn. Credible evidence of pay to play scammer creating this article. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 18 July 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.

Sanjay ghodawat

Sanjay ghodawat (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)

Recreated over and over at Sanjay Ghodawat, until the title got protected. Still nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG. No source with significant, independent coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Junbeesh (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and protect this page too. The last deletion of Sanjay Ghodawat was in 2016 and there is no evidence he has become notable since then. Astaire (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the previous deletions were "unambiguous promotion". This page does not seem exceptionally promotional to me. Further it states importance "head of a conglomorate" namely Sanjay Ghodawat Group. The eponymous university is listed as a private university on ugc.gov.in as private 2(f), although you'll need to use internet archive as the site is down at the moment - and the details page is not archived there. It is not listed in their fake universities or other bad lists, again according to the archive. At the very least there should be a redirect to the group from the correct capitalisation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC).
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: There is nothing to see In-depth coverage from reliable sources. Hardy to satisfying WP:GNG, His company is notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 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.

Disappearance of Selene Delgado

Disappearance of Selene Delgado (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 full of unsourced claims, and the topic is a rumor, so it's in violation of WP:RUMOR. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mexico. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I suppose with better sourcing there could be an article about the "hoax", but we don't even seem to have that. I can't pull up anything about this case. Sourcing now is non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Crime, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete: As Oaktree said, I definitely think if we pulled some more sources together there could be a successor article on Delgado's hoax. I wonder what actually happened to her and how this hoax affected her if she's even still alive. Lule345 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: as a search on the name suggest the very existence of this person is possibly an urban legend. Without some reasonable biographical details from a reliable source, such as an attributed Police report of the circumstances of her disappearance, how can the truth in this matter be determined. I think this fails verifiability. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:40, 18 July 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.

Alexandrina Road

Alexandrina Road (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:GEOROAD. Only sources are google maps and government of South Australia map layers. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The sourcing in the article doesn't cut it (primary) and the searches I conducted brought up crashes which had occurred on the road. No coverage addressing the subject directly and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 20 July 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.

Tarita Shankar

Tarita Shankar (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 promotional biography of a businesswoman masquerading as an educator fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with nom. A non-notable business woman portrayed as an educator, and a lot of non reliable and primary sources used as sources. Fails Wp:NAUTHOR, Wp:ACADEMIC and wp: GNGz Zuck28 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally created this article in December 2023 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Here's the original version: . Since then, I haven't had much involvement with it. Seeing the current state of the article is quite disheartening, and it has made me lose interest in trying to improve or save it.Thilsebatti (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The Indian Express article does mention the subject’s name, and it's the only reliable source available. However, even that coverage isn't in-depth. Apart from that, there is a reference to a book published by Notion Press, which in itself is not considered a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Searched for sources, under the assumption that the Indira Group of Institutes might be notable and that therefore Shankar might meet WP:NACADEMIC about administrative posts. Can't find coverage demonstrating that either the company or she meet notability criteria. Tacyarg (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Mulladam (talk) 09:02, 16 July 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.

Karnavati University

Karnavati University (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:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• No objection. As the creator of this stub I have no objection. For all I care you can delete the entirety of WP:INEI. --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 15 July 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.

Swarrnim Startup & Innovation University

Swarrnim Startup & Innovation University (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:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• No objection. As the creator of this stub I have no objection. For all I care you can delete the entirety of WP:INEI. --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: None of the existing references in the current article are reliable (WP:RS), so it fails WP:NSCHOOL. Baqi:) (talk) 09:21, 18 July 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.

Dharmsinh Desai University

Dharmsinh Desai University (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:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. The entire page is filled with promotional content and doesn't provide any useful information. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 19:05, 14 July 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.

Kewal Garg

Kewal Garg (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 enough Wp:SIGCOV. Only routine coverage and non-bylined PR articles are available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, India, Delhi, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete: All of the sources are promotional articles. 🄻🄰 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all sources are promotional fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:59, 16 July 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.

Velencei Kék Cápák RK

Velencei Kék Cápák RK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent refs on the page. Not clear how to WP:V the information on the page, it appears that much of it is very out of date. There's a page on hu.wiki which also is poorly referenced. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Hungary. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:11, 14 July 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.

Kushal N. Desai

Kushal N. Desai (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)

Procedural renomination. First nomination achieved a no consensus result exclusively because of the keep votes by a group of sockpuppet dedicated to AFD fraud. I'm asking for a re-evaluation of the deletion discussion, now free of brigading by the now blocked group. Reason is same: A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. Also, simply being the grandson of an industrialist doesn't justify having a Wikipedia page. Notability cannot be inherited. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete (weakly) - the Dharmsinh Desai University appears to be the only reliable source. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The article's tone has already been adjusted to make it more neutral and less like a resume. It also now has sufficient good independent sources. The subject is a notable billionaire, featured on Forbes, and has received significant coverage in Business Today, Fortune India, and Forbes. He was listed among the top Indian billionaires. Mentions in the Hurun India Rich List, Fortune India, and Waterfield Advisors are also noteworthy. The subject meets the criteria under WP:NBASIC.Lobbymaster (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Lobbymaster is a Wikipedia:SPA. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: This article doesn’t really read like a résumé, and the sources mentioned above aren’t NEWSORGINDIA either. They are independent and reliable, and provide enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Zuck28 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is well written and wholly sourced and does not appear promotional at all. The sources posted above contain significant coverage about this billionaire and are sufficient to establish notability under WP:NBASIC Monhiroe (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not a guideline in itself. The sources like Business Today, Fortune India, and Forbes are bylined, come from reputable media outlets with editorial oversight, and provide significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of the subject. Baqi:) (talk) 12:27, 21 July 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.

The Congress Post

The Congress Post (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)

insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify a standalone article. The subject may be promotional in nature or lack encyclopedic relevance.

Unless reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate notability, I recommend deletion of the redirect. Unclethepoter (talk) 08:33, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Websites, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:GNG not met, a minor American publication that seemed to have started this year and has apparently already ceased to exist. There's no activity on their Facebook or Twitter this month. Nothing on Google News (once I removed "India" from search results to prevent false positives), nothing on Google Books in 2025, just one false positive in Google Scholar in 2025. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:10, 15 July 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.

Harry McNaughton

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Article already deleted by PROD in 2007 (subsequently recreated in 2012). C679 09:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. C679 09:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 09:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as possible search term. GiantSnowman 17:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete – I wouldn't redirect as a Google search just leads you to the actor. A redirect is likely to just create confusion for those searching for the actor. Unless you think there is any chance of sources being found, let's just delete this one.

  Ike Lek (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, I think a redirect would do more harm than good in this case. Svartner (talk) 08:11, 15 July 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.

F A Sumon

F A Sumon (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Sources are all unbylined churnalism, unreliable, or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – F A Sumon is a widely recognized Bangladeshi singer with multiple viral tracks and label releases. While the article still needs formatting and additional citations, his notability is evident: his music is released under major labels (G-Series, CD Choice), has over 83M+ YouTube views (e.g., "Ghum Parani Bondhu"), and has been featured on national TV and covered by major Bangladeshi media. These factors strongly support notability under WP:MUSICBIO. I'm open to improvements, but deletion is premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaddamHosenSaad (talk • contribs)

Please do not use AI to generate comments on Wikipedia. You state it has been significantly improved and "no longer warrants deletion" but there has been no improvement since the deletion discussion began. As far as the high-quality sourcing, can you provide links to the specific sourcing you feel shows notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, please strike through your comments as opposed to amending them. It will throw people off as my question was specific to your original comment, not your amended one. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The references are not great (very short, almost advertorial) and the Youtube views don't convince me (how many are bot driven), at least the references are about the artist. I would say give this article a few months, look on the Bengali Wikipedia or ask some experts to clean it up and if no improvement is made, another AFD might be needed. There is a possibility that this article can improve, but in order to meet notability requirements, we have to see that the improvement can happen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting !keep as an WP:ATD? If you can show WP:HEY, I would be glad to withdraw my nomination but a WP:BEFORE tells me that no amount of editing can show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there would need to be three to five references of a much less dubious standard for me to believe that the notability threshold is clearly met. Right now, things are kind of murky. If that can't be done in a few months, my opinion would change to a delete. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The references seem legitimate, although I am no expert at Bangladeshi music. I don't want to exhibit a Western bias, either. - Poof positive (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I considered nominating this when I was doing some basic cleanup on it (if you think it is bad now, you should have seen it before). I didn't bring it to AFD because albums Dorodiya, Rongila Re, Tor Lagi Re, and Iti Tomar Priyo were released on G-Series (record label). So the topic meets WP:MUSICIAN criterion #5. Most of the other things the author mentions (long career, number of albums/credits, YouTube subscribers, Facebook followers, pages on Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) have no bearing whatsoever on notability as Wikipedia defines it. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Reliable coverage by The Times of India, The Daily Star, and The Times of India demonstrate the subject's notability. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Undoing my close and relisting, per request on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Source Assessment - I went through all listed sources. None would be qualify with the exception of possibly one which is a review of one of his YouTube videos. Note that most of his music is released on social media according to one of the soruces. As far as releasing albums under a major record label, WP:NMUSICIAN does not grant inherent notability. It says "may" be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
(1) https://www.daily-sun.com/printv...	With a byline of "culture desk," this is indication that the article is churnalism.		Routine coverage of an albm release. This isn't even a review of the song, just the announcement.	✘ No
(2) https://www.newsg24.com/video/56...	It's an embedded YouTube music video.	Assuming on its face that the publication itself is reliable.	Constitutes original research if anything.	✘ No
(3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes....	Only a credit listing and embedded music video from YouTube. Indicates churnalism with no byline and directory type details.		Again, just an embedded music video from YouTube and listing people credited on the song.	✘ No
(4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes....	Same as above. Same concept but for a different song		Same as above. Same concept but for a different song	✘ No
(5) https://www.kalerkantho.com/onli...	Review of a YouTube video. Once thing that does stand out is how it says is that he is not "covered by the media." That is the very essence of notability on Wikipedia.		Would be considered significant as far as a music review. It does not cover much about him though.	✔ Yes
(6) https://www.kalerkantho.com/onli...	Classic churnalism. Byline of "Kaler Kantho Online" so no editorial oversight in my opnion.		Brief announcement about him singing on a television show.	✘ No
(7) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes...	An interview of him on a radio show. Definitely not independent		Did not listen to the entire interview as it is, well, an interview.	✘ No
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...	This is the YouTube video of his appearance on the television show which was announced a few references above. Constitues original research.			? Unknown
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...	YouTube video of an interview he did. Not indpendent.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I just don't see enough sourcing, the table above pretty much shows we only have one good source. I don't find anything extra we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 14 July 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.

Noureddine Bekkouche

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Algeria. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 60 kg – Where he is mentioned, or merge with Algeria at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 60 kg: No indication of coverage is present either here or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 17:01, 14 July 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.

People's Republican Union

People's Republican Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Winning 2% of vote and 1 seat in parliament does not automatically make a party notable as far as I know. Really need someone who knows about Benin to find good sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Africa. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - 2% of national vote and a seat in national parliament is definitely enough to claim notability. --Soman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have sources please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ORGSIG is clear that no organization (of which political parties are included) is awarded inherent notability for any reason. A political party having a seat in parliament is certainly a positive indicator that coverage may exist, but is not itself a guarantee in the same way WP:NPOL operates. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: You need to give at least one source, to show this isn't a hoax. They are very likely notable, but we still need to see they're a real entity. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Why would this be a hoax?^[1][2] While I'd agree that NPOL doesn't explicitly apply to parties, it's more or less implicit that parties are notable when represented in parliaments. That said, in practice small parties with only a single ever MP might be more appropriately merged/redirected to the MP, if they already have an article. Regards,

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Not keep Unfortunately, there's nowhere near enough here to have a stand-alone page about this party. They are only very briefly mentioned in the Citoyenneté Politique au Bénin book. I absolutely agree we should not lose this information, and it's possible if not probable if someone did research into 1990s Benin politics we could turn this into a stand-alone page, but it needs to be merged and redirected somewhere, maybe List of political parties in Benin. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Redirect to National Labour Party (Benin) per my comments below. We have absolutely no sourcing other than an almanac saying they won a seat in a line in a table without any substantial information about the party, but they had a coalition partner in that election so we can easily cover the party in its entirety at the coalition partner's page.

  SportingFlyer T·C 05:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - I never propose deletion for a party that has won at least one seat in a national legislature, and I suspect it might be the consensus. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's absolutely no substantive information about the party online, though. I was able to access Elections in Africa: a data handbook and it just lists the fact they won a seat in coalition with the National Labour Party (Benin), and it's mentioned there, so I'm strongly in favour of a redirect - there's absolutely no guarantee the party was notable especially because they did not stand on their own in the single election they contested. SportingFlyer T·C 05:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Au contraire, il y a quelque choses. The founder of the party was Michel Toko. He served as Minister of Justice from 1970 to 1972 and as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1972; he was subsequently imprisoned under Mathieu Kérékou's presidency. Given the subject matter and time it's more than likely there's offline material. I'll go ahead and create an article on him and this material can be merged there. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Article created, merge to Michel Toko. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer a redirect to the party they were in a coalition with as they are already mentioned there, but I can't find anything saying Toko founded the party. SportingFlyer T·C 09:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

See p.74 of "Political Parties of the World" (1996, 2nd edition). It's available at archive.org: Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Now that the Toko page has been updated further I think a redirect there is proper. There's not much to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 09:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Michel Toko and redirect there. Additional merging to the coalition is also reasonable. Per WP:NOPAGE, there isn't enough material here for a standalone, and when a party exist largely as a vehicle for one more notable politician, that is a better locus for the material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more thoughts about a merge to the newly created Michel Toko?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Michel Toko per above. Sandstein 17:20, 21 July 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.

The G.A.T...

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

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

I'm a huge Hommy fan and would love this to stay, but this just isn't notable. Source 2 and 3 are self-published (3 also third-party violation). Album never charted or won awards. Basically all its known for is costing a lot. I suggest merging, but want concensus. Roast (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Haiti, and New Jersey. Roast (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge: the current sources don't show notability and I haven't found others with significant coverage. The WikiProject music search engine returned nothing of use. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Mach-Hommy. I've had a dig for sources but it appears this is incredible bare which surprises me because a lot of his other releases seem to get routine coverage. WP:NALBUM is not met. sksatsuma 17:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Mach-Hommy: Article poorly sourced. Album has no SIGCOV in RS, no awards, no gold, no charting. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with Mach-Hommy: Album unfortunately lacks SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 03:41, 21 July 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.

Enga Mohamed

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – Sayed Enga Mohamed was been deleted in 2017 and appears to be about the same person. I haven't found any info on why it was deleted, but I don't really know where to look. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 06:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Egypt at the 2004 Summer Olympics as WP:ATD. C679 10:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egypt at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 16 July 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.

Western Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary

Western Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (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 to meet WP:NORG or WP:NSCHOOL. No independent, reliable sources provided. Appears to be non-notable and unaccredited." This nomination was by Issac I Navarro, who failed to complete the nomination correctly. Jahaza (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• FYI @Issac I Navarro. --Jahaza (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know that they "failed", they filed an AFD for this article, then you moved the article to a different page title and you redid the AFD under its new page title and tagged the original AFD for speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, they "failed to complete" in the sense that the AFD page was malformed and they didn't transclude it in the daily page at all. Jahaza (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification, and my apologies for the procedural misstep—I appreciate the correction. My intent was to nominate the article in good faith, based on concerns regarding notability per WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. Additionally, the article appears not to meet the criteria set forth under WP:RELIG/N, particularly the section on Religious structures and buildings, which states:

  As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a religious structure or building depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  At present, there are no independent or reliable sources that establish notability, and the institution also appears to be unaccredited for any citation Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• delete no independent sources in the article, none that I could find online. Fails WP:GNG. --hroest 18:01, 19 July 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.

Viktor Nestrašil

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

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage Joeykai (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Czech Republic. Joeykai (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No sources founded. He never played in the top Czech tier. FromCzech (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Sources for review – These are on the Czech page. I cannot speak Czech, so I do not know if they are independent. - Ike Lek (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and to address questions about those sources on the Czech Wikipedia, the first and second are published by his teams, so lack independence and do not count towards WP:GNG. The third one is an interview with Slavia's hockey team sports manager, which contains a three-sentence quote directly attributed to the individual, although the general topic is the club itself, so it is both non-independent and non in-depth on the personal level. C679 10:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per source analysis by Cloudz679. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 19 July 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 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators (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 had only two citations, both of which were unreliable sources per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Only reason I didn't remove the second citation was because I didn't spot it. So in essence, this list article, which contains details such as numbers of aircraft in operation or formerly in operation, is completely unsourced, with the only assistance for the reader being to go to the linked articles - which doesn't count as sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Well, you also have Airfleets , and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

  And for the record, yes I did make a quick search for sources myself... but as I'm not really an aviation-inclined person, I couldn't find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are at least three books directly on the planes published at various times, but I can't access their insides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think if we're wanting to source current lists of operators and numbers though we probably need more recent sources Danners430 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Very few operators still fly this plane. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Simple Flying is NOT a reliable source WP:SIMPLEFLYING Protoeus (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - needing improvement (i.e. reliable references) is never a reason to delete an article. Fully referencing the list is something that should be achievable. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sometimes opening an AfD is the only way to get an article improved... Like I said above, I've done a search for sources, but haven't been able to find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep We can clearly source American operators from my source search. See We can also source other carriers - I picked two at random and there's lots out there, but nothing that is a clear "slam dunk" (like say the BBC) because this is a niche topic with niche sources. I do not know what is in this book. This looks self-published unfortunately. The problem is we can absolutely source this and it's encyclopedic but there's not going to be one source out there that isn't a niche aviation source... SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; more input on SportingFlyer's most recently-presented sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Absolutely needs better sourcing, but I think there's enough here to establish notability. Worth mentioning that there's a similar list for almost every major commercial aircraft, with sourcing of varying quality...if we get rid of this one then the rest need to be brough to AfD. nf utvol (talk) 13:07, 14 July 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.

2005 Babil governorate council election

2005 Babil governorate council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no sources and there have not been any since 2009, nor could I locate any after various google searches and going through all the links on the no-sources template. Fails WP:N and could probably be redirected to 2005 Iraqi governorate elections. Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 17:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I highly doubt an election to a second tier authority in any English speaking country would get deleted (e.g. a State Assembly election), so this does look a bit like systematic bias. Have you carried out searches in Arabic? I would also imagine a lot of news coverage at the time in Iraq was in the printed press? Number 57 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment similar to Number 57, I have a hard time believing that an election impacting around ~2 million people does not have sufficient sources covering it. Not making a keep/delete comment since the page has nothing to show for it. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if those who believe sources exist could identify or present said sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it would be helpful, but they are not obligated to. Lacking access to sources does not mean they do not exist. Ike Lek (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect - for 16 years, nobody has bothered to source this. It's a local election, and 20 years of link rot has occurred, so any sources specific to this Governorate are unlikely to be found online soon. As usual in such cases, I recommend an appropriate redirect. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 21 July 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 Back

Michael Back (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 1 article links to this. Just seems to be a run of the mill lawyer with most sources being primary and not SIGCOV. Nothing in Australian database trove either. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)