Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < July 17, July 19 > ...
< July 17 July 19 >
Close

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 22:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Chapra Christ Church

Chapra Christ Church (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)

Lots of broken links on the page, I can't find much to replace them and can't WP:V the details JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep, Kindly see the references prior to tag of deletion. Further this is a premium heritage institution of the district almost 185 years old and has separate commonsCategory which also made the article notable Pinakpani (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    Ref 2: three sentences about churches in Chapra, none of which are obviously this one (the origin date of the Roman Catholic church mentioned is different to that one the page)
    Ref 3: my browser says not to open as the link is dangerous
    Ref 4: is not obviously about this church and doesn't verify the contents of this page
    Ref 5: a parliamentary mention about the Church Mission Society which is a British church society and not obviously anything to do with German Protestants or Roman Catholics
    Ref 6: doesn't work for me
    Ref 7: about the King Edward School and Chapra Protestant church. Not a Roman Catholic church
    Ref 8: doesn't work for me
    Conclusion none of these refs WP:V the content on the page. It's not clear whether any of them are about the subject or not JMWt (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY. I have copy edited for translation problems, rescued deadlink citations, removed unsourced content or content that didn't seem to fit, and added info to expand the article. With regards to the AfD nomination, an article's content must be verifiable, but do not need to be online. Thus, we don't assume the content is wrong just because its source is not online. Also, MOS says to leave deadlink citations in place, so that is normal and not a problem. Thus, I don't believe the reasons behind the AfD are justifiable. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep after the re-write the article is much clearer and now includes the related school and details of the christmas fair with references, some offline which is permitted. So exercising WP:AGF for offline sources, deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is about a historical church (almost 200 yers old). So, it has historical importance and has encyclopedic value. Also, the references used are quite authentic. I find no reason for the deletion of the article. Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above historical church.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Scholarly works (Anthropological Survey of India 2002; Bhattacharya 1981) together with a full-length 2016 Anandabazar Patrika feature and other independent historical sources provide reliable coverage, and hence the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not sure that some of these new sources provide WP:SIGCOV:
  • I can only see the Google Books preview, but Bhattacharya 1981 seems only to have a trivial mention and doesn't contain the word "Meherpur", which concerns me as it apparently supports In the 19th century, Chapra, Nadia was the center of missionary works for the Meherpur subdivision of the undivided Bengal (now West Bengal, India.
  • The "Christian fair" article makes up a plurality of the citations, but is only vaguely about the church -- it's really about the fair. I'm only working from a translation, but I also can't see that it supports, as claimed, The four-day fair blends traditional Christian and Indian traditions and has some 20,000 participants each year (though it does mention that the fair includes a specific Indian practice, singing kirtan). Even then, it seems to be local news, which isn't normally evidence of notability.
  • The High School history page isn't independent, as the school was founded by the church: in any case, it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Even then, the mention of the church is trivial.
  • The Sessional Papers source has a single trivial mention -- and is a document from the British parliament from 1904, which may fall under WP:PRIMARY.
    I can't access the Diocese of Barrackpore source, but it seems likely to be a trivial/administrative mention rather than a detailed discussion.
That leaves only the Nadia District Gazetteer that I can fully vouch provides WP:SIGCOV (though even then it's not massive) within a source suitable for WP:GNG. If we only one good source provides significant coverage, the article should not be kept, but rather merged into an article about the town. I don't want to vote delete at this stage, as most of this is absence of evidence rather than secure evidence of a problem, but would be reassured if someone with access to the sources could overturn my impressions of their coverage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: I vote to keep this article because it provides valuable information about Chapra Christ Church, demonstrating its notability and relevance. With further research and reliable sources, the article can be improved to offer a more comprehensive overview of the church's history and significance. 2RDD (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UndercoverClassicist's extant sourcing concerns need to be addressed to reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per HEY. Sometimes all we need is to cut out the AI drivel and hallucinated sources, and touch up the page, and we have a start article. I'm impressed with the rescue, since I had no hope. Of course it needs more work for a rainy day. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I share UndercoverClassicist's concerns about the current sources. I have not been able to find a source which clearly gets this over a WP:GNG line. However a couple scholarly searches and book searches come up with at least mentions of the church including a 1904 sessional mention in British parliament. These might be mentions, but I'm confident someone with access could find something that would get this over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doing my own research on the subject, I also find an abundance of RS SIGCOV establishing notability per GNG. ZachH007 20:31, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ryan Harrison (politician)

Ryan Harrison (politician) (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:POLOUTCOMES as an unelected candidate. Additionally, coverage does not show this individual meeting WP:GNG, with independent, potential significant sources being solely from The Advertiser (Adelaide) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep – Ryan Harrison is a notable South Australian political figure who contested the seat of Unley in the 2022 state election as the endorsed Labor candidate. He achieved 32.1% of the primary vote and brought the margin to just 2.2%, resulting in the largest primary vote swing to Labor in the seat’s history (an 8.8% increase), according to data from the Electoral Commission of South Australia.
In 2025, following a refusal by the Labor Party to re-endorse him—despite his campaign success—Harrison founded and officially registered a new political party, *For Unley*. This party was gazetted by the South Australian Electoral Commissioner and formally published in the Government Gazette (No. 42, 4 July 2025): https://www.governmentgazette.sa.gov.au/2025/July/2025_042.pdf
Harrison is actively campaigning for the 2026 state election, and his continued political activity, creation of a registered political party, and historic primary vote swing meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I intend to continue improving the article with independent, verifiable sources and maintain an encyclopedic tone. Aussiecontributor (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — Aussiecontributor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Aussiecontributor your comment was simply moved to the bottom, not removed. I undid your duplicate comment that was added at the top of the page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because the subject doesn't hold a notable office (WP:POLITICIAN), the main thing at issue is his coverage in independent secondary sources. Just as a sidenote, the article cites Facebook as its third source, which is not a reliable source per our list of perennial sources. So we're left with the two articles in The Advertiser, which are just about the only sources that might be considered SIGCOV since the podcast is primary. But based off those two articles and what else I could find, the basic gist is: the subject well-known locally but not well-known enough (demonstrated by the lack of coverage) to pass the threshold of significant coverage here.  GuardianH  09:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with GuardianH, the subject does not have significant press coverage to be considered notable. Also, the South Australian Government Gazette is a primary source and does not contribute to notability. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Running for office by itself doesn't meet our notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 07:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete aside from electoral filings and his own website, the only sources I can find are two articles from The Advertiser on his defection from Labor. Seems like a case of WP:1E. Juxlos (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Barely even a 1E situation. Running for office doesnt qualify. Metallurgist (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL, though of course this is open to changing in the future if there are more sources that come out in support of notability if ever elected. Ping me if anyone else sees something I am missing. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per the rationale by GuardianH and the above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles just for being candidates per se — and since every candidate can always claim to be a significant local political figure in their area by virtue of the fact of having been a candidate, just asserting that his candidacy makes him a significant local political figure doesn't magically make him more notable than other candidates. And since every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, the existence of some campaign coverage also doesn't make his candidacy more notable than other people's candidacies either.
    Candidates get articles in one of two specific scenarios: either (a) they have some other claim of notability in some other field (e.g. they were already notable as a musician, an actor, a writer or an athlete before throwing their hat into an election ring) that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) they can show such an unusual depth and range of coverage, going far beyond what every other candidate can also show, that they have a credible claim to being special. But this article isn't even attempting to claim that he would pass condition A, and the amount of sourcing in the article is not adding up to passage of condition B. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn withdrawn after agreement‎. (non-admin closure) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

2001 Castel by-election

2001 Castel by-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)

Sources do not cover this election at significant length. While elections to the States of Guernsey may be presumed notable, minor by-elections should not be considered as such. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Microplastic Consumer sure, I will withdraw this and should be merged to the 2004 page. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:00, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to South Korea at the 1960 Summer Olympics#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Kim Jong-cheol

Kim Jong-cheol (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 medals. No evidence of meeting WP:NATHLETE grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to those who dug up info on this place. (non-admin closure)‎ Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hilltown, Indiana


Hilltown, 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)

We've had some oddball things come up before, but this is the first one which may possibly be a complete, literal work of fiction. The maps/aerials are pretty inconclusive: maybe a vague agglomeration of houses along a road is a town, maybe not. But searching only produced one meaningful hit, which was this. It begins by saying that "The 200-seat Llamarada Theater in Hilltown, Indiana, unquestionably stands as one of the most well-documented small-town movie theaters of the early 1930s." And it goes on from the a bit further, but then the next paragraph begins, "The problem—or at least the apparent problem——is that the Llamarada Theater and Hilltown, Indiana, are fictional constructs, created by Margaret Weymouth Jackson for a series of five stories published in the Saturday Evening Post between August and October 1930." And this is all I got except for the usual passing references. Perhaps Jackson got a name off a map, but it's also possible that the name got put on the map because of her writing. If someone can find something substantive, well, it would be a help. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - no concrete evidence of a town existing. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am seeing a large number of newspaper articles on Hilltown between the 1860s and about 1914, when the community was considered defunct (or at least no longer a center of commerce). These articles include some history of the community; there are around 70, and I'm sifting through to see which ones will be most appropriate for the article. However, I have already begun work. Work will continue. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep It appears this is not a fictional town. Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be useful about now so it can be determined whether or not this subject is a hoax.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
It is no hoax. This was a real community from about 1817 to around 1914, and there are still a few residents today. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Here is a review of the online sources added to the article by Firsfron:
  • This source is an atlas from 1884 with a map of the township that Hilltown is in, and the map includes Hilltown.
  • This source is a newspaper article from 1914 with a paragraph that discusses Hilltown.
  • This source, a newspaper from 1879, briefly mentions Hilltown.
  • This source, a newspaper from 1914, also briefly mentions Hilltown.
  • This source is also a 1914 newspaper with a brief mention of Hilltown.
All of the sources except for the atlas were published in Indiana, so it is unlikely that they are talking about a different place. Overall, I think that there is sufficient proof that this place existed at one point, so I will vote Keep per WP:HEY. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 08:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While there is broad support for a redirect to Epic Rap Battles of History, I see no consensus against keeping this as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Dan Bull

Dan Bull (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, no WP:SIGCOV. All the sources currently on the page that aren't to, like, youtube videos are very short and barely talk about him. From google there's a Forbes WP:INTERVIEW but that's all I found. I like the guy's music but he doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Found a feature from Huck (magazine). IgelRM (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A further review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Epic Rap Battles of History; Aesthetica source looks fine, others don't appear to add much. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
That merge or redirect would likely be confusing, as he was only a guest in that series to the best of my knowledge. Ike Lek (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Right, perhaps just a redirect although even that might be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Merge/redirct per IgelRM. Subject doesn't really have its own WP:SIGCOV outside of the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Have you read above? I do think a merge could be confusing as Ike Lek said. IgelRM (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment another participant had mentioned WP:NMG so I did a bit of digging. I found this article https://creativecommons.org/2012/05/02/musician-dan-bull-reaches-9-on-uk-indie-charts-using-cc0/ which suggests he might have charted with his song "Sharing is Caring". I have verified this information on the official website https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/23523/dan-bull/ but I'll need another opinion as to whether those subcharts would merit notability under criteria 2. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 23:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Leaning Keep: With several songs in specialist national WP:GOODCHARTS, a segment on national television and where a reliable source is calling him one of the "internet's biggest names", a Toronto Star pick, and the multiple non-trivial coverage identified above, just about enough the presume a Keep - particularly if all the sources are combined per WP:BASIC. Furthermore there is secondary coverage in WP:RS interview articles with a depth of preparation, then per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability that bylined coverage may count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 12:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
      The song “Sharing is Caring” charted in British Hip Hop and R&B Singles charts in 2012, but that isn't criteria 2 "national music chart". I don't think "The 50 Funniest Moments of 2012" and Rich Fulcher "media mashups" are particular relevant. The Toronto Star video is more specifically about Lily Allen. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
      Bull charted on the UK Hip Hop and R&B Singles and Albums Charts, and twice on the UK Independent Singles and Albums Charts; both national charts but speciality as I indicated above; not slamdunk conclusive on their own but a good indication of WP:MBIO nonetheless. There is a biography on laut.de which is trending reliable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#laut.de. Furthermore Game Informer, which is an WP:VG/RS, has a bylined article calling the subject "the Mike Skinner of video games". There are further coverage in articles such as and and . With all the sources identified above, such as and and , coupled with the charting, there does appear sufficient non-trivial coverage to build an article and presume notability. ResonantDistortion 22:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why this article is being considered for deletion. Dan Bull has a significant number of YouTube views and listens into the millions on YouTube Music. If we're considering deleting this article there are hundreds, if not thousands, of musicians that could also be considered for deletion. Not having a mainstream media presence, which appears to be the argument here, has no relevance to someone's artistic merit or the merit of them having a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntJack1981 (talk • contribs) — AntJack1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • You're welcome to nominate those articles, but please read WP:OSE and N:MUSIC before you do as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability which is understandable, but does not make your case. Star Mississippi 12:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by ResonantDistortion and others such as Vice, Huck which has a lot of prose as well as an interview, game informer, laut.de and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 21:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

2014 Finland–Sweden Athletics International

2014 Finland–Sweden Athletics International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the Finland–Sweden Athletics International has a notable history, I want a discussion whether it's excessive to present a detailed results breakdown per WP:NOTSTATS. This 2014 edition is the only one with an article currently, and I doubt whether it should exist. Geschichte (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics, Finland, and Sweden. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there's nothing but routine coverage. The article should have prose, not just statistics. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    Keep, per Habst below. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, the Finnkampen receives widespread media attention in those two countries and I added a few new sources demonstrating that. There were at least two significant controversies in the 2014 edition; one that a prominent sportscaster was barred from announcing the meet due to being too biased, and one following an athlete that collapsed in the 10,000 m the previous year deciding to run the 5000 m. The team contest was also covered with prose/analysis in an Aftonbladet piece I added to the article.
In general, Wikipedia has articles on international athletics championships for both the overview and for each specific occurrence with the idea that even if the sources aren't there at inception, they can be added later understanding that international championships tend to receive significant coverage. I agree that we should strive for consistent coverage (i.e. not just the 2014 edition having an article), but I think it's not unachievable to have quality articles for each Finnkampen (at least in the modern era as svwiki and fiwiki have done). Pinging @User:Jähmefyysikko to take a look at the new coverage. --Habst (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Habst. Wikipedia has reasonabluy detailed coverage of certain recurring sports events. The question, then, is if it's reasonable in this case. From a verifiability perspective, it's certainly possibly. Likewise, I'd say each year meets WP:GNG, individually. So is it a reasonable level of detail? I believe it is: each year is extensively covered in Swedish and Finnish news, not just routine coverage of results but also before the event and so on. Much like other major regional or national championships, it's within our mission to cover the results and other surrounding factors of the individual years. /Julle (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep based on Finnish coverage as Habst pointed out. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:01, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 8 Metre#World Championships as a sensible ATD, without prejudice against a selective merge. I see no P&G-based justification expressed here for keeping this as a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

8 Metre World Cup

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

No evidence this event meets WP:GNG, and thus requires a separate article. The table of events already exists at 8 Metre#World Championships, and this is more than enough information for Wikipedia. We do not require a separate article that just lists tonnes of almost entirely non notable winners Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Notability shouldn't be questioned it is a World Championships approved by World Sailing. Wikipedia is full of minor none olympic sports national and contentinental sailing. Even sailing has pages with one reference and 5 competitors from recent regional games yet this is getting questioned.
In regards to whether the page should be on the 8 metre page. In the past it the data sat on three pages "sailing medalists page", "equipment page" and "event page" they also sat on unreference template. The descision by those contributing which I didn't necessarily agree with was that the boat page was about the equipment and the event page was about the event. The medalist page was so big it broke templates.
The events table referenced is a reduced version of what is on this page and will be deleted. To be honest the event page is work in progress and needs improving interms of referencing I will try and work on this over the weekend. Yachty4000 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Does the "8 Metre World Cup" exist? Yes or no? Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
KEEP Yes sailing has drifted between using the term "world cup" and world championships here is a link to the 2025 edition []. The World Cup is awarded to the overall winner. There are two sub further trophies for the first of various age of boats. This is why it better on another page as most none sailing geeks :-) would incorrectly read the winners from the class page. But this is the Sira Cup which is for the older boats.
Seriously why are we discussing notability of official world championships its this kind of discussion that makes me question why I contribute. Still lots of improvements todo with article which I will work on. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect. The specific competition does not seem to have independent notability because I have not seen or found a single reliable independent secondary source (much less multiple of them), but the information in the article could validly be moved in part to 8 Metre. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rind et al. controversy. I see consensus against retaining this as a standalone article. A separate discussion about Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data controversy may be in order. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Bruce Rind

AfDs for this article:
Bruce Rind (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, recently expanded from a redirect, was previously deleted at AfD in 2019. Nothing has changed since then. The subject is still a non-notable purveyor of fringe theories - about pedophilia supposedly being non-harmful - and fails WP:NPROF. The sources in the article fall into at least one of two categories:

  • Sources discussing the Rind et al. controversy, on which we already have a much better article. Having a separate article on Rind himself violates WP:BLP1E and WP:CFORK. That existing article also contains pertinent details missing from this creation, such as Rind et al. controversy#Possible bias, that Rind et al.'s results "are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses", and so forth.
  • An array of non-significant coverage; things like minor commentary/reply pieces in journals, minor interest pieces in local news, and the like. A few bits and pieces of discussion of someone's ideas in the literature do not a notable person make (else nearly every researcher would be notable).

Taking things more broadly, Rind's views on pedophilia are thoroughly WP:FRINGE, same as other such fringe material that has been removed from Wikipedia. This article as it was created, whether intentionally or not, is effectively a whitewash, as it presents the criticism of his ideas as almost entirely a conservative moral panic, while ignoring a much broader range of criticism. What little here is significant coverage is much better covered elsewhere. Crossroads -talk- 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Article subject fails notability guidelines especially in light of there already being an article on the only matter the subject is known for. This article was already deleted once and it appears it was created again by a brand new user that was unaware of the previous decision and its reasoning.Legitimus (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I've added some sources unrelated to the 1998 controversy, so other editors may examine them individually. I created this article mostly because of them. . Cheers. V. S. Video (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    I don't commonly comment at AfD, but these don't look like sources about Rind and more like sources about a topic he has commented on. Generally, we need the former type of source to establish notability of a person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data controversy article was not only just created but is by the same user who created this article (V. S. Video, above), and overlaps heavily with it. We thus now have two new articles elaborating upon these fringe theories about the supposed benefit and adaptiveness of "pederasty"/pedophilia. There is a copious mainstream academic literature about the causes of different kinds of sexual desires, about evolutionary psychology, about child sexual abuse, etc., and Rind's speculations about pederasty are almost entirely ignored in all of them. The recently created 'Pederasty...controversy' article has POV fluff like this opinion piece where the author bemoans "the stigmatization of groups like NAMBLA...driv[ing] forms of desire inwards and underground" and whitewashes them as merely "ask[ing] for conversations about the age of consent". All this stuff is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads -talk- 20:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is discussion here but few assertions on what should occur with this article. A source asessment table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rind et al. controversy -- nominator makes a great case. The controversy was notable (I remember it 27 years later) but the author of the study is a BLP1E case study. If anyone is arguing for a keep -- I'm okay with drafting so the controversy article can add more bio information. These are utilitarian arguments for me. If it's between a flat keep or delete, it's a clear Delete. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:39, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kategoria Superiore Femra. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

KFF Kamza

KFF Kamza (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Here are two notable sources: one of the largest sports newspapers in Albania, Panorama Sport, wrote an article about the club here; Club lineup, which includes its logo, found in the Albanian Football Federation website here.
Kj1595 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to FC Kamza men's club, as long as women's club by years maybe gets more attention and being noticed. Lanceloth345 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different suggested redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect After i saw briefly options i'll stick to redirect as per GiantSnowmen to Kategoria Superiore Femra seems more logicall, with premise women's team in future gets noticed. Lanceloth345 (talk) 19:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

2012 Iran Futsal's 2nd Division

2012 Iran Futsal's 2nd Division (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 these minor third-tier futsal leagues in Iran and tagging some for proposed deletion. This one has more sources than others, but none accessible seem to cover it at any significant length. Taking to AfD because not positive that this fails GNG. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Yacht as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yacht transport

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

This article is a redundant content fork/semi-duplicate of yacht, which should cover this entire topic in about a single paragraph. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • delete lengthy belaboring of the reality that once you set your small-ish boat in a cradle, you can ship it pretty much the way you can ship anything else. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep though may need more SIGCOV citations to support it which I tried to look for, see this as it has potential to be standalone as its concept is like the aquatic vehicle analog of Roll-on/roll-off, seems transporting vehicles for land or sea is serious stuff, or merge to the Yacht article as an ATD. Lorraine Crane (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yacht: Fails WP:GNG as there is no independent sources as any information i was able to find was created by companies working within yacht transport and there was little secondary sources that provide SIGCOV required. However, no need for deletion, can easily be fit into yacht as a section. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:08, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Igor Kuljanac

Igor Kuljanac (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)

Minimal career, simply not notable, rightfully prodded by @Spiderone in 2009. Geschichte (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Not notable under current guidelines. Maybe met a soccer related guideline in 2009, but it does not now and has no WP:SIGCOV. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I found a couple of posts on Facebook relating to him but little else Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--A09|(talk) 18:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete No WP:SIGCOV.--Policking (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete- lacks SIGCOV in my searches as well.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and could maybe be a redirect to the team? Ping me if a better target for an ATD becomes apparent. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – non-notable football player. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:50, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

God of the Sullied

God of the Sullied (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 book, promotional article. Sources are press releases, paid for spam articles. See also:

  • Delete. Sources 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not WP:SIGCOV of the book itself, but some other topic (the author's publishing house, the author's other books, etc.). Sources 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (same source as 4) are overly positive and promotional reviews with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. Source 2 is a broken link that I can't access through the Internet Archive. I can't find any proof of Source 11's existence. That leaves Source 8, which requires payment to view and wouldn't satisfy WP:NBOOK by itself anyway. Astaire (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to me to be a "paid for " bit of WP:PROMO other than the lead calling the book a "bestselling" book, but a paid editor sure could have and would have done more there. Regardless, the subject fails WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV and should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per source analysis by Astaire and the concerns of promotional writing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:51, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus‎. Several of the Delete views focus on the AI source of the content, rather than on the notability of the subject. Content can be fixed editorially if the subject meets our notability guidelines. Those calling for "delete and redirect" did not explain what is the offending content that requires purging the page's history rather than merely BLARing.
Most troublingly, two weeks after an almost complete rewrite of the article, none of the participants came back to comment. This wouldn't be an issue if the basis for the call for deletion was subject notability. But when the call to delete is based on the content, a fresh content requires a fresh !vote. I see no point in relisting this under such circumstances, but any editor is welcome to renominate this in one month, if still applicable. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Theopathy

Theopathy (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 translated from the German-language Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the German-language article was generated by AI and reportedly contains significant hallucinations. While I think this could be a notable topic (though I'm doubtful about this), I'm sorry to say that this version may require WP:TNT. In particular, I believe that "identifies with God" is unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    To be clear: I think that the most appropriate outcome for this is to delete and redirect to David Hartley (philosopher). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not Redirect I'm a native german speaker, and i've reviewed the linked discussion on de.wiki about this article's source. Broadly looks like either hallucinated AI slop or unsourced rambling. Either way I don't see any value in this article and given that none of the purported sourcing even seems to mention the term theopathy, I believe redirecting is equally inappropriate. Magisch talk to me 10:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    This source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hartley/ mentions theopathy 13 times (e.g., "Hartley offers an original model of psychological development. The various emotional states (“pleasures and pains”) we experience structure themselves into “six classes”: imagination, ambition, self-interest, sympathy, theopathy, and the moral sense.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all other Generative AI creations. We are cheddar-makers, not vendors of Cheez-Whiz™... Carrite (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Im happy to take a hammer to anything AI, but is there any sourcing on this before we discard it. All I saw in a cursory search is dictionary definition. Or is there something it could be merged into?Metallurgist (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on David Hartley (philosopher), which describes this concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to David Hartley (philosopher). The word is rare so a redirect won't get in the way of anything. A good source is this book. Zerotalk 04:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, discuss and improve: I have checked the article for IA contamination: As far as I see, there are neither hallucinations nor wrong/nonexistent sources. Please refer to the article when claiming AI use. The article is still kind of a stub, but can improved upon. Discussion about content improvement can be continued on the discussion page. As the main author so far, I take responsibility for any deficiencies and am ready to do the main work of correction and improvement. I find the concept important for the mentioned authors, and central to Hartley. There are better sources and more material to be found. Thanks for the valuable information here.Gabel1960 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Gabel1960, in response to WhatamIdoing's specific concern In particular, I believe that "identifies with God" is unverifiable, which part of which source backs that statement up? Generally, if you know that there are better sources and more material to be found, you would be better off including them in the article first off! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    I have already revised the article. Please check. As for the "identifies with god" statement, which is not AI but corresponds to my own understanding of the texts found in the internet, I will either delete or modify it, with reference to a page. It is possible that the identification (or unio mysitica, or annihilation of the self) is more Coleridge's understanding of Hartley than Hartley's own. I will check this today. Gabel1960 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Gabel1960, can you expand on why you have chosen to put some items in Bibliography and some items in References?That is, why not all in References as inline citations? I am trying to figure out whether the bibliography supports statements in the article, or is better viewed as a Further reading section. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@SunloungerFrog I willl put all references in bibliography, and add other titles under "further reading".
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Normally I would agree to delete AI, however in this case an editor has taken the time to research sources and make a human article. It went from 1,500 bytes to over 8,000 with more being added, all by a human. Special:Diff/1298520582/1298812460 AI is no longer a factor. -- GreenC 21:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do others think about the recent article overhauls?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 21:17, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Gone Are the Days (novel)

Gone Are the Days (novel) (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 book. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Sources are poor to unreliable, primary PR links by Wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to no participation after the presentation of a keep rationale with details. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Mahavatar Swami Bhai

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

Not notable. Nearly all of the used sources have major issues, see the talk page for details. Attempts to find fitting, reliable sources have failed.Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, with enough reliable sources providing significant coverage of the claims about him across different countries and languages. High-quality sources do exist and have been used. Key evidence in support of keeping the article:
-Major news coverage: The Uruguayan national newspaper El País published a detailed profile on Víctor Truviano in 2015, describing he became a “ser pránico” (pranic being) who claims to have stopped eating in 2006 and even drinking liquids since 2007. That article did not take his claims at face value – it included scientific experts who flatly rejected the possibility (a physiology professor told El Mundo that an adult not eating for years is “imposible” and “quien diga que lleva años sin comer, miente” – “whoever says they’ve gone years without eating is lying”. This demonstrates that mainstream media have covered his story in depth and with skepticism, not merely through self-published material.
-International media presence: Truviano’s story has been reported around the world, indicating broad independent coverage (a strong indicator of notability). For example, the Indian news outlet Vijaya Karnataka (via Headline Karnataka) ran a 2023 piece calling him “the man who lives without food or water for the past 17 years,” explaining that he survives on prana and noting that his longevity without food has astonished the medical community. Likewise, Croatian media covered him when he visited: in 2018 the site Antena Zadar introduced Truviano as “najpoznatiji bretarijanac” (the most famous breatharian) and noted that by his account he had gone twelve years without eating or drinking. That report also mentions a Russian scientist’s tests on Truviano, which found his physiological parameters highly atypical – even though it remained “impossible to confirm” scientifically that he never eats. The very fact that multiple independent news organizations (in India, Europe, Latin America, etc.) have published such stories shows that Truviano has received significant attention beyond trivial or passing mentions.
-Independent investigative sourcing: Far from relying on self-published or non-neutral sources, the article has drawn rigorous journalism. In 2019 the Argentine outlet Cosecha Roja – a respected investigative news site – ran an in-depth exposé on Truviano (tellingly titled “Víctor Truviano, el gurú que no come”, i.e. “the guru who doesn’t eat”)cosecharoja.org. This piece not only recounts his purported inedia (not eating since 2006, and later not drinking) but also documents serious allegations against him by former followers – five women from different countries, one of whom filed an official complaint for abuse and obtained a restraining order. Such coverage is unquestionably independent of the subject and addresses his activities critically. It disproves the assertion that “almost every reference is self-created or tangential”; on the contrary, we have third-party journalistic investigations directly about him. (Notably, some sources are in Spanish, Croatian, etc., but Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources – the key is their reliability and depth, which these sources have in abundance).
-Widespread notability: Coverage in multiple countries and languages underscores that Truviano is a notable figure in the realm of fringe spirituality. Even Italian media have taken note of his case. For instance, a 2016 interview published in Cinquantamila (Italy) highlighted an “uomo… che da otto anni non beve e non mangia… Si chiama Victor Truviano” – translated: a man “who for eight years has not drunk or eaten… His name is Victor Truviano. In that piece, Truviano is cited as one of the extreme examples of “alimentazione pranica” (pranic nourishment). This international attention is exactly the kind of significant coverage that satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The subject is not a mere local guru with self-published claims, but someone who has drawn global press coverage and other behavioral and scientific scrutiny.
-Article improvement is preferable to deletion: The nominators’ concerns about “extraordinary claims” and sourcing can be addressed by improving the article, rather than deleting a notable topic. Wikipedia’s role is to document what reliable sources report – including fringe or extraordinary topics – with due weight and skepticism. In this case, the existing sources provide the necessary material to write a neutral, verifiable article: one that states Truviano’s / "Mahavatar Swami Bhai" (his new name) claims as claims, and also notes the scientific consensus that such breatharian claims defy known biology (as El País and Antena Zadar did by consulting experts). There is no policy that mandates deleting an article solely because the subject’s claims are unusual; what matters is that the subject is notable and that claims are presented with appropriate attribution. Here, the threshold is clearly met by multiple reliable sources covering Truviano over many years. Any prior issues with the article (e.g. improper sourcing or tone) can be fixed by incorporating the high-quality sources above. In conclusion, the subject’s notability is well-established by reliable coverage, so the article should be kept and improved rather than removed. Franciscoevan (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The Indian articles are either not translatable to English or inaccessible. The Italian source is a passing mention of Truviano in a transcript of a radio interview with another Breatharian, see and not really high profile. Iluzalsipal (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Ignoring the BLUDGEONing replies to every Delete here, while there is merit to some of the Keep views, after a full month, I see a rough consensus that the identified sources do not meet ORGDEPTH. Owen× ☎ 21:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Trybooking

Trybooking (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 sources are terrible with not independent reliable and broad topic coverage. This is not a notable company, at least for Wikipedia. Let zoom to some particular sources: this one is a routine announcement on the not very reliable and quite niche website; the same with this - it's not a reliable coverage, nor a reliable website and we need multiple sources (not a series of news from 1 website). this one is almost good, aside from the fact it's slightly overfocused on the citations from the company members, but it could be okay. this one is a reliable but not providing significant coverage, some interview citations and general information focused on the 10 anniversary date. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst work is needed on finding further sourcing, the article meets WP:NCORP already and shouldn't be deleted. and are from a specialized trade publication The Ticketing Business with editorial oversight, meeting WP:RS. The article also has secondary sourcing from two notable sites already. Many platforms similar to Trybooking have limited media coverage, but are used extensively. A quick search through Google News finds TryBooking referenced by a significant number of events, and although these sources are not suitable for including in the article, shows broader market presence. also shows that they have over $1 billion in ticket sales cumulative, also establishing wider notability.
    I will have a look at this page again to see if I can expand, particularly to see if there is any negative coverage that I haven't identified. Agent Squash (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    I've added a controversies section now with more notable sources (including the SMH). Agent Squash (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources 2 and 6 are fine, directly about the company, The Sydney newspaper source in the article is fine, but that's not enough. I found this , vaguely mentions being an "advertorial" at the bottom, so it's iffy for a RS. We have enough to show CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the sources has the reliable deeply focused on the subject coverage. Number 2 for instance has only quotations from the management:
Mr McAlister, who was CEO at POLi Payments, said TryBooking learnt .....
“We waited a full 10 years to move international so we could focus completely on our existing customers,” he said
According to the CEO, the expansion to New Zealand, launching in November...
“Kiwis love similar live events that we Aussies love; music events, local sporting events, education events,” Mr McAlister said.
Another source :

"The event organiser has not cooperated.....," TryBooking CEO Jeff McAlister said.--2603:7000:6240:47C2:64E9:EC55:8041:BD69 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Response to 2603:7000:6240:47C2:64E9:EC55:8041:BD69 - This argument misunderstands WP:NCORP. Coverage needs to be "significant", not "deeply focused". Equally, the claim that Source 2 only has quotations from management is demonstrably false, as the article contains substantial independent reporting beyond the CEO's quotes. This is standard business journalism with management quotes providing context within substantial independent reporting. Furthermore, the source isn't editorial, and as per WP:THEAUSTRALIAN is considered generally reliable. The same applies with Source 6 - there is substantial original journalism in the article, and the quote of the business doesn't damage that. The article is already beyond the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. I note this IP has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Agent Squash (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Response to Agent Squash - your argument misunderstands the WP:ORGIND part of NCORP - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There is zero "independent content" in source 2 - each factoid is attributable directly to the company and it is clear that this reference can be classified as an advertorial. HighKing++ 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The following is a look at the references in the article:
-
More information Source, Independent Content? ...
Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent Content? In-depth? Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"How TryBooking quietly built a $1 billion ticketing empire". news.com.au. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No An Advertorial that relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs No There is no in-depth independent content - the last "A Costly Legal Dispute" section is brief
No Another advertorial that relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs No There is insufficient independent in-depth information
No Reads like a press release and clearly regurgitating company news No No in-depth content sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH
Yes No Insufficient in-depth content *about the company* (none) fails CORPDEPTH.
Yes No Insufficient in-depth content *about the company* (none) fails CORPDEPTH.
Close
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Response to @HighKing - I am sorry, but I must dispute the accuracy of your analysis of the sources. Source 1 is published by a reputable news organisation, has an editorial byline, and contains editorial judgement and analysis including a revenue comparison with Eventbrite. Although the company has provided details for the article in the interview, this does not change the fact it was published by a secondary source which is unaffiliated to the subject, and is not an advertorial. Furthermore, as per WP:CORPDEPTH:
"Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." This article provides a clear overview and discussion about the business.
Source 2 is from another reputable source (see WP:THEAUSTRALIAN), is published with an editorial byline. The Australian also clearly marks sponsored content, which disproves your claim that this is another advertorial. Again, the article provides an overview of the business, meeting WP:CORPDEPTH
The third source could be deemed slightly weaker and could potentially be removed.
I would also disagree with your analysis of the sources from The Music and SMH. These sources provide analysis and evaluation of the controversy, and contain discussion about the business' approach to handling refunds. In addition, The Music even provides commentary from a competitor (Oztix) challenging TryBooking's business practice.
If we were to dismiss sources as per your interpretation, we would practically have no business content on Wikipedia. You appear to require that each source contain opinion, analysis, investigation, AND fact checking simultaneously. WP:ORGIND doesn't require all elements in every source - it requires that sources include these types of independent content. The Australian provides analysis and fact-checking, while SMH provides investigation. Together, they clearly satisfy WP:NCORP.
On a final note, I note the purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH is to make it possible for articles to be more than a stub - which this article clearly is having been ranked as C class prior to the edits during the AfD process. Agent Squash (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The "more than a stub" comes with the implicit assumption of "not including content covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", which is why you, as the article creator, have to actually explain why it overcomes the presumption created by WP:CORPROUTINE and (for the articles that are something like 75% quotes, 300 out of the 400 or so words like the The Australian article, as well as those covered by WP:TRADES), you have to explain why it meets WP:ORGIND instead of just saying "it's an RS!" "it has a byline!" like that's actually a meaningful response when the issue are the other criteria, not the R part of WP:SIRS. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity on what is expected by the policy. This is my first time being involved in an AfD and I am still getting my head around the nuances of all the policies that impact. That being said, there is no evidence that these articles were advertorials like previously claimed. These articles are standard in the world of business journalism.
I would still argue that the news.com.au, SMH and The Music articles do overcome that assumption, and meet WP:SIRS. The news.com.au article is a full feature analysing how they built their business, providing details on strategy, and analysis such as the comparison to Eventbrite's funding model. Likewise, the articles from the SMH and The Music provide analysis, evaluation and commentary on the festival controversy. Agent Squash (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I posted the meaning of "Independent Content" above (from WP:ORGIND) at the start of my !vote. The relevant sections of GNG/NCORP have been pointed out, but it appears you are unwilling to accept those guidelines. If you wish to convince other editors that those articles meet the relevant criteria, then take on board that ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and next you need to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition. I've already done that, hence my analysis shows they don't. There is zero "Independent Content" in those articles which would then go on to satisfy CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 17:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    I am not unwilling to accept the guidelines, and would like to think I have shown good faith in trying to improve the article and engage with policy through the AfD process. However, your analysis was simply labelling sources as 'advertorial' despite having no evidence to justify that claim, and ignoring the evidence I have provided in previous responses. For example, the news.com.au article compares the funding model of Trybooking to Eventbrite, a major competitor. You have asked for in your separate comment stating that keep votes need to justify the sources - whereas, as per WP:AFDFORMAT, the nominator (and other supporters of deletion) need to justify why it should be deleted. Dismissing major newspapers as advertorials without evidence while ignoring identified independent content (Eventbrite analysis, financial investigation, competitor criticism) appears to be the real obstacle here. Agent Squash (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • An advertorial is "usually written to resemble an objective article and designed to ostensibly look like a legitimate and independent news story". This may not be strictly-speaking an advertorial because it isn't marked as one, but these days, that's a minor point. An article like this, which is essentially an interview sprinkled with some context here and there, is designed to celebrate/promote the company and their business. It has no independent content that can be verified to a source unaffiliated with the subject. You point to comments like "the bootstrapped company has managed to do with comparatively little what Silicon Valley tech giant Eventbrite has done with $176 million worth of venture capital funding" but where is the foundation for this? Without any further explanation or comparison it is relatively meaningless and especially when this company points to Eventbrite as their competition, making it almost a certainty that this "comment" is marketing spin. When you've read many of these advertorials you recognise that the content generally follows the same well-worn and tired pattern - background of founders, some struggles, AHA moment, description of business, differentiation, and future. All positive. Sometimes gushingly so. This also matches the format. You might think this is a wonderful article but it is really just marketing and the author has failed to add any independent content that is also in-depth. HighKing++ 21:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    You've now acknowledged you have no evidence this is an advertorial, yet dismiss the Eventbrite comparison as "marketing spin". The marketing page you highlight first shows up on the Wayback Machine in 2022 - and, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, sources must be evaluated in their original context. The journalist provided an assessment of the funding models five years before the marketing page existed. WP:NEWSORG also establishes that organisations such as news.com.au have editorial oversight and are presumed reliable absent specific evidence to the contrary. Your assertion that any article mentioning founders backgrounds and business descriptions is an advertorial suggests a biased evaluation of the source. Independent content exists when journalists provide analysis and context beyond company statements - of which the news.com.au, SMH and The Music article all provide. Agent Squash (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • An advertorial should be marked as such, which I've said, but if you'd prefer to discount the fact that this article exhibits all the hallmarks (except the label) then you're failing to grasp the meaning behind the label - that is, this article was written to resemble an objective article and designed to ostensibly look like a legitimate and independent news story - then I suppose there's not much more that can be said. Also this company has been positioning itself as an "alternative" to eventbrite since 2017, even to the point of placing "eventbrite-alternative" and "trybooking-vs-eventbrite" SEO tags in webpages since then. I've invited you previously to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition of in-depth independent content, still waiting. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of AfD, based on your use of CONTEXTMATTERS and NEWSORG which go to whether a source is reliable or not. There is a difference between a "reliable source" and a source which meets the criteria for establishing notability. Nobody here is arguing the source is not reliable. A journalist can faithfully regurgitate content from a company exec or source in a reputable publication (such as this article) and meets WP:RS but that doesn't mean it meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. So saying stuff like "significant mentions" are notable for the purposes of NCORP is incorrect - a "mention" by definition isn't in-depth independent content. HighKing++ 15:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Again, you have offered no evidence this is an advertorial other than it looks like one - this isn't in line with the wording or the application of the guidelines. Again, as mentioned previously, I have highlighted the significant sections of the articles which meet the criteria - including the comparison against competitors, which you haven't chosen to engage with. It is standard practice for businesses to have comparison pages and mentions - indeed, Eventbrite directly mention them on their Australian pages - the page you linked didn't exist in 2017, and the fact that it does doesn't have any baring on the article itself. In depth corporate articles are mentioned explicitly in WP:CORPDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.. As mentioned in the other chain, the sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notability criteria. Agent Squash (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll add one more comment just to highlight what total BS this article is and I'll ignore you arguing with yourself about things I never said anyway. Let's look at the facts on the news.com.au advertorial which is 38 sentences. A third is direct quotes and a further third is "lead-in" or "lead-out" sentences (setting context for the quotes). We can also ignore sentences that don't provide any information about the company. We're down to about 10 sentences, being generous. We can ignore claims such as "Melbourne-based start-up has become Australia’s number one self-service ticketing engine, and its husband-and-wife owners just celebrated their first $1 billion in ticket sales" since this claim is based on information that isn't publically available or verifiable and must have originated from the company (i.e. regurgitating company marketing hype). One of your big claims appears to center around a single sentence that "the bootstrapped company has managed to do with comparatively little what Silicon Valley tech giant Eventbrite has done with $176 million worth of venture capital funding" - something you've described as "Eventbrite analysis, financial investigation, competitor criticism". You might prefer to keep missing the point but this is another unverifiable regurgitated marketing claim. Going further, a year later in a podcast for Foundr magazine and channel, one of the founders says (about 20mins in) "I think we've turned over, our turnover in ticket sales, is a billion dollars in that time" following on from a comment about the company going since 2008, so for 10 years. Really vague - and yet according to your take on the printed article from over a year previously, this revenue figure was calculated by the author as a result of independent financial investigation and analysis. Experienced editors can see this article is laughable marketing BS based on founders hyping their own company, and the publication faithfully and reliably repeating what has been said. HighKing++ 17:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but I have tried to assume good faith throughout this discussion whilst you continue to steamroll the argument and fail to engage with the criticisms provided. Again, calling my arguments "total BS" whilst selectively analysing the source itself isn't being civil and itself an example of WP:IDHT. The Eventbrite comparison alone demonstrates editorial synthesis - the journalist independently researched Eventbrite's public funding records to contextualise the business model. This is textbook independent analysis as per WP:ORGIND. Your personal view that positivity = advertorial is also, itself, a strawman argument. Information provided by the company in an article isn't unreliable - and your assumption that it is ignores the basic realities of journalism. The $1 billion figure appearing consistently across multiple sources over years suggests verification, not repetition. As mentioned previously, the standard you are attempting to enforce is near impossible - if we dismiss any information that could theoretically originate from a company, no business would meet NCORP. The founder's later vague comment doesn't retroactively invalidate earlier reporting any more than a CEO downplaying revenues proves earlier financial reports were fabricated. Agent Squash (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Please. I didn't call your arguments BS, I said the *article* is "laughable marketing BS". The NCORP test is really very simple. If this company was truly notable, somebody would have written an in-depth article about it without having to rely on interviews with the founders or Press Releases. Lots of businesses meet NCORP criteria because these sources exist. You're a relatively inexperienced editor, you've admitted you're still getting your head around the guidelines/policies, so perhaps the many editors here who have participated at NCORP AfDs for years and years know the criteria and have experience in spotting sources that fail NCORP. My advice is to let editors have their say in peace. HighKing++ 10:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Some sources, such as source 1 and source 2, support the arguments for retaining the article in the deletion discussion. So, best of luck! Baqi:) (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    Baqi, the same request (to actually discuss the criteria) applies to yourself as well. Please actually explain why you think an interview (SMH, or source 2) meets WP:ORGIND, when on the face of it, it would typically not. As a new page reviewer, I have to assume you are capable of doing so, rather than just pointing at two sources without elaboration. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Moved response to Agent Squash to talk page, less directly relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Alpha3031 - there must be some meaningful engagement around the content in those articles rather than bold assertions with no supporting argument. I'll repeat what I said above. I posted the meaning of "Independent Content" above (from WP:ORGIND) at the start of my !vote. If you wish to convince other editors that those articles meet the relevant criteria, then take on board that ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and next you need to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition. HighKing++ 17:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agent Squash points out there is a comparison to Eventbrite in the news.com.au article. This is, strictly speaking, correct, and it it indeed secondary analysis, but I'm not really convinced a couple of instances of things like

    The couple invested “several million dollars” in the business, which sprang from an idea hatched when Ms Dunoon was struggling to organise an event for her kids’ basketball team.

    While it sounds like a lot, the bootstrapped company has managed to do with comparatively little what Silicon Valley tech giant Eventbrite has done with $176 million worth of venture capital funding — albeit on a local scale — using proceeds from the sale of a previous business.

    meets the NCORP criteria considered jointly. I will grant that the second sentence here is plausibly independent and also secondary, but the totality of such content in that source is not sufficient to give an overview of the company rather than a couple of dot points without context, which I will assert is the reason for our subsidiary points of ORGDEPTH. Searches in ProQuest and Gale, although returning many hits, similarly did not provide anything better for our use. I do not see the article meeting our inclusion criteria, even to the marginal range (that SIRS recommends we usually exclude) from the sources I have been able to review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Alpha3031 I appreciate your acknowledgement that independent content exists. However, I think we're missing the wood for the trees by examining individual sources in isolation when, collectively, they provide the "overview of the company rather than a couple of dot points". The article demonstrates sustained coverage across multiple newsworthy events spanning 14 years - the news.com.au feature covering from 2008-2016 including business model analysis, the coverage of controversy regarding the Maitreya festival including strong evidence from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Music, details about international expansion from The Australian and the trades sources about technology development. This isn't a couple of dot points, but documents a broad business history including both positive and negative coverage. What company PR would arrange coverage for a lawsuit?
    Per WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources (and the article as a whole) provide overview, analysis (Eventbrite and Ticketek comparison), investigation into the festival scandal, and evaluation including competitor (Oztix) and regulatory criticism. This totality has allowed the creation of a comprehensive article that goes beyond a stub as required by WP:NCORP. Agent Squash (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    Each individual source used for notability must meet each of WP:SIRS, that is, all three of the multiple sources must meet ORGDEPTH (and the other criteria) jointly and severally, each on their own. I don't really think this is unclear in how the guideline was written? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, WP:SIRS does make this quite clear. The sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant mentions from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notabilitiy criteria. The point of WP:ORGDEPTH is that the article should be more than a stub - and this article already gives an overview of the company rather than a couple of 'dot points'. Agent Squash (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acknowledging that the sources only contain mentions. Significant *mentions* are (by definition) not in-depth. Nobody here is questioning the sources are WP:RS. The point of ORGDEPTH is that the *source* must contain deep or significant coverage - and that content must also be independent. HighKing++ 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, this was a typo on my behalf - and it is disappointing that you are jumping at this. To correct my statement - The sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notability criteria. Agent Squash (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Sources can be used for two purposes. The first purpose if to support facts and details within the article. At the beginning of this AfD, your first arguments were focused on this type of source - that the topic was notable because the sources were reliable, secondary, independent, etc. This ignores the primary NCORP criteria of ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You admitted "I am still getting my head around the nuances of all the policies that impact". Fair enough. But when sourcing is shown to fail NCORP (e.g. SIRS, ORGIND, CORPDEPTH), the argument reverts to "significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources", which is about the publisher or the publication, and not the content which is where we are saying there is an issue. HighKing++ 13:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't really understand what the clause I think we're missing the wood for the trees by examining individual sources in isolation is intended to mean, then, when you agree that SIRS requires us to examine the sources individually. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair question. To clarify, I'm not suggesting we ignore SIRS requirement that each source independently meet the criteria, which I believe they do:
  • news.com.au: Multiple paragraphs analysing business model, growth strategy, and competitive positioning
  • SMH: Detailed investigation of legal proceedings with specific amounts and court records
  • The Music: In-depth coverage of the controversy including regulatory responses
My "wood for the trees" comment was addressing the dissection of individual sentences rather than recognising that each article provides substantive coverage of different newsworthy aspects. Per ORGDEPTH, each provides "description, commentary, analysis, or evaluation" - not just the same press release rewritten. The focus on individual sentences misses that these are substantial articles providing exactly the type of coverage NCORP envisions. Agent Squash (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I've looked at all of the sources provided here and none of them meet WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    I note your assessment. However there has been detailed discussion on the sources. Could you clarify how the sources, including legal proceedings, regulatory investigations and competitor criticism fail CORPDEPTH? These represent independent investigation and analysis of controversy, not company-provided content. Agent Squash (talk) 19:14, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Indian Story of an Author

The Indian Story of an Author (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 book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian Express is an interview, and rest two are promotional articles by wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. The author appears to have self-published this book out of frustration with the publishing process, leaving most of the pages blank as a protest. It strains credulity to believe that anyone would care enough to write about a blank self-published book, unless they're being paid to do so. Astaire (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete on WP:NEWSORGINDIA grounds. Unless sources outside of those bounds become available and verifiable then the book does appear to be promo potentially or just otherwise non-notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:11, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mehari Okubamicael

Mehari Okubamicael (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 lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only references here or on the corresponding wikis are databases and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per lack of a clear redirect target. Svartner (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per nom Monhiroe (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Failing WP:SPORTBASIC as this "former cyclist" did not establish notability during career and is unlikely to ever be notable now. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:01, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus that this article subject passes the notability guideline for creative professionals. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Rosalind Ross (writer)

Rosalind Ross (writer) (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)

Half of the sources referenced in the article are tabloid-style sources listing supposed "facts" about Mel Gibson's girlfriend. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She has received no coverage demonstrating her own notability in WP:RS. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Film Creator: Although I am not necessarily disagreeing with you (per below), note that the guideline article includes the caveat: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I am unconvinced that the subject has a sufficient amount of WP:SIGCOV, and some of the existing citations are of questionable quality (like the legit.ng source), i'm inclined to think she may pass WP:FILMMAKER guideline on the basis of point 3:
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);"
However, that does not mean that the subject can be given a free pass if they do not also meet WP:GNG, which I am not yet wholly convinced by. I also searched contemporary newspaper archives with little discussing her independently. Either way, I am on the fence, but leaning weak keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Here's another film person whose biggest work was bombed by the critics - we're taking 42% from Rotten Tomatoes. Bad reviews can make a person notable, but is that and boyfriend to a notorious antisemite what she really wants? Bearian (talk) 19:42, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Long Live the Sullied

Long Live the Sullied (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 book, promotion/ advertisement. Fails GNG, NBOOK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Whimsical Lover. Zuck28 (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Source 2 has no reviewer byline, which WP:NEWSORGINDIA highlights as a cause for concern: use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer. This is especially true for people, companies and entities of borderline notability, which is the case here.
  • Source 3 is from the same website and also about the book's prequel, not the book itself.
  • Source 4 is the same website that I discarded over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief for being overly promotional.
I haven't examined the first source in detail, but even with only one good source, it would fail WP:NBOOK anyway. Astaire (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Over this series of nominations, the Deccan Chronicle source comes closest to being an independent RS, but it's a very basic review, and one isn't enough. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability but also WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems are sufficient to delete the article on problematic undisclosed paid advertising-type review pieces.Iljhgtn (talk) 07:42, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to FPT Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

FPT Software

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

Promotional article on a company that has never cited any in-depth, independent sources and has almost never been substantially edited by independent contributors. No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have found a computerweekly and bloomberg source which might convey notability. However as one (Bloomberg) is paywalled and the other requires an account I have not actually been able to check this. Most other coverage that I could find (using google news) do not appear to provide notability and/or are not actually independent from FPT Software. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    In my opinion the Computerweekly peace lacks independent content; most of the article is based on an interview with the founder. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    For whatever reason I can now access the Computerweekly article. I do largely agree with your opinion, while I do believe that there are large portions of independent analysis/commentary this is sufficiently hard to determine (due to the fact that some seeming quotes are not marked with “ ”). As such I would argue it should be excluded under WP:ORGIND not because it neccessarily lacks independent content but because If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing the sources, now for my analysis of them:
    Forbes - This is written by a contributor, consensus amongst editors is that articles written by Forbes contributors are not reliable sources (see WP:FORBESCON) unless they also appear in a print edition which this doesn’t seem to.
    CIO.com - Provides significant, seemingly independent coverage, and is not discussed at WP:RS/P.
    Thanks again, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Merge to FPT Corporation as per HighKing; While the article is entirely unsourced, there are a few sources which could help show notability. Namely the CIO.com source, which does count as a source to show notability; the computerweekly source, which at a stretch may contribute to notability but probably doesn’t; and the bloomberg source, which as yet no one has accessed and given opinions on meaning that it can’t help contribute notability right now.
    As such I don’t currently think that notability can be demonstrated, but I believe that the bloomberg source could (if anyone accesses it and tells us what it contains) tip the balance in my eyes. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to FPT Corporation as per WP:ATD. HighKing++ 20:25, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Diary of a Whimsical Lover

Diary of a Whimsical Lover (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 book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief. Zuck28 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • The first reference is a broken link, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive.
  • The second and fourth references have the same issues that I raised over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief - lack of a reviewer byline and overly promotional content, respectively.
  • The third reference is a brief three-sentence plot summary without expressing any opinion on the book. Doesn't qualify for criterion #1 of WP:BKCRIT.
Astaire (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete- lacks SIGCOV on my searches so far. Most of the hits are either from Book selling websites or Brief book reviews from Blogs.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Been seeing a lot of recent AfD nominations where this is the case, but another fail on WP:NEWSORGINDIA grounds. The article needs other sources to pass WP:NBOOK then. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Having seen this AfD , I have no doubt the same concerns are present and that this article is better off deleted. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:54, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Beyond Countless Grief

Beyond Countless Grief (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 book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. No sources except two poorly written press releases/non-bylined promotional pieces and an unreliable dead link. Possibly a case of COI/UPE. User: Bond111 and their alternative account user:Dial911 were heavily involved in the creation and editing of the articles related to the author Gaurav Sharma (author) and his non-notable books. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Language, Literature, India, Delhi, and Canada. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Can't find anything online apart from the sources mentioned above. Looking through databases I have access to shows no results whatsoever. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK with serious WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. I can't find evidence that the first source even exists. The second source byline is "News Desk Team". It is highly unorthodox for a book review not to mention the reviewer's name, and it also goes against their own editorial standards : Articles must mention all individuals who worked on the piece, including authors, contributors, and editors. The third source is overly promotional (there are headers for "Sponsored Guest Post" and "Brand Partnership") and does not look like a reputable news source (the website no longer even exists). Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Astaire raising the serious WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems, the article would need new sources to properly pass WP:NBOOK. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:45, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oseleye Ojuka

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Regional party official and had an unsuccessful primary campaign for a governorship. The first source cited is a passing mention, the second is about his primary bid, it's not nothing but there's nothing else that I can find that rises to WP:SIGCOV, just occasional brief quotes in news articles. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: He's Christian, runs a business and didn't qualify for an election... That's about the extent of this article. Very much non-notable. Even the coverage in the article is rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP: TNT. The writing is atrocious. Much of it is nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete no apparent merge or redirect target for this otherwise non-notable BLP. Delete it and WP:STARTOVER. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – per nom and the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:02, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Luigi Mangione#Public image. Editors are also welcome to merge content into 20/20 (American TV program) and any other relevant articles as secondary targets. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20

Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20 (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:NFILM. The couple of sources confirms that WP:ITEXISTS but there's no in-depth coverage. मल्ल (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime. मल्ल (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Incredibly standard 'rush to air' episode of a newsmagazine dealing with this type of news regularly as a true crime show. There is nothing unique about this episode of 20/20 compared to other breaking news 'special editions' of the series. Nathannah • 📮 16:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete are there other 20/20 standalone specials that have their own entries? Only one I saw was Bad Romance: A Special Edition of 20/20, which is actually a series. If anything, I think it would make sense for some info/refs from Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20 to be pulled onto the 20/20 entry, under Special episodes. I understand the level of media attention this topic is receiving, but still needs to follow guidelines rather than be existing due to sensationalism--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Selective merge/redirect to Luigi Mangione#Public image per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Luigi Mangione#Public image says, Mangione has been the subject of multiple documentaries, TV shows, news specials, and a satirical comedy musical. This paragraph could be expanded to briefly discuss Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20 in a sentence or two. I found several sources about the documentary film: 1, 2, 3, and 4 but they largely were published before the documentary film was aired and are about how to watch it. I did not find any reviews of the documentary film.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Special interviews and reports can be of unique note. But I am not seeing it explained how this special held such note. SecretName101 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on a merge target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable episode. Could be a brief mention in the article about 20/20 as it was made and aired quickly after the event, but no lasting significance. Sourcing is only from the time it aired ... Nothing since that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge into Luigi's article and/or 20/20. Metallurgist (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge into Luigi Mangione#Public image. This seems like a pretty clear redirect target and would fit well into discussions about how Mangione has been perceived/discussed by the public since December last year. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:04, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Adib Sobhani

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

No evidence of notability. Sources appear to be routine coverage, and there isn't much evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Fails: WP:GNG. Also possible WP:PE. CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: The existing references in the current article do not provide significant coverage (please see WP:SIGCOV), and the first reference is entirely non-reliable. I don't think the subject passes WP:GNG in any way. Baqi:) (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • delete Looks promotional Metallurgist (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Rotten tomatoes and a few passing mentions do not establish notability to keep the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:48, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Philip Krejcarek

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. (Created & re-created by the person the article is about; deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Krejcarek. The new version has even less evidence of notability than the deleted version, but it is not similar enough to justify a G4 deletion.) JBW (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. JBW (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Significantly less detailed, less well sourced, and with less evidence of notability than the deleted version. Sadly, WP:CSD#G4 only allows speedy deletion for substantially identical re-creations, not merely for re-creations that do not provide new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip Krejcarek satisfies WP:GNG for artists. He has exhibited in institutional venues like the Lynden Sculpture Garden, whose exhibition catalogue details his conceptual photography and sculpture work. His work is in the permanent collections of major museums (Milwaukee Art Museum, Denver Art Museum, etc.) and the Waukesha Public Library. He’s authored instructional photography texts published by a major educational press, and his awards include nationally competitive scholarships and grants. These sources are independent and establish his notability in the art world. I’ve updated the article with citations and can provide further improvements if needed.Sweetabena (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    The sources you added for the claims of being in the permanent collections of these museums do not actually mention these museums at all. Google Scholar cannot find any hits for "Milwaukee Art Musem" "Krejcarek". And some of the other sources that you added are tagged as being generated by an LLM. Are those claims even true? Did you check them yourself or did you believe that an AI hallucination was valid? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, anything generated by an LLM should be expunged from article space, since machines that spew out statistically plausible strings of words are the opposite of trustworthy. ChatGPT is the anti-encyclopedia, and we should show zero tolerance to it. LLM implies TNT. Second, there isn't enough reliable, independent sourcing (either in the article or elsewhere) to make a case for notability, so there's no point in trying to write a replacement. He has written books, for example, but we'd need multiple published reviews to make a case that he meets our standard for notable authors. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to note, I’m not the original creator of this article. I only made some good-faith edits to improve its structure and sourcing. I wasn’t trying to restore previously deleted content or push a specific outcome. I appreciate the concerns raised and trust the community to reach a fair consensus. If anything I added fell short of expectations, feel free to revise or remove as needed.Sweetabena (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    Can you please respond to the specific questions above re AI use rather than merely praising yourself with bland platitudes? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: Not a single one of the references currently in the article is an independent source. There's a book by Philip Krejcarek himself, a page announcing an event at which he was a presenter, and websites of three places selling or displaying his work. I have also confirmed that, as David Eppstein has said, some sources which have been cited don't mention the claims for which they are given as references. JBW (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-published and non-independent sources are unreliable and do not support claims of notability. Claim made above and in the article is that the person's work is "in the permanent collections of major museums (Milwaukee Art Museum, Denver Art Museum, etc.)" My search for "Krejcarek" in the Denver Art Museum collections found only that "We're sorry, but no results matched your search query." My search for "Krejcarek" in the Milwaukee Art Museum collection found only "No results for search Krejcarek." Similarly at the Haggerty Museum of Art at Marquette University, "No results found for Krejcarek.” Asparagusstar (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did the same sort of search as Asparagusstar (talk), with the same result, he's apparently not actually in the permanent collections of those museums, although he may have participated in group exhibits there. I also looked for book reviews of his non-selfpublished books without success. Jahaza (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Subject hasn't gained any notability since June 2024, when we first deleted the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I tried cleaning it up a bit by consolidating duplicate citations and ChatGPT hallucination/citation errors. All of the museum collections failed verification when checked against the actual collection registries of the museums. (These are probably more AI/LLM errors). The only collection that checked out is for a local library, which does not in any way pass WP:NARTIST. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources could be found. He's a photographer and teacher doing his job; photographers are not inherently notable, nor are academics. Does not pass WP:NPROF as his H-index score on Google Scholar and on Scopus is zero. Netherzone (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - per lack of proper sourcing and arguments made at first AfD etc. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per David Eppstein and applying WP:CSD#G4 as most relevant. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:49, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Benedicta Neysa Nathania

Benedicta Neysa Nathania (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)

Based on the user name, this is an autobiography. There is no significant coverage to establish notability. Doing her post-doc, there is no indication that the specific notability for academics is met either. There are also this odd claim Benedicta is the female Secretary-General of the United Nations since 2021, still, she is kept as the ace of the United Nations and not publicized as his position. There is simply no such position. If it does exist and not publicized, then it isn't a significant position. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

National Animal Rights Day

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

There is insufficient coverage of the subject of this page in reliable sources to warrant notability. The only reliable coverage that I could find is The Guardian article that is included in the page. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Additional citations added Ayelette (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep: The Guardian and the Calgary news station give details about the event, should have enough for a basic article. It's been an event for 15 years, so it's a new event, showing lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least in its current state. I removed significant copyvios of the organisation's website, and there is now only a stub sentence and the references left, in case anyone wants to use them as the basis of a better article. I would have nominated for speedy deletion under {{db-copyvio}} had I realised the extent first off. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - can I ask someone, maybe Ayelette to check the Guardian URL please? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/06/animal-rights-activists-hold-funerals-for-farm-animals 404s for me, and I haven't been able to find an archived copy or an article elsewhere with the same title. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    I swear I saw it when I did a Gnews search... Regardless, I found these sources as well. , . Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Activists to Gather in L.A. for 14th National Animal Rights Day". Westside Current. 2024-05-30. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "An expanded number of animal rights organizations will gather in Los Angeles this weekend for the 14th annual National Animal Rights Day, an event that honors the billions of animals killed by humans every year and advocates for the end of factory farming. The Los Angeles event, one of more than 160 being held worldwide, will begin at noon Sunday on the north lawn of Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd. ... As in past years, volunteers dressed in black will hold the bodies of dead animals as attendees observe moments of silence. ... Activists from the four global organizations will be joined by animal- loving celebrities. Past guests have included musician Moby and actors Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Alexandra Paul, Donna D'Errico and Debra Wilson."

    2. Sklar, Debbie L. (2024-05-30). "Activists to Gather in San Diego for National Animal Rights Day". Times of San Diego. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Animal rights organizations will gather in San Diego this weekend for the annual National Animal Rights Day. This event honors the billions of animals killed by humans every year and advocates for the end of factory farming. The San Diego event, one of more than 160 being held worldwide and organized by the non-profit Our Planet, Theirs Too will begin at 3 p.m. Sunday at Balboa Park. As in past years, volunteers dressed in black will hold posters of dead animals as attendees observe moments of silence. Those animals serve to represent all non-humans killed for food, clothing, and medical experiments, organizers said."

    3. "Activists Observe Animal Rights Day By Holding 'Funerals' For Dead Farm Critters". KCAL-TV. 2019-06-02. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Animal Rights Day was observed in 35 cities around the world Sunday. In many places, including Los Angeles, people held mock "funerals" of the dead to illustrate the point. ... Many celebrities were involved in the LA event -- namely Joaquin Phoenix and "Baywatch" star Donna D'Errico. But they weren't what was gathering all the attention down Beverly Boulevard -- it was the bodies of the dead animals."

    4. Skelton, Jess (2025-06-01). "Pictures: National Animal Rights Day march in Bournemouth". Bournemouth Daily Echo. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "On Sunday June 1, many people joined together to march through Bournemouth town centre for National Animal Rights Day. Starting their silent march just after 11am, the campaigners walked from Bournemouth Pier to Bournemouth Triangle in solidarity. The animal lovers joined thousands of others across the world as they took part in an event shared with more than 160 other towns and cities. The goal for the march was to inform, educate and shine a light on the suffering inflicted on animals by humans."

    5. Singh, Vijay (2017-06-03). "National Animal Rights Day to be held at Juhu Beach on Sunday". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "India is participating for the first time in The National Animal Rights Day (NARD) observed worldwide. Mumbai is one of the four Indian cities (others being Dharamshala, Hyderabad, and Pune) out of more than 20 cities around the globe coordinating to pay tribute to animals that die in human hands. Mumbai based activists will assemble at Juhu Beach on Sunday evening, June 4, for this event to highlight the rising incidents of animal cruelties. Established in 2011 by a non-profit organization called 'Our Planet. Theirs Too', NARD was conducted for the first time only in New York City."

    6. Thebus, Shakirah (2024-06-03). "NARD marks the inaugural Animal Rights Day in SA". Independent Online. ProQuest 3063147218. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Animal rights activists and organisations gathered to commemorate the inaugural National Animal Rights Day (NARD) in South Africa yesterday, reiterating the need for greater awareness and protection of animals. Attendees were told to wear black with the event commencing with a march in Three Anchor Bay followed by a commemoration programme that included speeches, vegan food, signing a Declaration of Animal Rights, and a silent disco, at the Hamilton’s Rugby Club in Green Point."

    7. "Remembering the voiceless who lost their lives because of human greed". Hindustan Times. 2019-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Animal lovers and animal rights activists in Pune will join thousands around the world today, to commemorate the 9th National Animal Rights Day. ... Established by the non-profit "Our Planet. Theirs Too" in 2011, the National Animal Rights Day (NARD) is annually observed across the globe on the first Sunday of June. The day is observed to give a voice to animals and raising awareness regarding their rights, until all animals are free from enslavement and their rights are established and protected by law."

    8. Pointing, Charlotte (2022-10-17). "Activists From 43 Countries Joined Together To Memorialize All Animals Exploited And Killed By Humans". Plant Based News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Our Planet. Theirs Too. has released a new video documenting its 12th National Animal Rights Day (NARD) event, which took place in June 2022. Every year, the animal rights activist group, founded by Aylam Orian, hosts NARD on the first Sunday of June. The idea is to honor all of the animals who have been killed in the food industry, as well as other industries, like fashion, the wild animal trade, scientific research, and more. Protestors stand silently while they hold posters of abused animals, and on some occasions, they hold real dead animals. This year’s event took place in 43 countries, including Canada, the US, Australia, Mexico, Chile, Germany, Nigeria, Norway, Iran, and Israel."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG per last comment. If anything, the page should be expanded to show notability from the sources to prevent attacks on the grounds of notability in the future but given the widespread coverage, it should not be deleted. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:44, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Kramat of Sheikh Suleiman (Bainskloof)

Kramat of Sheikh Suleiman (Bainskloof) (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 references. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only anecdotal reports kept on family websites and other self-published sources. In the main, what is recorded is oral history and there seem to be no reliable sources or peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. Geoff | Who, me? 18:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Jasmine Kondrakiewicz

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG as a former college basketball player and now assistant coach. References are mostly passing with other players or statistical in nature. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep, SIGCOV including Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, National Collegiate Athletic Association, NBC, Spectrum News SDGB1217 (talk) 10:29, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Daria Lodikova

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

Tennis player with a highest singles ranking of 296 and doubles of 397. All the sourcing is passing mentions in drawsheets, results pages and articles about other players. At the previous AFD in 2023 this was draftified for better sourcing to be found but that has not happened and I am unable to find anything substantial. I strongly suggest editors read the previous AFD discussion before voting. Fails SIGCOV and should be deleted. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Russia. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete If it was TOOSOON in 2023 and now in 2025 she's either 296th or 500 and something... She's not notable. Lack of any sort of sourcing reinforces that fact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Gsearch only brings up match websites or the WTA. She's 400th something now, if that helps... Very non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Made her WTA Tour debut after qualifying for the main draw of the 2025 Iași Open singles main draw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecihi91 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything in my searches that's even close to a significant, independent coverage of the player. While she did qualify for the main draw of Iasi, per WP:NSPORT/FAQ, which WP:NTENNIS is also a part of, says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it". No reliable sources cover her or the Iasi result beyond match stats or databases. All of her Futures titles are the lower tiers of W15 to W35, so nothing else from WP:NTENNIS criteria to add to make it a more stronger case. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Something does not make sense. She's allegedly made hundreds of thousands of dollars to play tennis and came close to the bottom of the barrel? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was happy to draft this before, based on a presumption that she might pass WP:GNG in the future. Given that GNG still isn't met, I'm happy for this to be deleted. Failing GNG is far, far more important than a marginal passing of NTENNIS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While I'm on the fence regarding the applicability of SK criterion #3, I see clear consensus to keep the page. Renaming and changing the focus of the page are outside the scope of AfD, and may be pursued editorially. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the required WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
    If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
    So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
    Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep, but with stipulations. Per my BEFORE I decided to carry out since the nom did not specify if they did one, I found one strong hit from a PHD professor, and another good one on the concept of female superhero teams (Requires Springer access). At a glance there seemed to be other hits of varying sizes and scope, but a lot of it was focused on the FF, Avengers, or X-Men. I'd say there's enough for a "teams" list, but my main issue lies in the other half.
I have to agree that the list is definitely COATRACK-esque. What defines a "team" or an "organization" that they should be discussed together? Something like Advanced Idea Mechanics or S.H.I.E.L.D. are organizations, but they are not "teams" like the sources I've seen seem to define the Avengers or FF, and don't seem to have any similarities beyond having multiple people in one place. I additionally found no strong SIGCOV hits for "organizations" as a subject, barring specific organizations like Hydra or SHIELD which have individual analysis.
I feel this list needs to be ironed down to just "teams", but I do not feel like this list needs to be deleted and has a valid case for staying. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia:TNT to make this focus only on the individual "teams", removing any of these organizations since they don't really have connections. I'd advise the nom to take a look through the individual groups and try cleaning those up though, since I doubt many of them are notable, and it would help this list since it would determine what needs to be mentioned here and what could be reasonably discussed in another article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Your first source discusses superhero teams in comparison/contrast with supervillain organizations on p. 50, but I can only see a snippet so don't know the extent. So there is some connection made. Additionally, our category system currently treats Category:Marvel Comics teams as a subset of Category:Marvel Comics organizations. But let's assume for a moment that "Marvel Comics teams" is a notable topic and "Marvel Comics organizations" is not. We still have a number of stand-alone articles on Marvel Comics organizations, so a listing of them at least for navigational purposes makes sense (WP:CLN). According to WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN/WP:ATD-M this should then be a sub-section of a parent list. Topic-wise that could be Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, but it could just as well be a subsection of List of Marvel Comics teams as a closely related subject (again compare the example at WP:ATD-M). All of that however, as I we seem to agree, is an editorial decision and therefore not relevant to the deletion of this list. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this should likely be discussed is moreso my point, whether here or at the talk page, whatever works best for editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
There are sources discussion organizations within the MCU: "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero.", "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?". So I guess there is some argument to make for having a stand-alone Cinematic Universe list. More important is probably the question, if we look at it from a navigational point of view for a moment: Do these two lists refer more to different articles or the same ones? Daranios (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, if the teams have significant overlap and are the same thing except in different mediums, a merge might be worthwhile since then both halves can be discussed together as one concrete whole, but I would suggest that after a thorough cleanup is done to see what content is actually "notable" and both lists are ironed and cleaned up to include the substantial content (I.e, reception/analysis, any dev info available, etc) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I agree that the MCU content needs to be sorted through, but that is best to discuss first at WT:MCU before proceeding with any AfDs to determine a consensus for how to handle those, but that is aside from this AfD. As for this list, I think we may need to WP:TNT it. Either this list is vastly reworked or it is merged into Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, which already has some overlapping entries. Willfully refusing to update many redirects should not be an excuse to not improve an article. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Trailblazer101: I see a lot of room for improvement, but hardly a reason for WP:TNT. Again looking at it from a navigational point of view: There are a number of relevant entities under Category:Marvel Comics organizations, and a lot of blue links here. Assuming that at least a relevant percentage of these are what they are supposed to be (links to articles or redirects to where the topic is treated within another article), there is a lot which currently is useful, while WP:TNT says, start over if there's nothing useful except the title. So to improve it I would say the order should be to more clearly formulate inclusion criterea, then comb through the list according to these, see what we have then. If what remains is comparatively small (which I don't expect), then one can think about a merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations. Thinking about it now, when the list is a whopping 220 kB and the suggested target is 127 kB seems not helpful to me. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I think operating by TNT in spirit but not totally would be an ideal solution, as in the contents of this list are trimmed down significantly to the bare essentials. That could make a potential merge easier and be able to better assess what is actually notable between what is trivial or not that important. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but merging should not be an end in itself. If removing entries not fitting for an encyclopedia article leads to a short list, then that's all nice and good. But if not, then it should stay separate. And the aim should not be "as short as possible", but to include what makes sense to give "access to the sum of all human knowledge" without becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And then comes my ususal view of things: Include blue-linked entries for navigation, including a reasonable summary description; and include entries which are non-notable but on which something can be said in the encyclopedic context. This can mean entries where secondary sources have something to say about them, but not to the extent that warrants a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
While such issues can be brought in task force discussion, it's important to remember that such a forum is heavily biased towards inclusionism for its topic, as it is populated by broadly understood fans of the topic. (This is also a problem that plagues most merge and talk page discussions; and sure, you could make argument in reverse for AfD and like... sigh). Anyway, MCU existence has generated plenty of good sources, but often they tend to estabilish notability of the primary concept, with no need for a MCU-only fork (which generally only adds some info on casting and movie/TV prop creation; even readers are not served by the forking usually - for all but the few key characters/concepts, a MCU section in the main article for whatever topic we are talking about would suffice). Just look at the list nominated here and the MCU equivalent - there's a ton of overlap. I'd suggest merging them - there's no good reason for the split. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Care to count the current percentages of the two lists linking to Marvel Comics themed and MCU-specific articles, respectively? Daranios (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the point? Feel free to count and tell us why it matters, I am honestly curious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Same here, but I don't have the time and energy currently (among other things there are a lot of deletion discussions going on...). The point I've already described above, but to rephrase: How many articles and relevant blue links are there on teams and organizations specific to the MCU as opposed to the comics? Kind of decisive for the question of a separate MCU list is warranted or not with regard to WP:LISTPURP-NAV. Daranios (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. If there is a problem with criteria create a better criteria. Lightoil (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    Just vaguely waving at policies without explaining how it can be cleaned up to be enyclopedic doesn't help. What makes a "good" Marvel team as opposed to a bad one to put on this list? Nobody would ever agree on a criteria that makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename and refocus to Teams in Marvel Comics per Pokelego999. This article is in need of serious clean-up, and I could be persuaded that WP:TNT applies, particularly because we're combining two concepts into a list that generates a lot of WP:IINFO. I don't see a consensus for deleting at this time, so I would support a new article title with a clearer scope to see if it allows us to fix the issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Propulsion#Ground. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ground propulsion

Ground propulsion (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)

When I search the results are mostly about pushing aircraft not the definition in the article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs work and expansion. This article is used in a template as a category header, so its important to take that into consideration, as it will impact the template greatly. Metallurgist (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Propulsion#Ground is the main article for this, and work and expansion is welcome there, potentially merging if appropriate; it can be re-split should there be enough substances and sources to justify a separate page, but I see no reason to keep something this low-quality absent sources on a cohesive topic when there's an appropriate main article already. Reywas92Talk 20:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Reywas suggestion. Metallurgist (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect- seems a good ATD, though was able to find in Google Books this book that at least describes it.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:30, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2009–10 ICC Intercontinental Shield#2009 season without prejudice against selective merging as desired. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Uganda cricket team in Bermuda in 2009

Uganda cricket team in Bermuda in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this "tour" (of 1 match) between 2 minor teams passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

2025 Bermuda Smash Invitational

2025 Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
2024 Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence these season articles meet WP:GNG, as this is just a local cricket tournament with not very much coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Caribbean. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. A competition of 4 non notable teams. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree that this does not meet notability criteria for inclusion. Even the former parent article Bermuda Smash Invitational was deleted as AfD just last year for the same reasons, so there isn't really an appropriate redirect target either. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as Bungle pointed out the parent article itself has been deleted, so definitely not a notable topic. Vestrian24Bio 16:27, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Floodgates principle. I see a consensus against retaining this article for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or work on content in draftspace on their own accord, they are free to do so with proper attribution. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Floodgate effect

Floodgate effect (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)

Possibly specific to Singaporean English as creator might be from Singapore? As a Brit I have never heard this phrase although Brits might say “open the floodgate”. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Singapore. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: By itself, not knowing of a phrase is not a reason for deletion. I'd think the real problem here is that this has been tagged as completely unsourced since December 2009. I don't have any opinion beyond that, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Although the words appear in some book results, there is seemingly no coverage of this as a distinct term, it's not on Wiktionary, and almost every other result I found was about yugioh or some video game. Unsourced since creation in 2005. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Some uses on GS suggest possible notability, but what we have here is an unsourced stub that merits WP:TNT (a rewrite could be done now, ping me if this is rescued and I'll revise my vote if necessary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Floodgates principle or merge into an idiom list (but even that I cant find much sourcing). I want to say keep, but searching a very refined way yields very little. The few things Ive found all refer to essentially that legal principle. Nothing really links to this article, but I am a little hesitant to go for delete. Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment- I would say the term has a place in the Wiki as per nom, maybe draftify meantime as ATD, the term seems to be a known across different disciplines such as in Law and in economics, but citations to support the term itself seems lacks SIGCOV, closest I would say is the Butterfly effect in terms of similar implications, however not identical, I also came across an existing Wiki article in Psychology but its not same in "implications" Flooding (psychology). Even an AI search like this shows mixed results to the point of hallucination? Perhaps a disambiguation page for Floodgate? or have an Wiktionary entry be made for this?Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Floodgates principle: per Metallurgist. No standalone notability, and the concept is largely covered at the target. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Dutch exonyms

Dutch exonyms (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)

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.
Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - What's the harm in having it?
Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
  • What would be the harm in having a list of Dutch words for spices or bird species or truck engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
    I keep thinking back to this, and honestly, I don't know. Maybe those could exist? Not as stand alone lists, but Dutch names for birds could be an article that includes a list. Ike Lek (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ike Lek (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

' Delete Not really notable on English Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • As with the other noms: Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on nl.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English JMWt (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well-referenced trivia are still trivia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    Ok. Which specific part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING are you claiming this page violates? JMWt (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yabujin

Yabujin (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)

Dubious WP:N. Lacks independent WP:RS: most used sources appear to be self-published, WP:PRIMARY or not reputable. Generally looks like self-promotion. Mindaur (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete — The Pitchfork source provides significant coverage but cannot for the life of me find any other reliable sources online to justify draftication. Given how poorly sourced the article is and that I don't think demonstrating notability will be possible I think delete is the only option. sksatsuma 10:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything else either. Perhaps there is more in Lithuanian sources but they didn't show up on google, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Johann Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Owen× ☎ 14:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (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 is not independently notable. Article is a genealogical entry. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Distant cousin several times over of King Charles III (lots of endogamy went down). Possibly the most notable thing he did was to unalive himself. Maybe there's sources for other things he did? Bearian (talk) 19:49, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Tube socket. without prejudice against a selective merge, or changing the redirect to a better target, if found. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Evacuation tip

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

Unsourced page on a topic that is not notable. While the term "Evacuation tip" has sources in Google or Scholar they are for something completely different, tips used to evacuate in dentistry. PROD by User:Chidgk1 & PROD2 by nom was contested by User:Kvng as WP:NOTCLEANUP which seems to be irrelevant - a term that has no relevant sources cannot be cleaned. At most this could be redirected to a sentence in Vacuum Tube although I am very dubious. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I guess I was moving too quickly when I deprodded this. I agree, my deprod rationale doesn't make sense. Though Tube socket and Vacuum tube are potential merge or redirect destinations, that's not going to work without some rework and there is no sourced content here to salvage. 23:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tube socket, where it is mentioned. This seems more like an entry in a glossary, not something that needs a whole page here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:43, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Love Takes Wing

Love Takes Wing (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 television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bell, Robert (2009-05-31). "Love Takes Wing". Exclaim!. Archived from the original on 2025-07-19. Retrieved 2025-07-19.
      The review provides 288 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "One thing that can be said for Lou "La Bamba" Diamond Phillips' rendering of Janette Oke's pseudo-feminist Christian parable Love Takes Wing is that it matches his particular directorial sensibilities much better than ... It's pedestrian, cheap and linguistically repetitive but young girls and their churchgoing mothers should find some pleasure in the material despite its darker set up. No special features are included."
    2. "Love Takes Wing". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2025-07-19. Retrieved 2025-07-19.
      The review provides 162 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "As with past stories in this series, there are many lessons to learn regarding love, compassion and faith. ... Everyone will enjoy this story as they did the others. We award this movie with our Dove “Family-Approved” Seal."
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Love Takes Wing to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: Passes GNG through reviews listed above and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep in view of reliable sources reviews by Exclaim, DVD Talk, and the Dove Foundation so passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The Ritual Soul (2024 film)

The Ritual Soul (2024 film) (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)

Disputed draftifcatio. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NFILM 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify Published prematurely by author without addressing concerns of failed AfC review. BOVINEBOY2008 20:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMFD. Draftifying would just lead us back to where we are now. Vegantics (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Since the draft process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 16:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Pakphum Wonjinda. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Diamond Eyes: The Series

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

No source, and I can't find any secondary sources that mention this series. This series exists, but it was not notable, because IMO it failed WP:NTV.

Also, the article in its current state is written in WP:TOOSOON, though this is 2025, and the article now is out-of-date, and needs to be rewritten entirely. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pakphum Wonjinda: WP:ATD (director of all episodes). - Eva Ux 11:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Pakphum Wonjinda. Redirecting is a second choice because there is no unambiguously correct redirection target – Wonjinda is the director but the top star Yamnam also has an article. But redirection is fine. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:04, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

List of Russian exonyms

List of Russian exonyms (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)

Might not be notable. Previous deletion discussions were not specific. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Exonym lists are only relevant for areas that the nation in question controlled at some point. What Russians call Jericho, however, is unencyclopedic trivia. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say that is the only time they are relevant, but I get the broad strokes. In that case, action should be taken to preserve the Azerbaijan section, as it is potentially useful. Ike Lek (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Geschichte, except that "controlled" is narrower than my (vague) criterion; I would allow Latin names for many places that were never in the Roman Empire, for example. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    I partially agree, but I disagree with the irrelevance of Jericho. In fact I would argue that for many languages the exonyms for places in the Holy Land are likely notable.
    As for this specific list, a large part of it is merely transliterations and phonetically similar names. I would keep the list but trim it down to exonyms notable due to either a connection to the country or culture or due to being a significant departure from the native name (as one would point out, say, that the Italian name for Munich is Monaco di Baviera). Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources no justification. In most cases, you can just look at the other languages of an article to get exonyms. Metallurgist (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I enjoyed this nugget of trivia: Famagusta Famagusta (Фамагуста). Delete this, it has no need to be on an English encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Gandhi Global Family

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

Fails notability as per WP:GNG, WP:WWIN, possible WP:COI as the only source given is a personal blog, likely to be closely associated with the subject. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning delete for lack of notability under WP:NCORP, though I could go for a keep and stubify as well. A BEFORE search revealed . The two Rising Kashmir pages probably fail some combination of being independent and SIGCOV. The NDTV and Global Kashmir articles also seem to fail SIGCOV, though less strongly, and feel like puffery. But the coverage is less bad than a clear delete. I'll reflect on this more, but am still leaning delete. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:13, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lalpur, Ranchi#Shopping. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nucleus Mall, Ranchi

Nucleus Mall, Ranchi (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 at all notable. The media articles are about other brands that have opened their outlets in the mall. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for input on sources recently added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: The added sources are mostly about store openings and injuries that happened inside the mall, not the mall itself. The last source only contains a trivial mention of the mall. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:24, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. No support for the questionable nomination, and a solid suggestion that sources exist to meet our notability criteria. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

GAY World Anal Championship

GAY World Anal Championship (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)

Absurd subject matter aside, this article has zero independent or secondary sources, apart from a few in German and Japanese but not enough, and thus fails WP:GNG. Lemonademan22 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see a challenge on a purported lack of independent sources that most of the keep !votes haven't addressed. A review of Aeon Sentinel's sources may be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aeon Sentinel's additions. Though this has got to be the strangest AfD I have !voted on yet. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:51, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Strong, P&G-based arguments on both sides, but I see a rough consensus against deleting the page. Discussion about a more suitable title can continue on its Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

List of generic names of political parties

List of generic names of political parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am very confused by what this page is trying to do. By what logic are communists included, but liberal and green parties excluded? How is that more "generic"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that is just a poorly worded first sentence; liberal and green parties are included in the list. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, even if they are, I don't see why this list is, or why it would be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an unnecessary list of political parties across national and continental frontiers. If this was a disambiguation, then it would have been fine. Almost every party on the list is a disambiguation and the parties are based in different countries. I do not see the usefulness of this list here. Patre23 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep surprisingly, a proper navigational page under WP:NLIST, and it's been around since 2003. It is, essentially, a list of disambiguation pages, is surprisingly well visited for what it is, and serves a unique purpose, since the list of political parties is hugely cluttered. Furthermore, "I'm confused" isn't a proper deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    This does not pass WP:NLIST. It does not fill any recognized need (whether the purpose is "unique" is irrelevant, you can construct a plethora of unique lists out of OR constructs), a citationless list based on an arbitrary standards is not the way to solve another list's length problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    As a navigational list, citations are not required. This list supplements the category Category:Political party disambiguation pages (they may have diverged in purpose at some point) and the criteria is not actually arbitrary, even if the list could use a cleanup and maybe a rename. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    It says they may be if deemed necessary - this is not. If they have diverged in purpose then they no longer have any relation to each other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    I completely and entirely disagree with your argument that this is useless. Let's see what others say. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Move and reorganize to List of political party disambiguation pages. That seems to be by and large what this page actually is, is more clear to the reader, and is a concrete criterion for a list. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'm fine with this, but I wonder if there's a better possible title as this list is meant to include Communist Party (disambiguation) but not Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation). SportingFlyer T·C 09:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a valid navigational list (which is the only rationale that people are giving to even try to justify keeping this) because it doesn't actually help anyone find anything. You can make at least a reasonable argument for a navigational aid from a list of political parties in a specific country, but not...whatever this is. Disambiguation pages are there for topics that share the same name; we don't collate these into a list of topics, because dab pages aren't about specific topics. The question raised immediately above about exactly which dab pages should be on this is quite telling. If we have to even ask this, alarms should be going off that something is wrong with trying to make a list out of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – works like a higher level of disambiguation page. Would be a shame to lose. It only has one incoming link and still gets some decent page views, so it is clearly helping someone. – Ike Lek (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per MOS:LISTPURP, which states Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. This list also passes WP:NLIST. There's no reason to not collate disambiguation pages, especially if it serves the reader well. Since this page is visited pretty often, I would say this list is useful.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as a straightforward navigational aid. To answer the nominator's question: this list is here for people who can't remember exactly what the party is called, or who are interested in browsing parties on a broad scale, and therefore need something more global than a single standard disambig for just "Centre party". The list is indeed a natural index. The initial sentence should be changed. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I was leaning delete, but the above arguments make good points that it gets a lot of page views for what it is and serves as an index. A rename may be justified. What threw me was I use the disambiguation setting that turns such links orange, which looks close to red for me, so I thought it was all redlinks at first. It should be linked from in more places tho, after a rename discussion. Metallurgist (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep but the name should be changed. The current title is confusing. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with this, but I am not sure what would be good. Metallurgist (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NLIST pass. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:53, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Mereology which has gone unopposed. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Composition (objects)

Composition (objects) (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 page is a mess, I'm not seeing a reason why it has notability outside of Mereology JMWt (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:19, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Misty Dawn: Portrait of a Muse

Misty Dawn: Portrait of a Muse (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 seeing sufficient RS to show that this topic meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is one review, now used in the article. The Aperture listing in the external links section looks like a place where you could buy the book, so I'm not sure it's a RS. I couldn't find anything else reviewing it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I created this article in 2013, when I had much less experience in establishing notability when creating articles. I presume I saw the notable artist, and found one RS review, and thought that was enough at the time. However, I wouldn't have created this article today. I can't find any other reviews for the book either. I don't oppose the article's deletion. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to George Clinton (funk musician)#Discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Best (George Clinton album)

The Best (George Clinton album) (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)

Despite being a very difficult search term for WP:BEFORE I have tried my very hardest and cannot find widespread coverage on this release, only primary sources and user-generated sources. I don't believe WP:NALBUM is met. I suggest redirect to George Clinton (funk musician)#Discography. sksatsuma 12:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

George Short (athlete)

George Short (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)

Declined redirect for a Lugstub. Fails GNG and NOLY - no SIGCOV found in the searches I performed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Canada. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep once again. Clearly notable and another waste of time: 1 2 3 4 etc. Also played football for the Iowa Hawkeyes (1) and was drafted by the Calgary Stampeders (1 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Doesn't meet the WP:SPEEDYKEEP criterion, but those sources do look interesting. Is there a way we can expand on the Iowa Hawkeyes thing?
    Also as a general note, please remember that not all of us have access to newspaper archives and therefore we cannot always search them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    According to here where he is mentioned briefly, doesn't say anything about him playing Football. Ran track though, looks like a routine piece of coverage InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Here's a ref about playing football. How about this: you withdraw and make no further AFDs today and I'll expand this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Interesting find. Withdrawing nomination InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:03, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ludovic Viltard

Ludovic Viltard (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)

French footballer who never rose his career to the top level; he only played (a total of) four Ligue 2 matches for three years between 2000 and 2003, before disappearing for two decades. I didn't find anything other than database sources and secondary ones showed the unrelated Malcom Viltard. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:59, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ohio Valley Wrestling as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

OVW Kentucky Heavyweight Championship

OVW Kentucky Heavyweight Championship (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 pro wrestling title. OVW is a regional promotion. There are no sources about. Every source is Cagematch (WP:ROUTINE), which is a database and doesn't prove notability. The title was active for a few years and zero of the title holders have article. HHH Pedrigree (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 10:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Phillip Sarofim

AfDs for this article:
Phillip Sarofim (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 soft deleted back in April, then quickly recreated by the same editor. 多少 战场 龙's rationale from that AfD still holds: "it lacks significant coverage from independent sources that demonstrate notable achievements, making the subject appear less relevant. Additionally, it contains excessive citations that detract from the clarity and conciseness of the information presented." And as Oaktree b also pointed out, most of the coverage is about his relationship with Avril Lavigne. No in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any updated sourcing showing that things have changed since last AfD in April. Sourcing was as I described last time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hawaii, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete it is always curious when a soft delete is recreated if there is something else at play here. Anyway, the subject is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:57, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nobody has rebutted the relevance of Cunard's sources. Sandstein 09:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Roboboa

Roboboa (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 not convinced this toy robot meets WP:GNG. Article isn't much more than an unsourced summary of its functionality and has seen little improvement since 2008. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage other than brief mentions of its announcement in 2007. MidnightMayhem 07:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nichols, Larry (2008-07-25). "Robot pets do not poop". Philadelphia Gay News. Vol. 32, no. 30. p. 25. EBSCOhost 33550317.

      The abstract notes: "The article evaluates robotic pets from WowWee Robotics including Roboboa, the Alive series robots and the Robopanda."

    2. Stone, Adam (2007-05-11). "Everything's Cool". Baltimore Jewish Times. Vol. 296, no. 2. pp. S22–S23. ProQuest 222780229.

      The article notes: "Your Next Snake We promised you a snake, and now we deliver New from WowWee is the Roboboa, a robotic serpent that dances. Yep. They finally made a robot dancing snake. It's a beautiful world we live in. You can control the snake's 40 movements with a remote, or just crank the tunes and watch it dance to the music. It's also an iPod speaker, alarm clock and motion detector. We would just like to repeat these words one more time: Robotic, Dancing. Snake. For the robot-dancing-snake lover in all of us, could the world be any more cool? "

    3. Schwarz, Reuben (2007-09-04). "Slinky bed mate". The Press. p. T7. ProQuest 314888094.

      The article notes: "Here's an alarm clock with a difference. Roboboa is alarm, reading light and electronic pet all rolled into one. It explores, it parties, it even guards your desk by shooting lasers (actually just a noise) at anything that comes into view. It also interacts with WooWees other toys, like Robopet and Robosapien, and probably scares the heck out of your pets. And it'll be that much harder sleeping in knowing a robot snake is staring down at you."

    4. "These are the droids you're looking for: WowWee Roboboa". Stuff. 2008-01-01. Factiva FFUTS00020071207e4110000j.

      The article notes: "You’re probably wondering how this android snake gets about. In fact, Roboboa glides across flat surfaces with a curious moonwalk action courtesy of rotating cylinder segments. It all makes sense when you put him into Party Mode, whereupon he squirms around to his own disco tunes and puts on a little light show."

    5. Le Bourlot, Éric (November 2007). "L'invasion des robots jouets" [The invasion of toy robots]. Science et Vie micro [fr] (in French). p. 11. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "Toujours inspirés par les travaux du chercheur au chapeau Mark Tilden, le Roboboa a la forme d'un ser- pent et le Roboquad est un drôle d'alien à quatre pattes. Tous deux peuvent se dépla-cer, repérer des obstacles. Mais attention, malgré ce qu'annonce Wow Wee, ils ne disposent pas d'une réelle intelligence artificielle, et si on peut leur inculquer certains comportements basi-ques, ils n'évoluent pas avec le temps."

      From Google Translate: "Still inspired by the work of hat-wearing researcher Mark Tilden, Roboboa is shaped like a snake, and Roboquad is a strange four-legged alien. Both can move and spot obstacles. But beware, despite what Wow Wee claims, they don't have real artificial intelligence, and while they can be taught certain basic behaviors, they don't evolve over time."

    6. "Свестрана змиа" [Versatile snake]. Politikin Zabavnik (in Serbian). 2007-11-30. Retrieved 2025-07-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "Свестрана змиа Argos Roboboa Стручнаци куе „Argos" осмислили су необичну роботизовану направу ко je савитльива попут змие да би била што прилагодливиа разним наменама и назвали су je Roboboa. Склопльена од дигиталних уреаа, ова „купна змиа" лако може да промени облик и изврши чак четрдесет едну радну. Тако, рецимо, Roboboa може да се користи као лампа за читанье, будилник, поуздани чувар кои бележи сваки покрет и о томе одмах обавештава, али и као саиграч кои добро прати ритам музике. Оваква свестрана направа заиста je пожельна у сваком домапинству. Може да се купи по цени од око 160 евра."

      From Google Translate: "Versatile snake Argos Roboboa Experts from the house "Argos" have designed an unusual robotic device that is flexible like a snake in order to be as adaptable as possible for various purposes and have called it Roboboa. Assembled from digital devices, this "snake" can easily change shape and perform as many as forty-one tasks. For example, Roboboa can be used as a reading lamp, an alarm clock, a reliable guard that records every movement and immediately informs about it, but also as a teammate that follows the rhythm of the music well. Such a versatile device is truly desirable in every household. It can be purchased for a price of around 160 euros."

    7. Melanson, Donald (2007-10-15). "Roboboa slithers its way to the USA". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 2025-07-13.

      The article notes: "While WowWee's dancing Roboboa robot has already made its way into a few select parts of the world, those in the US have so far had a considerable harder time getting their hands on one. That looks to have now changed in a big way, however, as the so-called "alien with attitude" is now available directly from WowWee for an even $100."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Roboboa to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep satisfied with the sources found by Cunard. SongRuyi (talk) 16:54, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

People's Express

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

Non-notable and very small English independent bus operator which serves as more of a footnote in the history of parent Probus Management. Single paragraph in the 'history' section refers to People's Express, the rest, besides a change of trading name, refers to Probus and its subsequent acquisition by Go-Ahead/Diamond. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 09:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Adlane Messelem

Adlane Messelem (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 based on this source . Too little to establishes WP:GNG for a staff personnel. Svartner (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, that article is certainly a start. One or two more like that and I think he'd have WP:SIGCOV. I'll take a bit of a look. Ike Lek (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep- ok, so far I have found these and I can't tell if this is the same person While he seems to be a French Algerian, he likely has an Arabic name as he appears to be closely connected to the country and not just a French person born there. If anyone knows what it might be, I may be able to find more info on his earlier life. - Ike Lek (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above look to be WP:NOTNEWS. If significant sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep? I'm surprised how much coverage there is of him coaching Sabah FC for only a couple months mostly because I'm not very familiar with Malaysian coverage, but it looks like it's enough for an article. I found a couple PressReader articles as well which are near impossible to correctly link. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete—I think I might be able to be convinced on this one (even though the article itself is terrible), but as it stands, there's nothing but speculation that he might come close to WP:GNG. Currently, though, he fails it. Anwegmann (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per sources in article (like the FourFourTwo source) and ones supplied by Ike Lek. Has experience managing a few pro teams and has sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep: The last two sources from Singapore are about this person; I pulled up the Independent in my own search, then saw it was already sourced in the article. Some coverage about him being hired with little to no experience/lack of local knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ike Lek's source review. The subject passes a WP:SPORTBASIC test. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:58, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The "keep" opinions are beside the point: one does not address the subject's position as a deputy rather than full minister, and the other discusses verifiability, which is not the issue here. Sandstein 09:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mohamed Yaseen

Mohamed Yaseen (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:NPOL and WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE shows limited coverage, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Also fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maldives. CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    hello, this article is based on a deputy minister currently sworn in to his position the presidential office links and ministries official website links of where his appointments are is a testimony and proof to his position maldives is a small country and we rely mostly on government resources to conclude the authencity and verify the claims sir. please have a thorough view. I understand there is not much sources or cites to highlight, could you please tell me how can I proceed ? NormadicEditor (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    he is in the current cabinet of president muizzu´s with evidence to the publication of presidents office links verifying his stance. which is the official website of the goverment, fisheries is the biggest sector of our country and his appearance on wikipedia is required for maldivians as this determines information they want about their cabinet. especially someone holding a position in fisheries ministry. NormadicEditor (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep under WP:NPOL as a government minister in the Maldives. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete All the references of the article are just from the Fisheries Ministry and his LinkedIn. LinkedIn isn't a reliable source since it's self-published. UnilandofmaTalk 18:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, the LinkedIn link Should be removed. If we omit links from the Fisheries Ministry (a government website) and the President’s Office as well, does this mean the current government is not considered authentic? if taking that to consideration and not his position these Maldivian articles shouldn't exist on wikipedia:Mohamed Maleeh Jamal Hassan Latheef
    Be more considerate and approach with a solution based mentality, isn't that a mark of education and diversity, even though we are hiding behind our pens? :))
    https://presidency.gov.mv/Government/Officials/141 Let me know if Maldivian government isn't verifiable!
    He is the deputy minister of fisheries and Ocean resources, which other government website should the link be derived from ? please enlighten me about validity of Maldivian government I am always here to listen and get educated on :) NormadicEditor (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    I've never said that the current Maldivian government isn't authentic. Even if you omit links from the Fisheries Ministry, majority of the information starting from Early life and education to Personal life doesn't cite a source. The other two sources (which are from the Fisheries Ministry and The President's Office) only shows that he's a Deputy Minister and the date he was appointed on. UnilandofmaTalk 17:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes we have both agreed upon this. but the article still can be edited and kept Under WP:NPOL (Wikipedia's notability guideline for politicians), Thats what I have mentioned there :) NormadicEditor (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep under WP:V Verifiability, all content on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. A President's Office link (e.g., presidency.gov.mv) is considered a reliable primary source for factual claims like “Person A was appointed as Deputy Minister,” “sworn in on [date],” or “assigned to Ministry X.” NormadicEditor (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Under WP:NPOL (Wikipedia's notability guideline for politicians), a politician is presumed notable if they: Hold, or have held, a major national political office (e.g., minister, deputy minister, member of parliament), NormadicEditor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: NormadicEditor (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO--VVikingTalkEdits 14:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's an unelected deputy minister; I don't see the WP:NPOL pass here and we have no claim that he meets GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    (For the avoidance of doubt: I was asked by the article creator, whom I'd just unblocked, to check in on this AfD. Unfortunately my finding is not in their favour.) -- asilvering (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Asilvering, fails WP:NPOL and is merely in his unelected spot without necessary independent reliable coverage. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:59, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Milind Sovani

Milind Sovani (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)

Vanity page, which is mostly filled with promotional content and links to social media sites, and coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Article would need to be rewritten entirely if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 08:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Warner Bros. Discovery#Proposed company separation (2025–present). Disregarding the second to fourth opinion as they do not offer any arguments in support of their view. Sandstein 07:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Discovery Streaming & Studios

Warner Bros. Discovery Streaming & Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is just a repackaged version of its parent article Warner Bros. Discovery. It offers no additional value as a standalone page currently. Propose to redirect to the parent article for now. - The9Man Talk 07:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn’t happen. I think it should be like a shut down and successor thing on the info box. 74.103.246.236 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
No need to delete it. I see nothing wrong with the article. Keep it as it is. 2601:589:5186:B5F0:4E2:A806:83D1:CF95 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't see anything wrong with the article. I suggest it stays up, and keep it as is. Multiplivision (talk) 23:44, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Sengari Camp

Sengari Camp (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 RS on the page, doesn't seem to be a way to WP:V the contents. Not seeing other sources to add that are independent of the topic. JMWt (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very little mention of the place in a news search (excluding Kwansei's own website). Appears to have been self-promo as functionally an English translation of their website (although, I can't find a smoking gun for translation copyvio). REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:22, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles without prejudice against selective merge. Among those relying on policy, guidelines and local consensus at the relevant Wikiproject, I see a clear consensus that this does not meet our criteria for a standalone article, with no valid objection to the proposed redirect. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final

2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tennis Project Guidelines say we only create match articles of "matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies." Individual major match finals are only supposed to be created when the press describes it as one of the greatest of all-time. Routine matches like this one do not have the same extra notability. This a run-of-the-mill four-set Wimbledon final that is already covered in the 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is the same issue for the 2024 Wimbledon Championships Men's Singles final page, not notable at all and a run of the mill match, should also be deleted. A page doesn't need to made for every final played. Reaper1945 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Boy that's for sure... that article is even worse than this one and maybe it's why this one was created. They thought it was normal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not as notable or epic as their French Open final showdown a month earlier. Avatar5991 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not seeing any valid arguments for deletion. Apart from some tennis wikiproject conventions; what is the actual argument for deletion here? Clearly widely reported on with significant coverage in many reliable sources. Alternatively merge to obvious target 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    There will always be coverage for any final in any tournament but that is what we put in the 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles article. We don't needed an extra housekeeping page just for a final. When it is something spectacular, sure, since folks and historians will be talking about it for years. But this is a routime finals that is already covered in another article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    I understand the practical reason for your opinion, though I would still say objectively the final it is a notable topic. I could understand why some may think WP:ROUTINE would apply. When you say it's already covered in the other article- only the result is mentioned, no background or context, as far as I can see. Therefore I think that merge is more understandable than outright deletion.. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep. This is the first time since 2008 that same two players were at the finals of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, one won by Alcaraz, the other one won by Sinner, which makes it notable for their rivalry. Plus, it reminds of the Federer-Nadal rivalry in most ways, such as the long-winning streak of Alcaraz against Sinner (0-5), and revenge by Sinner on grass court. Even though this final might not be classified as one of the greats, several other final pages still exist to this day and each of them has their own reason and significance just like this one. It does not need to be an all-time classic. I don't think it is a big necessity to go delete them all of a sudden. Enigmationn (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The further I think about it, this match kinda is like the parabola of the French Open, and also historically marked the first time Alcaraz lost his first final much like how Sinner lost his first a month ago. Not fair to delete. - BlitzPhoenix98; 16:37, 21 July 2025 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlitzPhoenix98 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - does not meet WikiProject Tennis's match requirements, which also asks users to "consult WP:TENNIS before creating such articles". The match additionally is unlikely to meet the lasting significance criterion for event notability. Previous two keep votes seem to be based on emotion, rather than policy or citations that prove its significance. --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Bog-standard final already covered adequately in the tournament articles. Does not need a stand alone article. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Now it has turned into that every time there is an Sinner-Alcaraz GS final, a page will be created based on "this is a part of Alcaraz–Sinner rivalry". WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, the quality of this article is not up to the standard like 2012 Australian Open – Men's singles final. Actually, most matches listed at Category:Tennis matches at Grand Slam tournaments, should consider AFDs. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    This is a very good point. It's very much against Wikipedia protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that the article feels woefully insufficient, but I do propose on keeping it. I am new to the wikipedia editing, but I am happy to volunteer to add background to this article. Samsam179 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Delete . The reason is simple: if these pages are created just because it is about the Alcaraz and Sinner rivalry, we should also create pages for all the Djokovic vs Nadal, Federer vs Nadal and Djokovic vs Federer finals. 2803:A3E0:14E1:54C0:79A6:B300:74BD:4C93 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
It would be worse than that! There are a heck of a lot more huge rivalries in tennis.... Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Borg/McEnroe, Edberg/Becker, Court/King... everyone of their finals would also need to be created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – I believe there is a bias introduced here solely due to the fact that this wasn't a 5-set final match. But despite ending in 4 sets, this game was played on an extremely high level. The game itself is a natural sequel to the recent 2025 French Open final. Alcaraz coming into the match on the back of the massive Roland Garros win and a two-time winning streak in Wimbledon was the clear favorite for the championships. The result of the game and storylines coming into the match alone makes this the most significant game since the 2023 Wimbledon final. I agree not every Sinner–Alcaraz Slam final should have a separate page, but due to the significance of the rivalry in modern tennis, and the jaw-dropping quality of tennis they produce, I suspect around one-third of Sinner–Alcaraz Slam finals would end up having a separate page, and this match firmly belongs in this category. Samsam179 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Most finals are played at a "high level." That's why they are finals. Natural sequels do not get a standalone article. Those are for matches that 20 years from now people are still talking about. Otherwise the info fits easily into the 2025 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles. If there is bias look at your edit history. You've been at Wiki a week and made one over-the-top edit to this very article that was reverted. You then removed the proposed deletion. That's it. Modern tennis has been around for 60 years so throwing around terms like "jaw-dropping" and that 1/3 of their matches will deserve separate articles is exactly what this deletion request is all about.... bending Wikipedia rules because you like something, rather than looking at a single match in the scheme of history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Most slam finals are played at a high level? 2025 Australian Open was not, neither were 2024 US Open final, 2024 Wimbledon final, 2024 French Open Final. That's 4 of the last 7 finals which were not competitive and high quality simultaneously. Do you want me to go back and look at the finals where Djokovic was playing Kyrgios and Tsitsipas?
    1/3 is a pretty reasonable number for slam final pages for generation-defining rivalries. Federer-Djokovic-Nadal probably exceed this ratio for their slam finals. And given the level of Sinner-Alcaraz slam matches so far, this is a pretty reasonable take. If their USO 2022 quarterfinal was a final, it would have a separate page.
    Oh, forgive me for not creating my account to write about the Laver-Rosewell 1967 match. Yes, of course I have recency bias about the matches that I have seen live.
    Who exactly decides which match "folks and historians" will talk about in 20 years? This debate is supposed to be about whether this match is that or not. So why don't you debate in good faith about the subject matter instead of accusing others of bending the rules?
    This is the most pointless form of gatekeeping. "Oh we can't include the Wimbledon final between the top-2 players in the world currently because of all the Laver/Rosewall and Court/King matches we didn't create a separate page for" Samsam179 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, most are... but it's an opinion until you look back 20 years and see the press talking about the match over and over. And as was pointed out, some of the fed/nadal/djok matches should be deleted. Editors just start deleting them at will. Recency bias is natural, but it has no place on wikipedia. And I didn't accuse you of bending the rules... this article bends the rules. And who decides??? The sources decide. Wikipedia doesn't decide it for them prematurely. If sources start making lists of the all-time greatest major finals matches and this 2025 Wimbledon is included, of course we'll have to go with all those sources. But there is a reason we have this in our Guidelines. To stop all but the greatest matches per sources from being added frivolously to Wikipedia. There is nothing in this article that really adds to anything... it's already in an article. You don't just create one because you can. Heck, Wimbledon's greatest match ever might have been a 1st round match from 1969. It's still talked about and written about. The only thing it didn't have was the magnitude of a final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Firstly, most slam final do NOT reach a high point of relevance, very few do, however I do see your point.
    But the GNG standards casts a much wider net than the "greatest matches". If this higher filter is something that you believe should be enforced, then that's a different discussion. But then there has to be a much more objective way of evaluation of which games can be classified with separate pages. It has to be much stricter than the GNG but this higher objective standard doesn't exist as of now. We can't wait for 10-15 years for sport journalism to look back on a game, and then create a page for the game which happened so far back.
    If you have a problem with the article itself, I can volunteer to edit the article, or someone else can. It's been a recent event.
    As to your point about the 1969 Wimbledon Round 1, look as long as someone recognizes the significance of a game, it makes sense to have a separate page. Samsam179 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    But here's the thing. The entire tournament, Wimbledon, is very notable and has an article. The entire Wimbledon men's singles event is notable and has an article, with the final included. Plenty of info. We do not need nor do our Guidelines show that we should make individual final match articles. Unless it is something really spectacular per the outside world as a whole we don't create them. I can't be any plainer than that. The pages that do need them, were talked about instantly as the greatest of all time. This isn't that match. The '25 French was a special match. I can think of better ones, but that doesn't matter as sources are what we go by here at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete As much as I really dislike agreeing with the tennis project people, on this occasion they are correct. This match is already adequately covered in the appropriate 2025 Wimbledon articles and does not warrant a stand alone page.
    Shrug02 (talk) 09:53, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Grape surgery

Grape surgery (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 brief meme about a surgical machine demonstration. The two sources already in the article are the only reliable sources I can find about it because it really didn't last long. Moritoriko (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Moritoriko (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given that creator User:Rathfelder is not new at all, the inclusion of pictures like "Aunty grape visiting the hospital.jpg" is just bizarre. These photos were uploaded by a new user 10 minutes before Rathfelder added them. Caveat is that Rathfelder has made relatively few edits since 2023, although they have edited a bit after creating this article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    I made this because I met a doctor at the show where the diorama was on show - Rather to my surprise he was very familiar with the term. I asked the artist to upload the pictures. I think there are more sources, as reliable as you get with internet memes. There are 4 videos on Youtube put there by hospitals and an article in Nature. and one in the BMJ Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are both plenty of sources about the internet meme, e.g. , and several academic articles about grapes as a surgical training model . While I think we're a little too quick to keep articles about memes that get a brief flash of coverage, the fact that there is a small body of medical literature about surgical training on grapes tips this just over the bar for notability for me. The image captions can easily be fixed. MCE89 (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    Happy to alter the picture captions. Any suggestions? Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    My concern about the pictures is that 1 through 3 are unencyclopedic and don't help the reader at all. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    My concern is that this article will become 2 articles in a trench coat, one about the meme and the other about practicing surgery on grapes, where neither one of them alone is enough for a full article. As an ATD, might I suggest a redirect to Robot-assisted surgery Moritoriko (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Grapesurgeon: -Ike Lek (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    • ಠ_ಠ what's going on here grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
      sorry, i think you have a CoI here so please don't participate in this AfD >.<Just doing what needs to be done Moritoriko (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources posted by MCE89 show that this passes WP:GNG. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - per MCE89, there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources for both the use of grapes for surgical testing and the internet meme that it spawned. It's an odd one, but I think there is encyclopedic value here, and I see no issue in having an article discussing both the scientific use and the meme that it inspired. I've found more sources beyond what MCE89 linked and what is presently referenced in the article, so there's definitely room for expansion here - I'm happy to try my hand at WP:HEY-ing this one, if that sweetens the deal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I've gone and reworked the article almost entirely (though I haven't touched the gallery - I think one or two of the images may be worth using to accompany the text but I have left it as is for now), see diff. It's about 500 words now and discusses the use of grapes as a training model in opthamology and in testing robotic surgical systems in a bit more detail than it did before, as well as a more in-depth explanation of the internet meme. I ended up using 4 academic sources (though I imagine there are more mentions in the literature that I couldn't find re: robotic surgical systems, I was mostly looking at the opthamological side of things) and 5 news sources, which includes coverage from Forbes, New York Magazine, and the BBC - this is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG in my eyes. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    🫡 grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge with Da Vinci Surgical System: I've thought about this for a while and concluded that this doesn't work as a standalone article. It's a bit awkward to juxtapose the scientific and non-scientific contexts, neither of which has much coverage to begin with; these sections really belong in two separate larger articles. The meme itself was flash-in-the-pan. The scientific papers are mostly primary sources that directly propose and evaluate surgical training methods; there is very little secondary coverage about grape surgery outside of the meme, and even then grapes are just mentioned alongside other fruits as possible training models. Ultimately I believe the scientific coverage should be a tiny snippet of a larger article titled surgical training models, which could encompass fruits/vegetables, animal models, synthetic skin, etc. There is a lot of coverage about more general kinds of training models other than grapes. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just want to thank Ethmostigmus for the significant expansion of the page. If this page survives the deletion discussion I think "they did surgery on a grape" would make a great WP:DYK hook. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been substantially expanded, which made me confused this was proposed until I saw what it originally looked like. Maybe deserves a rename, but it looks fine to keep now, and having two related purposes is fine. The main part of the article should be about the medical training practice, and then a subsection can mention the meme. Which is basically what the article is now. Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge We have da Vinci Surgical System and Medical simulation, as well as Eye surgery for the topic of the scientific articles. There is absolutely no need for a standalone article about simulation specifically involving grapes, nor for a forgotten meme. I strongly agree with Moritoriko that this reads as two articles in a trenchcoat, even with the expansion. Reywas92Talk 20:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    I do think a new article is needed for surgical simulation models in general. Medical simulation doesn't really talk about surgical models. There's surgery simulator but that is specifically about computer simulations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Medicine. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:21, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Dominic Kiarie

Dominic Kiarie (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)

My WP:BEFORE turned up little if anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable independent sources so as to meet WP:BIO. There is a lot of fairly run-of-the mill stuff about companies the subject has worked for, with consequent passing mentions, but nothing substantial about the subject himself. Additionally, there is a strong thread of COI editing running through the article's history. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete no reference text very promotional 200.46.55.180 (talk) 00:50, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Svea (singer)

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

After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources (non-bylined articles in sources considered dodgy per WP:RSN), and what coverage the subject has had in reliable sources is not WP:SIGCOV Cofalit0 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC) (categories)

  • Keep - WP:GNG pass: Mitt i Stockholm, Aftonbladet, and Gaffa all look to provide decent enough coverage. Zzz plant (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and passes GNG and does so with reliable sources even in the RS/P list. Should not have been nominated and nomination should be withdrawn 200.46.55.62 (talk) 01:37, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to World-Check. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nikolaus Kimla

AfDs for this article:
Nikolaus Kimla (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)

Highly promotional and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The article has been updated with more credible sources. Let me know if there's any additional changes you would like to see made. Colleenm83 (talk) 02:42, 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) 07:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment 2nd source in the article (CEO Spotlight) is that only one that contributes to demonstrating notability. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to World-Check: his only notable creation, where he is already mentioned. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hemant Mohapatra

Hemant Mohapatra (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)

Lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability independently backed up with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Vicky Huang

Vicky Huang (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)

Unreferenced WP:BLP of an actress with no clear evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to have an article just because there's a list of performances in it, and instead we have to see evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about her and her performances to deem her notable.
This is completely unreferenced, however, and the roles it lists were almost entirely supporting or bit parts rather than major starring roles — in either film or television, the only clear leading role named here is a short film rather than a feature or a television series, and the stage roles can't exactly be notability-making ones if they're so poorly sourceable that you're stuck denoting them solely as "lead vs. ensemble" and can't even name the specific characters she played.
Even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding virtually no useful sourcing that could be added: almost every hit I get is for either a real estate broker or a customer in a bridal shop, neither of whom can be verified as the same person as this at all, and the only hits I get that are clearly for an actress are glancing namechecks of her existence in theatrical calendar listings and an article about a photographer she once posed for rather than substantive coverage about her or any of her performances in anything.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much better sourcing than I've been able to locate. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, regretfully, a search via DuckDuckGo also doesn't show any other evidence of significant coverage. Supporting roles in a few movies doesn't cut it, in regards to NACTOR. LightlySeared (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as I can't find any sourcing with a WP:BEFORE search. Roles mentioned in article don't seem rise to level of notability. Nnev66 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - we can't afford (literally) to have unsourced BLPs anymore. If someone wants to save this, do it this weekend. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

New Politics (1950s)

New Politics (1950s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there is no coverage of this concept. A search of EbscoHost via the Wikipedia Library does not reveal a 1950s "New Politics." JSTOR likewise turned up nothing. A search of Adlai Stevenson New Politics on the Internet Archive reveals a number of results, but a reading of those books does not show it as a 1950s Stevenson-centric movement, but rather as a descriptor of McCarthy and RFK Jr in the 1960s. A search of Illinois Periodicals Online, an NIU project, the only context of "New Politics" is a review of a book about opposition to Daley the First. Mpen320 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I was not sure when added the links whether this was original research or not. It seems plausible. I'm still not sure. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Interestingly I've found quite a bit of information linking Stevenson to a "New Politics" movement. and in the book "Battling Bella: The Protest Politics of Bella Abzug" which would be able to give a definition if I could access the full text. I can't access almost all of these, but there's clearly some sort of topic here. Whether it's about a 1950s concept currently discussed in the article or a 1960s-70s concept I'm not completely sure, and it's completely unsourced at the moment. However, I'm convinced that if someone put work into a New Politics (Democratic party) article it would absolutely be a notable article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is probably an article in a somewhat broader topic, as SportingFlyer suggests, but this current article isn't it and it doesn't currently have the sources to improve it. Warofdreams talk 22:43, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 07:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Solstice Coil

AfDs for this article:
Solstice Coil (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:NBAND. The article relies heavily on primary and niche fan sources. There is very little significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that give any in-depth discussions of the band. They have never been signed to a major record label, their music has never seen any chart success, and there is no clear historical significance of the band, therefore they do not meet the standard of substantial, independent coverage required to establish notability. Magatta (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a valid review in Israel's most sold newspaper. Not niche at all. I wonder if there are more. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistihng. Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not just comment but offer an opinion on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is WP:REFBOMBed with mostly one-off primary fan sources or unreliable sites (YouTube, etc.). The new reference in Ynet is just an album review, not really about the band at all. Without anything specifically about the band I don't see how there can be an article, especially one this detailed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:59, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ to either delete or draftify. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nicole Giannino

AfDs for this article:
Nicole Giannino (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 (either for her acting career or her ice hockey career) in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Women, Film, Television, and Ice hockey. Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree: The CWHL fails Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, and her career also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Combined with the lack of media attention, I regrettably agree that this article should face deletion. That being said, there is something to be said about the inherent notability of someone who has consistently achieved at a high level, even when such achievement doesn't get media attention. Doesn't change my vote, but she is obviously extremely talented, and I dislike the deletion of the article because there isn't sufficient coverage. Unfortunately, we are at the whim of what media decides to cover, and what people decide to care about, and in this case, Women's professional hockey and inline skating is not it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Two of the sources in the article, in Pulse magazine and Telegram & Gazette , have sigcov of her. They do include interviews with her, but also have info about her career and her life outside hockey (studying biology and speech language pathology, which could be added to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can only find information about her being drafted , that's a primary source anyway; doesn't seem to be much coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen - Ike Lek (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The second source that Rebecca provided seems more like a directory and doesn't convince me, but the first one I think might be enough. Would also suggest a draftify as a middle ground. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more supporters for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify – Per InvadingInvader and Liz. Svartner (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    • The article is already ~450 words and has 12 sources. What would be the benefit of moving to draftspace? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - per RG. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 05:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Worldwar series#List of characters. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

List of Worldwar characters

List of Worldwar characters (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 on this article, it seems redundant with the main Worldwar series article, and the content of it seems overly detailed and un-encyclopedic. It reads like something that belongs on Fandom at best. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Gamma-order Generalized Normal distribution

Gamma-order Generalized Normal distribution (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 primary author of the article is also the author of nearly all the cited sources (Christos P. Kitsos ). It's unclear to me the other sources are enough to establish notability. -- Beland (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete for WP:TNT. Appears to be WP:COI issues and the formatting is weird, suggesting it might have been pasted in from elsewhere. Delete and let someone uninvolved write it. JMWt (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete The weird formatting that hints of a copy-and-paste job is concerning, but more so are the WP:COI issues and the lack of viable sources. Of the references provided in the article, the few that aren't by the article creator are background material that doesn't contribute to the notability of this specific topic. Searching the literature doesn't find anything better. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:38, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The consensus is that the sources are inadequate to support notability. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Suzan Mutesi

Suzan Mutesi (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 real notability as an actress, author or fashion designer. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. References are mostly tabloids, social networks or IMDb. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. You are right, and it is also very short. Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep.
The article has been significantly improved to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines through the inclusion of independent, reliable sources. Suzan Mutesi has received notable coverage in international and national media outlets such as Vogue,1 NY Post2 and Heart London Magazine.3 She has appeared in Australian films such as Carmen & Bolude4 and 'Ruby’s Choice,5 and has television appearance in The Challenge: Australia6 and Heartbreak High.7

She also authored books including The Immigrant That Found Her Unapologetic Voice8 and Unapologetically Black: Afro Sisters.9 She has received several awards, including African Designer of the Year (2012),1011 and Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards in 2014.1213

These references demonstrate significant coverage of her career and public impact.

Tagsjunta (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Tagsjunta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As an author, her books have sold poorly and are independently published. There are no reviews of them. The only sources are not independent, since they are listed as the books themselves.
As an actress she has had small roles in minor productions. "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is the guideline (see WP:NACTOR).
The New York Post, Heart London Magazine and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources (see WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL).
Those awards are local or have very low notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. However, your concerns about reliability and notability appear to overlook several points that align with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
1. Reliable Sources: While you mention the NY Post, Daily Mail, and Heart London Magazine as unreliable, several independent and reliable sources remain:
2. Acting Notability: She has appeared in multiple notable Australian films such as Ruby's Choice, Moon Rock for Monday, and Carmen & Bolude, with Film Central Magazine covering her contributions (source). While her roles may not be leading, under WP:NACTOR, cumulative work in multiple productions can establish notability.
3. Awards and Recognition: She received awards such as African Designer of the Year in 2012 (source) and recognition from the Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards (source, source). While regional, these awards have sustained coverage in Ugandan and Australian media.
4. Books and Authorship: While some of her books are self-published, they are covered in Vogue Australia (source), providing secondary discussion of her authorship and the cultural impact of her work.
5. Overall Coverage: The breadth of coverage across fashion, acting, and advocacy is sufficient to meet WP:GNG when assessed collectively. Notability does not require universal acclaim or commercial success, only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
6. Neutral Point of View: The article has been revised to follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, avoiding promotional or PR-style language in accordance with WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The content has been rewritten to maintain an encyclopaedic tone, consistent with WP:TONE.
Therefore, I maintain that the subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:BIO, especially when coverage across multiple domains is considered. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Is this AI? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I took my time to write and decorate that.Not AI. Tagsjunta (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Not believeable - we see enough ai here to recognize it Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
PR is not independent or reliable. So that cuts out most. Vogue I've already touched on above. SMH is almost OK but is just being interviewed about the subject of the article. That's it. Cinema Australia and Film Central Magazine are variations of the same PR that only just mention her. Monitor is PR based, driven from her winning a run of the mill award, a WP:DOGBITESMAN type thing. Voice is so over the top so obvious puffed up PR. And by anonymous "Guest Contributor". Lifestyle News is her talking about herself. Do you know that paid editing must be declared? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all the sources cited in the article are PR or non-independent.
Regarding the paid editing comment — I would like to clarify that I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any personal or professional relationship with the subject. I am simply a follower of Suzan Mutesi’s work and became interested in her after coming across various public sources online. I have not been paid, compensated, or engaged in any form to contribute to this article.
All of my contributions have been made with the intent to remain neutral and within the spirit of good faith editing, as is expected on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where editors are encouraged to participate and discuss improvements based on verifiable information.
Therefore, I respectfully ask that no assumptions be made about my motives. I am engaging here purely in good faith, with the sole aim of ensuring that the subject's coverage is fairly represented in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Thank you.
— Tagsjunta (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your source analysis. I'd like to add that Vogue Australia is not the same as Vogue US, Vogue France or British Vogue. Vogue Australia is published by News Corp (famous for its tabloids) under a licence from Condé Nast. By Vogue Australia's own admition they include paid press release–based interviews, photoshoots and write-ups as regular news with inadequate or no disclosure. This means Vogue Australia is not a reliable source. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your observation. Just to clarify — Vogue Australia, like other Vogue editions, provides disclaimers for sponsored content, and the cited piece was authored by an identifiable journalist, not a paid feature. Also, major outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Forbes offer media kits and advertising, which is standard and doesn’t affect editorial reliability. Ultimately, reliability on Wikipedia depends on the specific article’s authorship and editorial oversight, not the outlet’s business model. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Humble Bundle. Star Mississippi 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Wolfire Games

Wolfire Games (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:NCORP - there is very little about the studio that isn't related to the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is notable, which it may very well be, it can have its own article, which is common on Wikipedia, such as Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. and similar pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This statement implies that Wolfire only has notability because of a lawsuit vs Valve.
However, Wolfire are notable for the first era of Humble Bundle, https://www.gamesindustry.biz/wolfire-games-making-a-success-of-the-humble-indie-bundle
On top of that, their games have a cult classic status with their own notable stories that are related to developer action. Such as Lugaru having it's source made open and subsequently being uploaded to the iOS store and the developers sharing what it was like to be in such a situation (https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing/ Primary Source: https://www.vg247.com/lugaru-clone-pulled-from-app-store-free-upgrades-to-hd-version-offered) while reciever broke into the wider world asking questions about when gun games were simulated too well (https://www.wired.com/story/receiver-2-videogame-violence/)
While induvidually they might be absorbed into another article, together the Valve Lawsuit, Humble Bundle, and their own games aren't connected by anything more than the company and so the page should be expanded to include summaries of their involvement and a "See more" link to the relative pages Skollivoxel (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Re: The presented sources, source 1 appears to be largely about the Humble Bundle rather than Wolfire themselves. Lugaru/Receiver seem to be notable, but notability is not WP:INHERITED from a studio's games, so that argument you are making will not fly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is, for example Valve got their notability from the Half-Life series *before* the invention of the Steam platform. Creators get notability directly from their creations. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Having press outlets start paying attention to them and write WP:RS about them should be distinguished from simply "assuming" they are notable because one of their games is. You'd think that if Wolfire gained such notability after they released these various games, someone would write directly about them. They largely didn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Well now we seem to be back on the circle, you see above that there's a wired article about the sequel game to Receiver, how much press coverage counts? Is it some arbitrarily set number: no. Other than the abundance of video essays, viral videos, and mods for games inspired by mechanics established in their creations establishing their notoriety; The fact it's not just "one of their games" that's notable is why it's not assumption. They have established their name within several series and achievements throughout their existence. Game developers gain notoriety by making games that are acclaimed in the community, and the active participation of said community. This would be like making the claim that Running With Scissors is notable only because of the controversies they have in the press, and not the games themselves. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Please read notability guidelines on Wikipedia at WP:NCORP. None of what you are describing is how articles on Wikipedia become notable. Only reliable sources about the company itself, nothing else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
As the article is currently written, I do think its a bit weak on secondary and independent sources, however I don't believe [Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] is written such that the lawsuit alone would exclude Wolfire from having their own article. That being said, I do believe there are more sources that could be added to this article to make is even stronger. The Game Developer article https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/video-an-indie-approach-to-procedural-animation seems to be a great example of a notable source that should be added and included in this article, rather than deleting the article all together. NovaAmm (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The Game Developer article merely highlights a talk given by Rosen at the publication's parent, GDC. I would consider a redirect to Humble Bundle, with the current state of the article. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Abney317

Abney317 (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:NBIO. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. All current references are either self-published (Twitch, Twitter), user-generated (YouTube), or directory-style listings (GDQ VODs). No independent media coverage or in-depth reporting has been found to establish notability. Subject appears notable only within a niche community. Leicesteroftime (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are some better sources https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/521780-fastest-all-cups-completion-of-mario-kart-64
https://www.techeblog.com/mario-kart-64-skip-speedrun-bowsers-castle/
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/sep/29/play-it-faster-play-it-weirder-how-speedrunning-pushes-video-games-beyond-their-limits
https://kotaku.com/mario-kart-64-speedrunner-sets-new-world-record-by-repe-1846254228 ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Kiran Morjaria

Kiran Morjaria (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 about this person does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There is no significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Most of the citations are press releases, interviews, or promotional blog-style content. Leicesteroftime (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I can see coverage from independent, reliable sources like Chortle, and numerous articles not cited in national papers. Also significant BBC coverage. 82.3.97.84 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — 82.3.97.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep given the above 82.3.97.84 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC) — 82.3.97.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep similar notability to others in similar category, BBC Morning Live Doctor 2A02:8012:8848:0:956B:C9C:EF8E:26DB (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC) — 2A02:8012:8848:0:956B:C9C:EF8E:26DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That's not how we decide these things. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep independent sources - Guardian, The Times, BBC News 139.28.209.78 (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — 139.28.209.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please link to your sources. The Guardian has no coverage of Morjaria; see this search. I don't see any BBC News articles either that mention him, although they're harder to search for.
The Times has one article that seems to mention him. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Oaktree. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:17, 23 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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks