Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 21

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters (edit | talk | history | 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 seem to meet WP:NLIST, we don't have lists like this for other entities. Unsourced since 2017. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep- Click on the individual named fighter jets in this one. You will find the sourcing in the individual articles. Please see Category:Russian and Soviet military-related lists and Category:Lists of military aircraft. We have many such lists, that differ in style. The sourcing etc are found in the individual lists, or articles. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and make it into a category. This was actually interesting enough to arouse my curiosity what it meant, but I think a category would suffice. Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, and do not make it into a category. As a list this is not sufficently notable. As a category the intersection of "propulsion+wing configuration" is not a defining intersection. We do not have Category:Straight-wing aircraft and Category:Swept-wing aircraft, and subcategories of those would also be insufficiently defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand - While I admit it is lacking as just a list without context, I have actually come across and used this page before while doing research. It was somewhat helpful to me, and I probably wouldn't have found it as just a category. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • While I'm glad it was useful, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a policy-based argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Niche list that appears being WP:OR result instead of one that helps the reader. Protoeus (talk) 04:46, 20 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NLIST, and do not make it into a category per WP:NONDEFINING and The Bushranger. There isn't even a main article on what straight wing is supposed to mean, only a redirect to a two-sentence explanation that appears to be sufficient. Until it is important enough for its own article section or even stand-alone article (WP:WTAF), I think straight-winged aircraft merit neither a list nor a category, let alone one for a specific former country and a specific type of military aircraft. NLeeuw (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not opposing expansion of the article but that can be done by recreating the article. Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 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.

Pakistan Champions Cricket League

Pakistan Champions Cricket League (edit | talk | history | 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 passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV on independent reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:55, 14 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 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete 1 google news hit. It's a competition of mainly non notable teams. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 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.

ExpressJet Airlines Flight 2816

ExpressJet Airlines Flight 2816 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. Zaptain United (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep I think this could meet point 4 by the fact that it was the first time that the Department of Transportation fined airlines for a ground delay, which was reported on specifically in several substantial outlets: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34127317 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-airlines-fined-in-minn-tarmac-stranding/ ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Nothingburger, maybe a mention in the incidents section of the airports page. Metallurgist (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Rochester International Airport#2009 tarmac stranding incident, which is about this incident and could well be expanded from here. I'm sympathetic to the !vote by Darth Stabro, but it's still a very obscure incident. Further sourcing might tip me over to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:EVENT - there has not been any WP:PERSISTENCE with coverage of the flight itself all dating back to 2009. A case could be made that there is some lasting significance from the subsequent legal actions which set a precedent. That court case could be worth a brief mention in Flight cancellation and delay#compensation. However it seems the court case is the notable thing rather than the flight itself. Dfadden (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: this routine event clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT#4 and has seen no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle following the fine. We should always consider ATDs, of course, but I'm not convinced the mention at Rochester International Airport#2009 tarmac stranding incident is WP:DUE, nor that the precedent of the fine is significant enough for a mention in Flight cancellation and delay#Compensation. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:02, 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.

Tamás Kovács-Csatlós

Tamás Kovács-Csatlós (edit | talk | history | 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 BLP. No SIGCOV. Sources used are unreliable. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No SIGCOV, no article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I changed my opinion. I see in this source that the subject is in the superior A+ category of water polo referees, listed 6th! We should keep, putting more sources too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G-Lignum (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Well known referee and deserves an article. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above comments stating lack of WP:SIGCOV. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Duplicate !vote struck – Some arguments here. Tamás Kovács‑Csatlós clearly meets WP:GNG. He is ranked in the A+ category of European Aquatics referees (6th among men’s water polo officials as of Jan 2025; ref. . He also officiated at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore, including the women’s match between Italy and New Zealand on 11 July 2025, ref. ; also he officiated the games: SIN-CAN (men), MNG-GRE (men), CHN-MNG (men), ESP-MNG (men), AUS-NZL (women) see Wiki . His inclusion in the World Aquatics 2025 cycle official referees list demonstrates sustained recognition by the sport’s highest international authority, GOLD category; ref. . Moreover, he is covered in sport-specific media such as Total‑Waterpolo and Waterpolo360News, ref. . These sources meet WP:SIGCOV as they are independent, reliable, and establish notability. The article therefore qualifies for retention under WP:N and WP:BIO. Thanks G-Lignum (talk)

  @G-Lignum Being named in a few lists is not significant coverage by any definition. Also you can only write a bolded "keep" or "delete" once in a discussion, I crossed out this duplicate keep. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks and sorry! After the "Relisted" label placed above, I thought we can vote again, placing some arguments. Sorry! G-Lignum (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  @G-Lignum You can still add arguments, you just can't make a second bolded !vote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  Understood. Thanks indeed! G-Lignum (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough, per above. Kante4 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The article relies chiefly on routine event-official listings and two brief local Heol.hu pieces, none of which amount to the significant, independent coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG for a standalone biography.Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Like the above comments say, there's a lack of WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:18, 27 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.

Time War (Doctor Who)

Time War (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | 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've elected to renominate this after the last AfD; I had previously voted Keep, but I have just finished an extensive rewrite of Time Lord, and after digging through dozens of sources pertaining to everything related to the concept, as well as after another Time War search, I'm unconvinced the SIGCOV is here to support the article separately. Looking back on the sources brought up, many of them are trivial, or entirely plot summary-based sources. What few sources discuss the impact of the Time War are largely based around the Time Lords and the impact it had on them, or the impact the event had on the Doctor; these are inherently focused on these characters, instead of being about the War itself. Additionally, the War's real world developmental and Appearance info overlaps heavily with the Time Lords to a point where WP:NOPAGE applies, especially in conjunction with how the little bits of reception that exist are also tied into the Time Lords almost exclusively.

At present, I feel the War is adequately covered on all fronts in the Time Lord article, and anything else present in this article largely just unneeded plot summary. I'd support a redirect AtD to Time Lord since this is a valid search time, but if anyone believes there's more content that would benefit the Time Lord article pertaining to the Time War, I am unopposed to a merge should it come to that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Question Why nominate this at this time? Was there resistance to an attempted merge or redirect? It seems like you're not even proposing deletion. The last AfD was NC and a year ago, so I don't see that as requiring this. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Jclemens I figured it'd be wiser to open a discussion to determine a proper consensus, since I was worried the No Consensus would make it so that an attempted Wikipedia:BLAR would likely be met with opposition by at least one user. For potentially controversial redirects, it's often wiser to open an AfD instead, since it'd likely be going to that venue anyway if a BLAR is reverted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm thinking that might actually be something we want to add to BEFORE: if you're just proposing an uncontroversial merge, it might help relieve the strain on AfD (which is still supposed to mean 'deletion' rather than 'discussion' per WP:PEREN even though I prefer the latter) to defer the discussion until someone has actually objected rather than being proactive. I have no strong opinion on this one, but being familiar with the topic, I'm certainly not going to oppose a merge like this. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge per previous AFD. While the last discussion had some outlier votes, most of them commented that they would accept a merge or a redirect as a compromise. It's better for us to reach a WP:CONSENSUS than promote an all-or-nothing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 16 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, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge I concede that these topics are very related. The nominator says they are "unopposed to a merge" and I would like us to try that. I know that's a major order when they said they just did an extensive rewrite and search. But even if it is slow or partial I would like the record to show that we wanted to preserve this content somehow, while still respecting Wikipedia policies about sources. Archrogue (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge Largely in-universe plot summary sourced almost entirely to primary episodes and franchise tie-in material, with only a smattering of trivial secondary coverage (e.g., a single Gizmodo article), so it fails WP:NFI and the GNG; any verifiable context is better merged into Time Lord. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:45, 26 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.

Subhrakant Panda

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

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Odisha. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject is definitely Notable. There is extensive coverage of the topic in trustworthy sources (WP:RS) like Business Line, CNBC TV, and The Economic Times that establishes firmly that the topic qualifies under WP:GNG. One of the arguments of the nominator is that the article is written like a resume. I would like to propose that if there are any flaws in the tone or organization of the article, then indeed they may be made better. That's the purpose that editors are here for, to enhance content, not delete it. Baqi:) (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG. The person's work has won significant critical attention with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like this. The tone or formatting can be addressed through editing. Monhiroe (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep As per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This article looked promising but it is part of the "Opinion" section of Business Standard. Regardless, I'm not seeing WP:THREE as the rest of the coverage is routine. The author is blocked for sockpuppetry, so this might be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Yuvaank (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. The articles are more about the company and federation than a profile on him. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Some media focuses on the company, while several emphasize the subject (Panda) as the source of inspiration. The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with strong coverage in reliable sources like Business Standard, New Indian Express, Boston University and others. Taabii (talk) 11:51, 21 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, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Citing The Economic Times, BusinessLine, and The New Indian Express as being reliable sources when the pages being cited in question in the article are simply an author profiles shows a misunderstanding of what WP:GNG requires. Other articles mentioned in this discussion smell like promotional pieces. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Aside from a single Business Standard “Lunch with BS” feature, coverage is limited to press releases, appointment notices and platforms hosting Panda’s own columns, so there is no sustained, independent depth of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I found some Significant coverage that might be helpful to establish subject's notability. Full In-depth article on Business India magazine ""A Force to reckon with" page no: 34, 35, 36, 37". Another Significant coverage on Business Standard, Man of priorities: Ficci, family biz and food, Panda has his focus clear. This in-depth interview by JESSICA ULLIAN on Boston University official website: Making holistic change: Subhrakant (Questrom’93) and Shaifalika Panda (Questrom’92). An in-depth introduction written about the Panda by Henry Pettus Randall in his book: Who's who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges. Raj Shri21 (talk) 07:54, 26 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.

Living Intelligence

Living Intelligence (edit | talk | history | 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 inadequate sourcing to establish notability for this concept, which can probably best be summed up (albeit rather uncharitably) as "big picture LinkedIn-style thought leadership"—or, even less charitably, it is a thing someone made up but for business executives.

The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

The Hesham Allam source cites a wholly different source for an idea referred to as 'living intelligence' (namely someone called Anna Bacchia) that predates the FTSG/Webb/Jordan formulation. It is also mentioned only in passing—not significant for the purpose of the notability guidelines.

The Robitzski source predates the invention of the concept, and thus does not do anything to establish notability.

The 'Analytics Insight' source looks extremely unreliable. According to their bio, the author of the piece "excels at crafting clear, engaging content", apparently. Last week, on Friday, they produced seven articles for 'Analytics Insight' in one day, on topics as wide-ranging as staying at the top of Google search results, knowing the difference between OLED and QLED televisions, the best travel credit cards, discounts on Android phones, smart mattress covers, and using AI to generate video. An optimist might commend this industrious work ethic; cynics might draw the conclusion that this feels like a low quality content farm (the massive flashing adverts for ropey looking cryptocurrencies don't help).

The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing.

The Inc. article by Aiello does look to be reliable, and independent, and provides significant coverage, but probably isn't enough alone as "multiple sources are generally expected" (WP:GNG).

There was another source listed which I removed. It's generated by Perplexity AI. Literally, just AI generated text. It's here (and on the Wayback Machine, but the overuse of JavaScript makes that version unusable). It is pretty much a case study of AI confabulation.

The AI generated text reads: Amy Webb and Gary Marcus, two prominent figures in AI research and forecasting, offer contrasting perspectives on AI's trajectory in 2025. Webb predicts a convergence of key technologies, including AI, biotech, and advanced sensors, leading to what she terms "living intelligence". At this point, there is an inline footnote which points to an article titled The great AI scaling debate continues into 2025 from a website called The Decoder. Said article does not discuss "living intelligence" or Webb. The Decoder article talks about Gary Marcus and AI scaling, so the AI generated source is at least half right. To be fair, the Perplexity source does go on to point to a podcast interview which... might establish notability if you squint a bit.

So, in terms of sourcing that establishes notability, we have an Inc article and a handful of podcasts/interviews. But the convergence of AI-generated text and the somewhat spammy promotion of futurist/thought leadership suggests this should be deleted (or possibly merged/redirected into Amy Webb). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Technology. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Also pinging User:BD2412 as the AfC reviewer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as, indeed, "a thing someone made up but for business executives." Honestly, anything made with "sources" from Perplexity or other slop machines should be deleted on moral grounds. They're the opposite of reliable; using them is by definition not being here to build an encyclopedia, and the results should be treated accordingly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per last user, WP:MADEUP, and the use of AI-generated sources, which is a flaming red line for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning keep or restore to draft. I was pinged to this discussion and am mulling this over carefully. I don't think that Amy Webb being the coiner of the term is disqualifying of a source for which she is the author. It's not like she's selling "Living Intelligence" as a product for her enrichment. She is an academic in the field, and her opinions in the field carry weight. I have never seen Harvard Business Review questioned for its reliability. With this along with the Inc. article, I would expect that if this is a notable concept (and the article describes something that certainly should be), then additional sources may be found. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for this. Two points: the Harvard Business Review do publish sponsored content on behalf of corporate partners. Some of which is emabrassingly mediocre research that would get a failing grade as student coursework. The source in question doesn't seem to fall into this category, thankfully.

  Also, at risk of being excessively cynicial, the thinktank/thought leadership world are selling a product. Taking a vague trend of New Stuff, and self-publishing a report that gives it a label is exactly what goes on in futurist/thought leader circles in order to promote yourself so corporations and others will pay you for consulting and speaking gigs etc. I drew an analogy with WP:MADEUP becuase hand-wavy futurist thought is often "a PDF of a thing I made up on my own website" rather than getting subjected to peer review. Whether the idea actually is notable is a question for other people to determine, hence why our notability guidelines look to independent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  "Amy Webb being the coiner of the term" is "disqualifying" of any source that she wrote, insofar as it means those sources are the opposite of independent. A source that Webb wrote isn't completely useless for all purposes, but it carries zero weight in evaluating the notability (in the Wikipedian sense) of the concept.

  To paraphrase Tom Morris' second paragraph above: a label is a brand is a product. We absolutely should treat a thinktank/thought-leader person writing about their own label in the same way that we would treat a business owner writing about their own business. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  These concerns are not alien to me, which is why I would support restoration to draft as a WP:ATD. BD2412 T 03:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify - Confused about the Perplexity AI issue address above but not sure if it matters. I did find this from The Week but that only makes two if you take Inc. into consideration. I would not fully discount the HBR just because she is the coiner of the phrase; however, being that there is not a lot of other references talking about it, I am not sure we can consider her the expect on the topic either.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify? Discuss.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: More than a trivial amount of coverage in journals discusses the concept. I suppose we could draft this for clean up, but the topic appears notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b: In the nomination statement, I already explained how the Rouleau and Levin article isn't relevant. The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing. Rouleau and Levin are not using "living intelligences" in the way Webb and Jordan are, and it does not establish that Webb and Jordan's formulation is notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest, it was getting kind of long and I gave up reading it. Would it be worth draftifying it? I can't understand the "thing" the article is about ... Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm broadly open to all options: delete, draftify or merge and redirect to Amy Webb. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per sources identified by Oaktree b and CNMall41. I think we now have enough to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment regarding The Week. The quotes in The Week are derived from the HBR and Inc articles, and the FTI report. The second paragraph is mostly quotes from the HBR article. The third, fifth and seventh paragraphs mostly consists of quotes from the Inc article. The fourth paragraph quotes from the report. The sixth paragraph is a pointer to a blog post by another futurist consultant pitching for work that concludes with "Let's discuss your strategy for shaping this future, reach out to discuss." The Week has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in 2020, and the observation their that articles "are composites of pieces from elswehere" still rings true. An illustration of this: this article about "how generative AI is changing the way we write and speak". It is a composite that cobbles together a piece from The Atlantic, The Verge, The Conversation and Los Angeles Magazine without really adding much. It's not quite churnalism, and it is not merely aggregation, but it isn't great. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Amy Webb - This topic seems like it can happily live as a subsection on Amy Webb until it gets sufficient independent coverage to motivate its own article. Not opposed to draftification, but merging seems like a better editorial outcome here. The concept has no coverage that doesn't prominently feature Webb. Suriname0 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for a merge to Amy Webb?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any text worth merging. It's all uninspired prose, backed by mediocre/unsuitable sources. What's good enough to save? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Since our earliest days, we have not published original content; "made up in a day" and "no AI, thank you" are just by-products of that basic rule. This would at a minimum have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. yes, we exclude things made up on Wikipedia, but not things made up in the real world and published there. Everything is made up at some point, Marxism, Christianity, theory of relativity. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Amy Webb, as it seems to be an idea of hers that can be described using reliable sources, but it doesn’t seem to have much of an existence independent of her. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:17, 20 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) 23:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge selectively to Amy Webb per Suriname0 and Barnards.tar.gz. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to justify its own article. Some of the Overview section can be merged using the Inc. source at least. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems to be a fad concept not published in reliable journals, per other above comments. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete — Relies almost entirely on primary or non-independent material (Webb’s own HBR piece, a self-published FTI report, an AOL interview) plus AI-generated or content-farm mentions, so the term lacks significant independent coverage and fails WP:GNG. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There are sufficient significant coverage in terms of subject's analysis and review. An in-depth review on the topic by Harvard Business Review, Why “Living Intelligence” Is the Next Big Thing. , Other good and independent article on the topic by AOL, Exploring "Living Intelligence," a Merging of AI, Sensors, and Biotech. This research article written by Nicolas Rouleau & Michael Levin is in itself Significant, Discussions of machine versus living intelligence need more clarity. Raj Shri21 (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Raj Shri21 These sources have all been thoroughly discussed above. Quoting from the nomination: The HBR source, the AOL (which syndicates Motley Fool, and is a transcript of a video interview) and the 'Future Today Institute' source aren't independent of the author who originated the concept. A brief web search identified a few other pages that are broadly in the same genre.

  The Nature source discusses "living intelligences" and tries to draw up some philosophical basis for distinguishing machine and biological intelligence. It is not discussing the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the aforementioned references are discussed above; yet, according to the policy, these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV. This is my perspective. Raj Shri21 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The Nature source—as I stated in the nomination—addresses an entirely different topic. The HBR and AOL articles are not independent of the subject. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 27 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.

Ventura Vikings

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

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

Redirect to United States Premier Hockey League. I am unable to find much independent coverage at all of this amateur team, let alone enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Weak Redirect, but I believe there will be some coverage going over the team as the team continues to play ,. Conyo14 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  There might be in the future, but both of those pieces are explicitly promotional. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect for now. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom, redirect to United States Premier Hockey League for now. LKBT (talk) 14:20, 28 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.

STS Group (Dubai)

STS Group (Dubai) (edit | talk | history | 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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the organization is the largest school transport provider in the country, has quite a lot of coverage from Khaleej Times & Gulf News. The UAE govt has collaborated with the company . It's most certainly notable here. jolielover♥talk 13:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep notable and well-cited in various media, including Khaleej and similar outlets. More sources could perhaps be added. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Why i am being concerned about the notability of this topic? I found , . But need more to support the case. I also found this, unfortunately this is a press release. Raj Shri21 (talk)
• Weak keep sources appear somewhat close or not independent of subject. If anyone else has thoughts on that, ping me. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:41, 26 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.

Karategin Uzbeks

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, The article doesn't cites any sources and is possibly a WP:HOAX as there is no information about it anywhere to confirm if it even exists. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks brother, yes historically Karategin was inhabited by Tajiks and Kyrgyzes even in sources that were mentioned in article it is written byt no mention of Uzbeks Amir TJK (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm slightly confused why you say the article doesn't cite any sources. It does lack inline, but for that throwing Template:No footnotes on it for a bit might be the better course of action. Unless someone can access the sources it does list and has evidence that they are unreliable, I see no reason to assume they are. Still, I can understand some suspicion about it, and would love to hear from @Фанис Шарбеков: about where they got their sources. - Ike Lek (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  You're making a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, If you think there are sources which provides WP:NOTABILITY to the subject then find and cite them here.

  I'm slightly confused why you say the article doesn't cite any sources. – I said it cause there is literally no citation present in the article, I don't see any reason to be confused here. I have already checked Karategin Uzbeks#Sources, The section only mentions names of some sources, However there no mention of any ethnic group called Karategin Uzbeks. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying there are for sure sources, I'm saying there are listed sources in the article, even if they aren't properly cited. I would want to hear about them before I decided they weren't legit. Ike Lek (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's no mention of Karategin Uzbeks in them either. I checked them before starting the AfD. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Huh, odd. There seems to be some mention of them here:

  • https://jamestown.org/program/will-tajikistans-karategin-valley-again-become-a-militant-stronghold/, granted it seems to be about a different group than the one the article claims exists.
  • https://ijmmu.com/index.php/ijmmu/article/view/2550 - I would love if someone could track down the sources this cites.
  • https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344736287_Ethnic_Composition_Of_The_Population_Of_Uzbek_Khanates - full text is available free if you look around a bit.

  There are clearly a significant number of Uzbeks in the Kabul area; however it is unclear if they match description given for this particular ethnic subgroup. If it does turn out to be a hoax, the these commons files need to be re-evaluated:

  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karategin_Uzbek,_1924,_Kabul,_Afghanistan_(b).png
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uzbek_Karategin_phenotype_of_Balkh,_Bactria_Afghanistan.jpg

  I can understand some suspicion; I definitely have some, but it does seem like the group is more likely than not to actually exist. Ike Lek (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  These sources only talk about other uzbek ethnicities, The first one does mentions a few lines about Uzbek settlement in Karategin however do not mention them as a ethnic group and has no WP:SIGCOV either; February 1999 terrorist attacks in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, frightened the Uzbekistani authorities into indiscriminately arresting religious dissenters. Consequently, emigration from Uzbekistan to Tajikistan became a mass movement, with whole families fleeing and resettling in the Karategin Valley. Military camps also sprang up alongside civilian Uzbek settlements in the Karategin. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  The first article is not about the ethnic group, but the other two contain mentions of the Dormon Uzbeks. Ike Lek (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Do they have WP:SIGCOV? Koshuri ^(グ) 18:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  The last one might, but definitely not on its own. I'm first just trying to verify that they exist and aren't a hoax before I invest the time to demonstrate notability. I'm not super attached to the article. I'm just trying to make sure it gets a fair defence, so we aren't erasing the existence of an ethnic group from the English internet if they are real. - Ike Lek (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  There have never been Durman (Dormon) Uzbeks in Karategin. The Durman Uzbeks traditionally lived in the Gissar Mountains, while Karategin was inhabited exclusively by Tajiks and Kyrgyz. None of the sources I consulted indicate that Uzbeks ever lived in Karategin. The picture depict Tajiks from Karategin living in Kabul, as the original source identifies them as Tajiks. You also mentioned Uzbeks in Kabul, which is true — but they are not Durman or Karategini Uzbeks. In fact, there are many different Uzbek tribes and groups in Afghanistan and Kabul, not only Durman.

  Rednaksiii (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; we need more opinions on outcomes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:01, 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.

Hayley Penhall

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

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

Does not meet GNG and SNG Sport Uncle Bash007 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. I couldn't find any sources at all after searching Google news, JSTOR, Google Books, Google scholar and Google newspapers. Given that the subject has gained their supposed notability in the 21st century, it seems strange that there aren't any sources on them. This obviously fails GNG and RS 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 23:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete no mentions of subject in g-news, newspapers.com, or PressReader. I can barely find reliable sources about the team she plays for or the league they're in. Zzz plant (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I'm pretty sure I prodded this in April. As a club cricketer, it's unsurprising she is not notable, so I'm not sure why it was recreated.
• Delete. About as non-notable as they come. We do not create articles on club cricketers. AA (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete unsurprisingly this club cricketer doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails SIGCOV and GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRICKETER—the article relies solely on routine PlayHQ scorecards and club-level material, lacking any significant independent reliable coverage to demonstrate notability. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete similar to one of the first comments to this thread, nothing available via JSTOR or google that makes this notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Clearly lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:07, 27 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.

Kalpesh Mehta

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

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

Article about a lesser-known enterpreneur. There is nothing comprehensive about the person in any of the sources. Sources are routine and mostly PR. Does not meet WP:GNG Thilsebatti (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Leaning towards a weak keep; after discounting all PR articles, there are some sources that offer significant coverage.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject seems to be notable, as I have found , , , and , hence it passes WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: There’s ample in-depth media coverage available in reliable sources, often with bylines to demonstrate GNG and ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. My preference is to retain. The topic is noteworthy due to substantial coverage from credible sources provided in the article and anlayzed by Taabii. It meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Monhiroe (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: While outlets like India TV, Business Today, and News18 are mentioned in the article, most of the coverage is either routine or promotional in nature. The sources provided by Taabii aren't in-depth, biographical sources. For someone to meet WP:GNG, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, not just passing mentions or PR-style writeups. Most of the article focuses on Mehta’s connection to Tribeca Developers, which seems to function mainly as a marketing or licensing partner for Trump-branded projects in India. That kind of association doesn't automatically establish notability, unless the individual himself has received consistent, independent media attention separate from the brand. A lot of the coverage cited feels promotional, some of it reads more like press releases than independent journalism. The sources focus more on the real estate projects than on Mehta as a notable figure, and they lack any real critical or analytical depth. Claiming this subject passes WP:NBIO seems like a stretch. There’s no clear evidence of any major impact on the real estate industry, no notable awards, and no leadership in globally recognized companies.Thilsebatti (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  The sources provided by me are not about the company, these are about the subject hence these are independent of the subject. And these articles shed light on Mehta's career path, business choices, and overall influence on the growth of real estate in India. He receive substantial coverage in numerous credible, independent publications, so these are not merely passing mentions. A legitimate claim to notability under WP:GNG and even WP:NBIO is supported by that type of industry influence as well as sustained media attention over time. Taabii (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, most of the sources are routine or PR. Quite a few are also WP:NEWSORGINDIA. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to support WP:NBIO.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of the coverage concentrates on projects but many of them highlight Mehta as the inspiration behind them. Your claim of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:RS is not correct for each reference. There are references which are in-depth, independent and reliable. Lakturu (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: There are the coverage which is Significant and from Reliable sources, meet WP:RSPSS such as Forbes and The Indian Express. Passes WP:GNG. Lakturu (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: I have reviewed all the points presented by the editors mentioned above. I believe that the arguments in favor of keeping the content are more compelling. When examining the references cited in the article, it is evident that the topic is discussed in sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia (WP:RS), including Hindustan Times, LiveMint, Indian Express, and The Financial Express (India), all of which are respected newspapers. In my view, this meets the standards outlined in WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Source analysis is as follows.

Despite the large number of citations, none of the sources offer significant, sustained, and independent coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Nearly all are either project announcements, event mentions, or primary interviews lacking in-depth biographical focus. Promotional tone, "Who is" fluff, and passing name-checks dominate the coverage. There is no substantial profile in any high-quality source independent of Tribeca or the Trump brand. Thilsebatti (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Thilsebatti I wouldn't say the Forbes India source "briefly names" Mehta, there are three paragraphs that focus on him. I haven't looked at other sources yet. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Source Analysis with some modifications:

And few articles which are not covered in this analysis: कल्पेश मेहता-काफी पहले भांप लिया था देश में लग्जरी रियल एस्टेट का स्कोप, Article is written independent and in-depth story covered by Moneycontrol staff " Ritika Singh". Meet SIGCOV. I think the above analysis and available sources meet WP:THREE. Lakturu (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the above discussion and analysis of the resources, i can say the subject meets WP:GNG. Michael goms (talk) 15:50, 28 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.

Yaakov Shapiro (American rabbi)

Yaakov Shapiro (American rabbi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears non-notable. Trivially mentioned in a few reliable sources, extensively quoted in one Mondoweiss piece. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, and United States of America. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro has received independent, non-trivial coverage from third-party sources such as Tikkun Magazine and Portal Cioran, and has participated in public discourse on Zionism vs Judaism, including podcasts and conference appearances. While some sources are hosted on platforms like WordPress, they are not self-published blogs but journalistic or scholarly essays. His media visibility and distinct theological stance justify notability under WP:NBIO. The article can be improved further with additional citations, but it meets the basic threshold.Arbabi second (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Tikkun "source" is nothing but two un-annotated links to YouTube and Facebook. Portal Cioran appears to be a blog, with no byline, staff, or editorial policy. Having a "distinct theological stance" definitely does not justify notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete does not appear notable and poor sources.Metallurgist (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I was unable to find a significant number of credible sources. Sethi752 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This book lists him as an expert consulted . This book talks about him including some description of him . He is interviewed in this book . He is quoted in these:. He might qualify for WP:AUTHOR because he is widely cited, including by: Notable or not, he certainly strikes me as quite an unorthodox Orthodox. – Ike Lek (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Where is the SIGCOV? gidonb (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say there was any. I don't have full-text access to most of these, so I don't know. I didn't !vote. I'm just trying to be helpful. Ike Lek (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

For sure! Just checking if you have solved this problem. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, an extensive mention in one Mondoweiss source does not fairly nor fully establish notability and doubly fails WP:SIGCOV. Could change, so maybe draftify would be acceptable. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete - a reasonable effort by Ike Lek has found sources, but not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The references i found are not adequately supporting subject's notability. , “Jewish nationality is an absurdity” – Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro-This is subject's opinion, not an independent article. , It seems self published. , Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: Israel is NOT the “capital of the Jewish People” Again not an independent and in-depth.Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per the above comments and lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:23, 27 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.

Ramón Arriaga

Ramón Arriaga (edit | talk | history | 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 struggling to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Mexican footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails in GNG, no profile in WorldFootball. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete – Surprisingly common name. Didn't find SIGCOV. – Ike Lek (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Non-notable football player. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BASICSPORT. Without new sources, fails notability. Ping me if anyone finds something I haven't. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:43, 26 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.

2025 Lexington shootings

2025 Lexington shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kentucky. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• delete this WP:NOTNEWS example. An unfortunately common altercation with a cop gotten out of hand is unlikely to have lasting coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  And what about the church shooting? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Routine crime, not the subject of sustained secondary analysis. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories, nor should it be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep not because of the traffic stop shooting, but because the mass shooting at a church. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Good third party sources. Still interest from media. Cover WP:GNG at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This sadly seems to be another domestic dispute, but the tone of the article as written now is sensationalist and poor. Nathannah • 📮 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Mass casualty event that has received widespread coverage. Thriley (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Mass casualty event where coverage has been around the globe. Notable enough to keep. Nintenga (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, as tragic as it is, this shooting does not appear to be particularly notable when compared with the list of 30 or so mass shootings that have happened in America in this month so far. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Tacky nomination. The victims aren't even embalmed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. Mass shootings in the United States (as defined) are almost a weekly occurrence. This would fall under WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep as received significant national coverage across major news outlets Macbrindle (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Welcome to the U.S.; it's already out of the news cycle. ^EF⁵ 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, Basically a family shooting which involved the police. Not at all exceptional in the US. Fleeting media coverage, now passed attention. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Thriley and Nintenga. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Routine event in the US. Sandstein 17:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been conflicted, so I haven't voted, but while gun violence in the United States is commonplace (even mass shootings), church shootings are not. I understand that this is also a domestic incident, but this escalated into a broader attack. Raskuly (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well... what makes this event any different from the near weekly events at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025? Can the article be summarized there? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  I wrote out the reasons why, and unquestionably notable shootings can also be summarized on articles like the list of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. Raskuly (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Gun violence in the U.S. is common, but targeted domestic terrorism shootings such as this are not. Calling this type of crime "routine" is incorrect. Also, when the bodies are still warm it's hard to make the case that this has no WP:LASTING coverage. Keep, wait and see if there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and reevaluate in the future. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Did you mean to vote in favor of keeping it? I've also not seen this attack referred to as "domestic terrorism". Raskuly (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry. Must have clicked the wrong button. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Darth Stabro: Where does it mention "domestic terrorism" in the article? The media coverage has passed, its just as easy to leave this article as a redirect until the time for an article comes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Shooting cruft, and barely any deaths. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Total fatalities is not an indication of notability. In regards to calling it "cruft", do you mean the quality of the article? Raskuly (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Thriley. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 22:34, 28 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.

Shay Martyn

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

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

Redirect to List of St Helens R.F.C. players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby league player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - made his SL debut for St Helens.Fleets (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  • From reading other AfD I believe making a debut is no longer sufficient for notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable career and lack of references. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• Redirect to List of St Helens R.F.C. players : Subject lacks notability under the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:24, 26 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.

Keane Gilford

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

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

Redirect to List of St Helens R.F.C. players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - made his SL debut for St Helens.Fleets (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  • From reading other AfD I believe making a debut is no longer sufficient for notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable career and lack of references. Mn1548 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• Delete – This is the closest I could find to independent SIGCOV, and it isn't enough. Maybe the two sentences here also count for something, but certainly not SIGCOV. Fully open to recreation if better coverage can be found. He is likely still active, so it doesn't seem unlikely that he will receive more coverage over time. – Ike Lek (talk) 20:35, 26 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.

Cuauhtémoc Domínguez

Cuauhtémoc Domínguez (edit | talk | history | 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 struggling to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Mexican footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Even though he played a few seasons for Atlante, a club that is expected to have good coverage, I couldn't find anything about him. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Non-notable football player. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BASICSPORT lacking pertinent notability from reliable sources. Ping me if anyone finds something that I have not. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 26 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.

Mohammad Ruslan

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

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

Former mayor of a city of 400,000, Indonesia's 32nd largest, does not qualify under WP:NPOL. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The population of the city is irrelevent to WP:NPOL. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Experssing Islam ([9])}	No affiliation with the subject; academic analysis.	Published by a Singapore-based publisher ( Institute of Southeast Asian Studies). The chapter in question is by Robin Bush, who I assume is this person who I assume knows what she's talking about.	Discusses Ruslan's actions as mayor in the context of Islam in Indonesian politics.	✔ Yes
Unrest in Mataram Not Due to Ethnic or Religious Issues	Newspaper with no affiliation with the subject.	Despite the bad website design, the article is published in Kompas, a big national newspaper. I think it is probably reliable for local issues like this one.	Quotes the mayor and discusses the situation.	✔ Yes
Indonesian Investment and Trading Opportunity by Province, Regency, City. Vol. 4	If it's published by a national department, it should be independent from small-town mayors.	Apparantly published by the Indonesian Departement of Home Affairs	Eech. Based on the little sliver of a preview GBooks throws me we might have SIGCOV here, given it's a "profile". But based on the type of information in the article cited to this source (childhood, personal life) and the large amount of text cited to it (whole paragraph), I'm working on the asumption that it has SIGCOV. If someone wants to create an account with this sketchy website, they might get to find out.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Keep based on this table. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep in addition to the table above, I found another source (), in which a whole chapter is dedicated to reviewing the first terms of four regional leaders including Ruslan. Not -exclusive-, but certainly SigCov. Juxlos (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the above analysis of sources. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per source assessment. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep As per above source analysis, the subject meets WP:GNG. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:34, 26 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.

Eagles–Falcons rivalry

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

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

Last discussion was no consensus. Not many RS call this a rivalry. Minor rivalry, the Quarterbacks the rivalry is centered around are not Hall of Famers like Mahomes, Montana or Manning or Brady level, only 4 playoff meetings between the 2 teams. Rivalry isn't Divisional, nor is it centered around teams with historical dominance like rivalries that include teams like the 49ers, Cowboys, Packers, Giants, Steelers, Patriots, Broncos ETC. I can easily believe that this rivalry exists, but it just doesn't feel notable enough for its own article. I think Redirect to List of NFL rivalries #Atlanta Falcons vs. Philadelphia Eagles where this is mentioned target per WP:CHEAP, WP:ATD, and WP:BLAR. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Pennsylvania. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the arguments I made as nominator of the 2021 AFD. The references in this article do little to pass GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry between the two teams. There is one reference with reliable, independent coverage ((this AP article), and even that, from 20 years ago, only says the teams are building a rivalry, with no follow-up suggesting a rivalry has been "built." I oppose a redirect to the NFL rivalries list (as I think the Eagles-Falcons entry in that page should be deleted as well). Frank Anchor 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. There are a lot of references, but I'm not sure if those would justify passing WP:GNG. Most of them are articles from games, and even then, they don't add that much. NotJamestack (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete None of the sources are good for WP:GNG. This wouldn't even be good for establishing a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of NFL rivalries #Atlanta Falcons vs. Philadelphia Eagles, at least unless if consensus deems a section not necessary, as there is a little bit of history between them. Note - I found this and this explicitly calling it a rivalry but they may not be the most reliable.EaglesPhanatic (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Is Philly Sports Network reliable? I found this source which has good historical overview-level secondary coverage that otherwise qualifies for WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, certainly not WP:ROUTINE coverage. FWIW, the site says they're owned by Schneps Media. Not sure I'm ready to write off this article just yet. Left guide (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would say Philly Sports Network is reliable, but we can't exactly bank an article off of one source. Conyo14 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: This rivalry lacks the sustained, independent coverage to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 15:56, 28 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.

David Hodge and Hi-Jin Kang Hodge

David Hodge and Hi-Jin Kang Hodge (edit | talk | history | 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 should be removed from public view while authors accumulate more sources to strengthen the case for notability of subject. Clifford888 (talk) 18:19, 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.

Dynasties of Ahirs

Dynasties of Ahirs (edit | talk | history | 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 WP:COATRACK of loosely connected dynasties, many of which lack reliable scholarly consensus linking them to the Ahir community. The references often fail WP:RS & some are misused to support fringe or WP:UNDUE historical claims...also fails WP:V, and WP:SYNTH. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Nepal, India, Bihar, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Chronos.Zx (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Evidence of synthesis includes the lists of states far apart from each other and from different epochs. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as problematic WP:COATRACK and the problematic related historical claims. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:48, 26 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.

Fravashi Academy

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

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

Unable to find any coverage that is bylined and independent apart from routine coverage of school council members, exam results and toppers. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Fravashi Academy is one of Nashik's oldest and most reputed private schools. It has been extensively covered in local and state news, demonstrated by the multiple news items in prominent and reputed news sources, like the Times of India, as you mentioned, on its results, toppers and school events. Further, in terms of notability under WP:GNG, the school has been recognised at the national level, having set a record acknowledged by a third-party institution, the India Book of Records: (https://indiabookofrecords.in/india-book-of-records-honours-the-largest-choir/). The presence of multiple independent, non-trivial sources indicates clear notability. Additionally, news about a potential buyout of the school also gained coverage from several national newspapers and news portals (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/kkr-backed-eurokids-in-talks-to-buy-nasik-based-farvashi-school-for-about-rs-227-cr/articleshow/76122944.cms?from=mdr). While the article may benefit from more inline citations and formatting cleanup, deletion is wholly unwarranted. The subject clearly merits inclusion. GoldenPhoenix123 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Results, toppers and school events are routine coverage. Even if we consider the Economic Times source, we would still need two more. India Book of Records is neither reliable nor independent and the fact that the record isn’t covered by any other reliable news media shows how unimportant it is. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The school and its affiliated Trust have been covered in the news: (HC restrains govt from acting against Nashik school). Further, its alumni include a chess grandmaster and former Captain for the Indian chess team, Vidit Gujrathi, as well as several prominent Bollywood actors and directors— Sayali Bhagat, Shashank Khaitan and Saiyami Kher. GoldenPhoenix123 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The coverage of a court case involving the school’s trust is a press release. As for alumni, even if they’re notable individuals, a school's notability requires reliable, independent and substantial coverage of the school, not just a list of who studied there. We'd still need at least two more solid, independent sources with significant coverage focused on the school itself to meet the guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:00, 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) 15:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: As nominator said, Unable to find any coverage that is bylined and Independent apart from routine coverage of school. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I am happy to change my vote, if you provide Significant coverage. My intention is not to delete this article. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has only two sources, and is pretty much completely (!) unsourced and chock full with original research. There would be a good case to restart and TNT in its current state. Concur with Bakhtar40 in that there are practically no sources available and no significant coverage outside the school's own primary web materials.  GuardianH  13:46, 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.

Aaron Pott

Aaron Pott (edit | talk | history | 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 entire article is filled with either unimportant information or promotional information. There seems to be no reason for him to have his own page. The biggest still existent source I could find is this small piece in forbes about his wine not even about him. Every article is about his wine and his credentials are only brought up to promote the wines.

The most notable thing about him is the prize he won, however I have no clue how notable "Food & Wine" is in the landscape of wine judging. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Wine. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Pott in 2008. It was a keep, but a weak one and only 3 participants contributes, only 2 explicitly voted.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Article by their Senior Wine Critic and here . Article badly needs updating though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Three articles is enough for WP:NBASIC. 🄻🄰 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG and Food and Wine would appear to be fine for purposes of keeping this. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

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

List of Maximum Ride characters

List of Maximum Ride 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)

Fails WP:NLIST. No references to reliable secondary sources. The 1 reference the article has currently is a primary source to a list of books. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 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 Literature. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: . Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - reasons for deletion can be addressed with edits to remove unsourced information for-depth analysis while retaining character descriptions, etc. cited from the novels themselves. The series features a wide array of characters organized into multiple groups and I think it makes sense to keep as its own article as opposed to merging into the Characters section of the main article. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly valid split-out article, too large to fit in the main article. The series is now 11 novels, with manga and comic book adaptations, and a film. Best to just have all the characters in one place, than have the same information filling up all these different articles. Dream Focus 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like sources discuss the characters as a group, which is needed per Wikipedia:LISTN. Many of these characters can be covered at Maximum Ride, or at individual books, depending on the status of each character as recurring or not. Unless some good coverage of the characters as a whole can be found, this list firmly does not meet the Wikipedia:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Pokelego999. I don't see the sources to support an encyclopedia article, per WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would accept a selective merge as a compromise. The main article is only 20k, and a slight expansion of the character list wouldn't tip the scales. (Nor would a complete merge, but I'd advise against it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Maximum Ride#Characters. It's always the question if a collection of fiction can be notable without the characters. In a non-exhaustive search, a number of the news sources I've seen do comment on the characters as a group, but rather briefly. The more interesting-looking sources from the Google Scholar search I cannot access, unfortunately. So considering the volume of commentary currently available to me, I am fine with a merge. I think, however, that this is strongly preferable to deletion or a pure redirect. Just compare as an example that the Maximum Ride article suddenly comments on Total's character, who appears out of nowhere, no other mention. So a merge would make this more well-rounded. If someone has access to more sources I'd be happy to hear about them. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge Daranios said it best. Some series may not have enough sources to build a good character article. But a short character list in the main article would preserve some of the content. It is preferable to deleting. Archrogue (talk) 14:54, 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.

Tanak Tepong

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

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering this settlement. (The Netherlands Wikipedia article has no sources either) ApexParagon (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• delete this unsourced geostub. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 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.

Laro people

Laro people (edit | talk | history | 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 reference on the page doesn't look to be a RS. The difficulty of identifying sources is that many speak of the Laro language rather than identifying an ethnic group. Whilst it seems obvious that if there is a language there is a corresponding group, it's not really for an encyclopedia to make this assertion. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Sudan. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for checking for other sources before deleting this tiny article without any you find valid. I respect that, it's very responsible and gives these lesser-seen start articles a fair chance. Kaasterly (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• maybe it should be changed to Speakers of Laro language. Sarcelles (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Page 22 of this seems to refer to the existence of a tribe or ethnic group –Ike Lek (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  It also gives additional names they are referred to by. Page 31 discusses Laro vs. Laru. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This source discusses them as a tribe with a disctinct identity despite linguistic closeness with neighboring tribes. It mostly refers to them as Laro. – Ike Lek (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also mentioned in this book, albeit with some dated racial terminology. Ike Lek (talk) 00:14, 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) 10:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - addressing the sources offered by @Ike Lek: above:

source [1] above is titled Laru Vowel Harmony and the paragraph on page 22 says The Laru language is spoken in the Nuba Mountains of Southern Kordofan Province in Sudan. Because of insecurity in the home area, there are large displaced communities in Khartoum, Port Sudan, Sennar, and Atbara. According to the Sudan census of 1984, which excludes speakers living outside the home area, the number of the native speakers is 7600. According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25-50,000.

page 31 is a discussion about the spelling of a word in English

source [3] appears to be talking about Eugenics

In my opinion the strongest source offered here is clearly talking about a language group. As I suggest above, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that there is an ethnic group that speaks this language, however it isn't the job of Wikipedia to make this assertion. We can't have pages that are only referenced obliquely. I still can't really see how this information wouldn't be better covered in Laro language until such time as better sources are found. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

These quotes from the first sources are more what I was referring to, especially as they could provide clues as to what to search for to find more information: "The Laru are known by other Sudanese as Liira or Alliira, which are names given to the Laru by outsiders." and "According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25- 50,000." Page 31 contains translations for terms such as "Laru homeland" and "person of Laru" separate from "language of Laru".

I suggest we take extra care before making a decision on this AfD, as erasing the existence of an ethnic group group from Wikipedia can have major consequences, especially with LLMs feeding off Wikipedia and then being used to make decisions.

I would say the strongest source is probably the second one, so I would be curious to hear to assessment of it. Also, to be explicitly clear, I do not support human eugenics. I don't think anyone was saying that I did, but just in case, I do not want that to be misunderstood. Ike Lek (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

While I still do not support eugenics, I do question how you came to the conclusion that it is the subject of the third source I gave. Further review seems to suggest that while it does use pseudo-scientific racial categorization at some points in the book, it does give a historically-based ethno-linguistic categorization of Nuba peoples not directly tied to eugenics. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, as I do not have access to the complete book. Ike Lek (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Laro language – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Any reason why? Ike Lek (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  Because it's simply a stub that repeats the lead of the article about the language. Svartner (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  So the argument isn't that it is non-notable, but that it doesn't have any information that isn't already covered? If that's the case, I might be willing to do some work on it, but I don't want to invest the time if I am misunderstanding the reasoning. Ike Lek (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 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.

George, Hereditary Prince of Hanover

George, Hereditary Prince of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was previously deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince George William of Hanover (born 1880), which found him to be non-notable. I can't see the old article, or remember it, so I don't know whether this is a direct recreation or not. Either way, I think it deserves further discussion. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to believe that his GCVO (highest grade) would make him notable per ANYBIO#1, which was overlooked at the previous AFD, but what gives me pause is that it's awarded to the people in personal service of the British monarch. Weak redirect to Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover (his father) as WP:ATD, if the sourcing isn't sufficient to sustain an article beyond stub length. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The GCVO clearly makes him notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Even aside from the GCVO, the newspapers at the time of his death must have thought that he was notable, as per the references given. He has articles on multiple foreign-language Wikipedias, and it would be possible to expand the article considerably from these versions (especially the German version), which contain numerous further references suggesting more widespread recognition of notability. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:47, 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.

Netcore Cloud

Netcore Cloud (edit | talk | history | 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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the topic is notable per NCORP, 'cause it has several reliable sigcov references, including Times of India bootstrap story about , Business Standard , BusinessMatter while Economic Times also have good overview and independent thoughts on the topic. Insillaciv (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep my online search suggests, the company is old and GNG-eligible as it has significant coverage in CNBC (Tv18)Economic Times, Business Day and other. Interestingly, it also received a critical (not pleasant) highlight about how Airtel India blocked Netcore services in article Airtel blocks Netcore services (Business Standard). It should be added to the page. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete None of the above-mentioned sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The Times of India story is a PTI press release as stated at the bottom of the article. The two Economic Times articles are trivial acquisition announcements. It takes roughly five seconds to see that the Business Matters article is a self-published puff piece on "our illustrious journey". The Business Standard report does not count toward notability per WP:ILLCON. Yuvaank (talk) 22:29, 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) 10:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting the articles from Wikipedia is not only the solution. I found Vanguard, Business Standard and Channel Life. Raj Shri21 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Vanguard and Channel Life sources are routine announcements. The Business Standard article is an interview as claimed by the subject. Yuvaank (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

We can consider Interview, if it is in-depth and from reliable source. Raj Shri21 (talk) 10:07, 26 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.

Efetobo Aror

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

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

Aror is still a collegiate athlete who made a single brief appearance in USL Championship and while he was selected in the first round of the MLS Draft, he did not sign. Aror may eventually warrant an article, but WP:TOOSOON appears relevant, and it would've been better if it were just a draft. Raskuly (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, Georgia (U.S. state), and Oregon. Raskuly (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete With only routine club/college releases and minor draft-day mentions, the subject lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG, and a single academy cameo in the USL Championship does not establish NFOOTY notability, so the article should be removed until verifiable coverage emerges. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as it is now, there is nothing that makes this pass WP:BASICSPORT. If more is found, ping me and I'll update to a draftify !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable football player. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:24, 27 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.

Li Qi (politician, born 1969)

Li Qi (politician, born 1969) (edit | talk | history | 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. Nor do they meet WP:POL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete unless Chinese language sources are found. Current coverage does not show sigcov Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  All the sources cited in the article are Chinese language sources. - Amigao (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I meant to say further sources. Two of these sources are decent and focus on what appears to be the same event. The others are not significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep meets NPOL by virtue of being a member of the 13th National People's Congress This source and the political office are already in the zh.wikipedia article. Oblivy (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  I could be incorrect, but I do not think this person is the same person as the one in the article you linked for zh wikipedia. They don't have the same name in latin or chinese characters. Li Qi is referred to as "he" while the 李静 article says she is female. They are listed with different birth months and represent separate provinces. This is not to say Li Qi is not notable, but that they aren't the same as the person you linked. Ike Lek (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with Oblivy. He is holding a political position and based on the available references on zh.wikipedia. Gepeas (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - it could be the translation program, but there is no politician named Li Qi in the source provided by Oblivy. There's a "Li Qiang", a "Li Qiuxi", and a "Li Qilin". Using "李琦", the Chinese version in the current article, and an un-translated version of the article, yields zero results.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I totally agree with Onel5969, sources cited in the article do not yield a result about any Li Qi. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, then why did you !vote keep? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NPOL is a strong claim to notability but there seems to be some doubt whether this person meets it: there is evidence of mismatched identity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added two more sources to the article. I think it barely meets GNG based on the sources now in the article. On the concerns about mistaken identity above, I agree that this article about the NPC does not seem to mention Li Qi; I can't find any evidence that he was in the NPC. The Chinese Wikipedia article linked above seems to be about a different person, Li Jing (李静) rather than Li Qi (李琦). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment agreed that is an article about a different person, from another province. Apologies and I've struck my above comment and vote. The guy was county party chairman and provincial trade union boss. Is that enough for NPOL? With respect, the sources added by @Mx. Granger are fantastic for verifiability but I don't see anyone talking independently about him. Oblivy (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Those positions would not meet NPOL, so GNG still needs to be shown Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep meets GNG. I reviewed the article sources. @The Account 2: Thoughts?

Czarking0 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. In cases like this, I feel it's good to run a though experiment: if he was an American politician holding a roughly similar position, would he have been notable? There seems to be just enough sources covering him. The Account 2 (talk) 17:43, 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.

Coburg, Indiana

Coburg, 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)

A rail spot with a farmtead next to it, and nothing else. Not a town. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete -The subject does not seem to have sufficient sources to pass WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvinnen (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I was able to find another reference online. There may be more references offline that editors in the Valparaiso, Indiana area might have easier access to. Expansion would secure notability, but it remains unclear if that expansion can never happen. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved much of the content from this article into the Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – Well so uhmm Coburg does have some historical significance as a former postal and railway location (Correct), but the current sourcing is minimal and leaves questions about whether it qualifies as a notable community under WP:GEOLAND what i think can be done is if we can get additional offline or local historical sources that might help establish its notability. At this point, I see merit in either improving the article with stronger references or merging/redirecting it if expansion is not feasible.Icem4k (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find anything beyond the current sources in the article. Maybe, it's a good option to merge or redirect the page. Insillaciv (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To those considering a merge or redirect, please identify a specific target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be a little more to this than the other similar nominations. Its really on the edge of notability, but seems to have totally disappeared. Altho, on Google Maps, there is a Coburg Flower Depot, which has a little history. Not an RS, but I think it suggests there was a town. It also had a post office it seems, which adds some notability.Metallurgist (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  1880 Census turned up nothing, buuuuut... an Ancestry.com search did! Im not sure how to link it since to need to login to the database, but I found a newspaper clipping of an obituary in 1957 that mentions a Mrs Jennie S Conrad was born in Coburg in 1868. There are also a few SS applications and an Indiana death index mention. Definitely a real place. Metallurgist (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - per Metallurgist. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This source, cited in the article, says when the railroad station was built here in 1875, "the people of Steamburg nearly all moved over to the new station", and that Lucy Mander was the school teacher. A railroad station, store, post office, homes, and a school indicates a populated settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many population figures for this community (they range from 50 in 1890 to 15 in 1940), it is discussed in county history books, it appears in news articles, and appeared on state maps until about the 1970s. This was a real community with a noted history, being a community which moved from Steamburg to Coburg to follow the rail line in the 1870s. Milowent has significantly expanded the article and I have added further details. More work could be done, but Coburg is clearly a notable community. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:01, 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.

1966–67 Divizia C

1966–67 Divizia C (edit | talk | history | 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 restored from a redirect as a result of an RFD discussion (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#1966–67 Divizia C). The requestor used, as part of their basis for restoring the article, "The article cited at least three reliable sources, including Sportul, the national sports newspaper of the time, which is widely recognized as a dependable reference for historical football data. In line with policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, I believe the article should be restored, as it presents verifiable, factual information that is useful to readers, even if it doesn't meet GNG strictly in terms of broad media coverage. (italics mine) " The issue is that of those 3 sources, one is simply a db page, and the two others appear to be simple mentions. The articles referenced appear to be about Division B, and mention the promotions from Division C. Neither are in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep - I’d like to respectfully disagree with the deletion, as I believe the article qualifies for restoration under WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD.

The sources cited do not merely mention promotions in passing — they specifically refer to the 1966–67 Divizia C season as having just concluded, summarizing its outcome. This is not a trivial or incidental mention, but direct coverage of the season’s results, published at the time in Sportul, a daily newspaper, and Fotbal, a weekly magazine — both recognized Romanian sports publications.

While the article is minimal, it provides verifiable, factual information backed by contemporary sources. Deleting it removes content that is reliably sourced and pertains to a specific, completed national competition.

Wikipedia recognizes that many articles start as stubs — short but useful entries that provide verifiable information. There is no deadline for completeness; articles can and should be expanded over time. Deleting an article solely because it is brief or incomplete contradicts Wikipedia’s nature as a work in progress.

Restoration would allow for future development, but even in its current state, the article contains non-trivial, source-backed content that meets inclusion standards under existing policies. --Florin (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's completely meaningless to single out the 1966–67 season among 50 individual seasons of this league. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The redirect and the rationale for it was shocking, considering that we rarely have such a clear showing that a league passes WP:GNG with printed non-English journalism sources from almost 60 years ago already in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The article looks good. It has three sources, including from the most popular Romanian newspaper of that time. It is hard to find a better source for a third division season that took place 50 years ago. Sebi1990TheSecond (talk)
• Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - sorry, but none of the current sourcing is even close to significant coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Two sources point to sports publications from the time (1967) and one to a specialized website. This is the type of coverage expected for a competition edition. Svartner (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  And that does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, it easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV, especially for a competition. A 1967 magazine had an almost full page spread dedicated to the results of a third division league - I'm sure if we found other copies of that magazine there would be additional coverage there. The other magazine in the article almost had a full page dedicated to every single game played in that division. They had correspondents at each game! It's crystal clear this competition was significantly covered by the Romanian media. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The 1966–67 season was extensively convered by the Sportul newspaper, with results published each week and the final table after the seasons's conclusions. If needed, we can provide sources that list some of the scores to prove the notability. mihai.zamfir30 16:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  More sources would be preferable... Not on individual scores, but more so on the nature of the league: competitiveness, contenders for promotion and relegation, outstanding performances, turnarounds, surprising tendencies etc. Geschichte (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep As always, I'd like to see more prose, however there appears to be enough coverage. Govvy (talk) 20:36, 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.

Mister Philippines 2007

Mister Philippines 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12+ years. This has been proposed for deletion three times in that time. No other language has an article from which to translate. A WP:BEFORE search revealed Zero reliable sources online Google, Zero sources on Google news, and only two sources on Google books/newspapers (both from the somewhat unreliable and always conjectural Manila Times), thus lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Borgenland (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that the opening suggest that this was a hoax anyway. Borgenland (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. If no Mister Philippines pageant took place that year, then how is that year's edition notable? AstrooKai (Talk) 18:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT. Concur that if the event didn’t happen then it is not notable. Dan arndt (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete, an article on something that doesn't exist is the definition of not passing WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of sourcing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The opening line stating "There was no Mister Philippines 2007" directly contradicts the rest of the article and makes the topic appear to be a hoax. It's surprising that this has stayed up for so long without proper sourcing or clarification. There are no reliable references to confirm the event actually took place, and the content as it stands is misleading and unverifiable. --AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 00:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as possible WP:HOAX article. Surprised though that it took 12+ years for this to come to AfD. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:HOAX per Iljhgtn. 49.151.187.185 (talk) 10:48, 26 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.

2025 Hollywood car attack

2025 Hollywood car attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and California. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. A vehicle-ramming attack isn't routine, and we have on the order of 100 articles on individual ramming attack incidents, listed at List of vehicle-ramming attacks and also Template:Vehicle-ramming attacks, some of which have existed for a decade (e.g., 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade attack). There is no community consensus to interpret WP:EVENT as precluding this category of article. Einsof (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Per Category:Vehicle-ramming attacks in the United States. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories, and articles should only be created for events if they are the subject of significant sustained analysis. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not counted when determining consensus at AfD. If you want to write about random non-notable incidents like this, do so at List of vehicle-ramming attacks or over on Wikinews. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Wikinews is going to be folded into Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 00:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-lethal car ramming, routine for USA, no indication of any lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - ultimately falls right on the side of routine, minus an outside chance of coverage picking back up later if the motive ends up being terrorism etc. I don't buy the WP:WAX argument and especially not the comparison to 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade attack, which had significantly more injuries and deaths. This might be recreated if and when coverage picks up in a big way but I wouldn't count on it from what I see in the article. Departure– (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Per Category:Vehicle-ramming attacks in the United States. — Butters (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

How exactly is a category a reason not to delete a page? Departure– (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

They were probably following the example of an administrator who tried to do the same thing higher up. Facepalm Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The relevance is that articles in this category (or the geographically broader parent category) have been nominated for deletion under similar rationales (not news, not notable) and kept. The article June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack was nominated twice for deletion and was kept both times after well-attended discussions (here and here); December 2017 Melbourne car attack was kept; 2017 Times Square car attack had no consensus to delete; 2014 Dijon attack had no consensus to delete, etc. The current nominator did not describe how the event in this article is routine, and I suppose expected that people coming to this discussion would find it self-evident. But that is not the case, and past discussions have shown it. Einsof (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep well sourced article. If it cannot be kept, merge to List_of_vehicle-ramming_attacks#2020s_2. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. I don't think a redirect is even necessary because the only insource mentions of this article is the proposed connected page (List of vehicle-ramming attacks) and the suspect's name (Fernando Ramírez) in a disambiguation page. The former would make the link circular and the latter is unnecessary and can be removed if the page is deemed non-notable. -- BriefEdits (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. No indication this event is WP:LASTING. Let'srun (talk) 22:57, 27 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.

2025 Incheon shooting

2025 Incheon shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Korea, and South Korea. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is more of a news murder than encyclopedic shooting event Czarking0 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Guns have been completely and strictly banned in South Korea for many decades. So this incident shouldn't be compared with any shooting case in the US, since their possession of firearms is so widespread and public. Meanwhile, multiple media outlets confirmed that the perpetrator was involved in an attempted bombing on a large residential complex where he lives, so that many people even started to view the case as "terrorism".

Timers were set to explode at noon and the whole building might be endangered if they went enabled, all confirmed by an official police briefing.

The most recent shooting crime in South Korea, excepting this and any military incidents, took place more than nine years ago, proving any gun crimes in South Korea are super rare, unlike the US having annual cases of mass shootings without skipping a year. I think I showed enough that the case is not routine at all and so unusual. -StarBiologist (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Replying to the above as well; while the event is certainly unusual, judging on our own of what is unusual isn't really part of WP:NEVENT. Plenty of unusual things with minimal impact and coverage only around the time of the event that wouldn't pass the criteria. Until there's more clear evidence of WP:EVENTCRIT, I lean delete. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete. It needs lasting coverage of some sort that shows it's more than a news event. I'm wondering whether a list of shootings in South Korea could work, but this wouldn't be included unless the inclusion criteria were really low. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I am not opposed to draftification or a soft delete, but it is simply too recent for there to be sustained coverage. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Ike. 49.151.187.185 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment this is curious, but I think draftify might be best if more come around to that as a best option. Ping me if more evidence leads that towards a possibility. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:57, 26 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.

Indus University (Gujarat)

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

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hold. While the current article may lack sufficient sourcing, this university is a notable institution in Gujarat.

The article appears outdated and underdeveloped. I intend to improve the content by adding reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Requesting time to address these concerns with appropriate references. Njoy deep (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Made changes, have a look now Njoy deep (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources recently added to the article establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Most references are either affiliated with the university, promotional in nature, or lack depth. Without substantial independent sourcing, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements for educational institutions WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and inclusion risks violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Putting the article back in Draft might be helpful to improve the page.--FreaksIn 15:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. LKBT (talk) 14:54, 28 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.

Rahul Garg

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

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Karnataka, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Moglix. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The subject has received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources, including Forbes India (1, 2, 3), The Times of India (link), The Economic Times (link), and Navbharat Times (link). He was also featured in Forbes India’s “Tycoons of Tomorrow” and " Fortune's 40 Under 40” list. The subject clearly meets the notability criteria under WP:ANYBIO. Salmon dee (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with or redirect to Moglix. The sources seem to primarily give notability to the company rather than Garg himself. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Moglix: sources are mostly about Moglix, not the founder. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Found some more articles during my (WP:BEFORE) search, such as those from Free Press Journal, Economic Times, and Forbes that cover the founder in good detail and meet (WP:NBIO). The article does not read like a resume, and even if parts do, they can easily be cleaned up with standard editing. Cheers! Baqi:) (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  FPJ article is unbylined and the Economic Times piece merely repeats what he says about himself, without any secondary analysis by the journalist. Neither of these sources count towards WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited, so the notability of the company cannot be attributed to the BLP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  FPJ feature is by a staff reporter and is a credible newspaper. The Economic times and Forbes are editorial pieces and are good sources with sufficient depth and coverage. They meet the requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is absolutely not how sources should be evaluated and you should know this by now. Unbylined sources are not reliable, except when used for uncontroversial claims and certainly not for establishing notability. The Economic Times is not a good source for establishing notability either, as it is a WP:PRIMARY source. Wikipedia:Interviews: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject appears to meet the notability criteria under WP:NBIO based on significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. The articles cited above include in-depth profiles that focus on the individual’s entrepreneurial journey and contributions, rather than solely on the associated company. Monhiroe (talk) 18:07, 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) 15:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with Moglix. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Too many of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:PRIMARY (or both). Most of them are about Moglix anyway, and we must always be mindful of WP:NOTINHERITED.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Moglix. Most of the sources deal with the company rather than the subject itself, so a redirect to the parent article and a merging of the existing material would be the best case.  GuardianH  13:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Both the Forbes articles are decent and credible editorial pieces that give good coverage about the subject and can be considered to show notability. The subject's name comes up quite a few times. Also found this Entrepreneur piece that goes into in-depth detail and provides significant coverage. These sources are enough to justify a standalone article. These are all major, credible publications with rigorous editorial oversight, fact-checking, and professional standards. Also found several sources in regional languages. Pranamwashu (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: as per the sources provided above, the subject has gotten sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.VikingsKhan (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG with significant coverage from the sources listed above.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete This FPJ article is unbylined and obviously a press release (unwavering determination and emerged as a symbol of innovation are words straight from the company's marketing team). This Times of India source is also unbylined, promotional, and addresses the subject by his first name, all telltale signs of a press release. This Economic Times piece is an interview. This one from Entrepreneur just repeats what the subject said in an interview and is mostly about the company. This puff piece from Navbharat is a translation of either this puff piece bylined by one Varnika Srivastava or this nearly identical puff piece bylined by one Srishty Choudhury. None of these sources establish notability of this individual. Yuvaank (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am partly in agreement with your assessment. The article definitely needs work and some cleanup to fix the referencing issues. However, i would like to clarify that my vote is based on sources beyond the first three you mentioned. The nominator has claimed that NONE of the sources provide significant coverage. But i can see several sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject, that go beyond a trivial mention. The Entrepreneur article doesn't just repeat what the subject said. It's an editorial and it's a fact-checked article. As other editors have mentioned, it goes through a strict fact-checking and editorial process. While i understand that some of the sources focus primarily on the company, these can be trimmed down to improve the overall sourcing and reduce any promotional tone in the article. Moglix is a notable and a unicorn company. A person's work defines their identity, right? the subject's role in making this company a unicorn and driving its growth is definitely significant. That's probably why it caught the attention of the press more. But overall, there are still sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, especially the Forbes pieces and Entrepreneur articles, which should be enough to build an encyclopaedia entry.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  At WP:RSN, Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India) is noted as a platform that may include improperly disclosed paid pieces. Only reliable sources are considered when establishing notability, which Entrepreneur India is not. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  The RSN discussion concluded with no consensus on the overall reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine as a source. The consensus that contributor pieces should be treated as self-published doesn't automatically apply to staff-written or editorially vetted articles, specially those published directly by the magazine's editorial team. The Entrepreneur article is an in-depth feature published under the Entrepreneur India editorial domain. While some editors at RSN expressed concerns, but no concrete evidence of fabrication was presented. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  As you said, if the discussion concluded with no consensus, that doesn't make the source reliable. We can only use reliable sources to establish notability, as mentioned at WP:GNG. And stop using AI to craft your replies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Seems like you are more focused on how i worded my comment instead of what it actually says. if the discussion concluded with no consensus, that does not make the source unreliable. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you get it. The source needs to be reliable; anything else will not be considered towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets WP:GNG & WP:NBIO. Multiple independent, reliable sources provide significant biographical coverage. LKBT (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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

List of international rugby league caps for Darren Lockyer

List of international rugby league caps for Darren Lockyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Single source article. No other player has this type of article. Mn1548 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, Lists, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, also per WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:49, 27 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.

Pisa University System

Pisa University System (edit | talk | history | 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 about a nonexistent entity. The three universities mentioned are located in the same town and do cooperate to a certain extent, but they do not have a central organization. Wikipedia does have articles about university systems, but those refer to organizations with a central governing body, such as a president or a board of directors. All the information on the page is about the three institutions individually, and the "official page" is actually a page on the website of one of the institutions, containing only generic information about the town. I performed an Internet search and did not find any site jointly managed by the three institutions. In an image search, the logo appears only on Wikipedia and an anonymous YouTube channel. Tcp-ip (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – At first glance, this seems like an attempt by someone associated with one of the smaller two schools to boost the prestige of their university. Both Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies and Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa contain claims to prestige in their articles based on membership to the system, with the latter's claim potentially failing verification. That being said, the network does seem to been real and significant, just not stand-alone notable. It is worth mentioning the system in the University of Pisa article. I'm going to wait for more input on this discussion before doing some removals to the smaller two university's articles of some sketching claims, but feel free to ping me in a few days if no one else chimes in, and I'll go ahead. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete It is a no go, as above. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:31, 28 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.

Peter Mitterer (archer)

Peter Mitterer (archer) (edit | talk | history | 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. The sole mention from a reliable independent source I've found is https://www.thelocal.at/20160116/austrian-archer-qualifies-for-olympics - and that mentions Mitterer only in passing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Austria at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Archery – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This mentions an article about him in Die Tageszeitung if someone can find it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  This also has a few mentions of him, but I'm not sure about its independence: Ike Lek (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect: to the 1980 Olympics is fine. I don't see much for this person during my search. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Austria at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Archery: Fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Archery at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's individual as per alternatives to deletion. Fade258 (talk) 01:09, 27 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.

Uni Abex

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

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The only "Keep" voter in the previous AfD commented that the company has a market cap of £4 billion, but that figure is completely off the mark. Its actual market cap is ₹674 crore (£53 million) . All the references in the article are routine listings, and WP:BEFORE yields nothing substantial either. Yuvaank (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 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.

Abhay Deshpande

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

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This seems to be a semi-common name so some caution is needed when searching for him but I found nothing substantial that can be tied to this individual that isn't a routine business announcement or press release. The language in the article is also badly in need of clean up :( Moritoriko (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Moritoriko (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)