Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < November 02, November 04 > ...
< November 02 November 04 >
Close

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Processor Control Region

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. There are brief mentions of this struct in a few books about the NT kernel, but no details anywhere. The longest descriptions I could find are in "Practical Reverse Engineering" and "Windows Internals, Part 1 (7th edition)"; in both cases it is described with only a short paragraph and a layout dump from a debugger. NoLightsNoCameras (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Miroslav Grigorov

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

Mostly lower-level footballer failing notability guidelines, only played 8 games in the A PFG. Geschichte (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Whpq (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

TraceX Guard

TraceX Guard (edit | talk | history | 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 app is not available on the app store, the promo is all paid for PR sites. The official website is a very barebones landing page. I think it's a clear case of WP:PROMO D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep – The article meets the notability criteria for software WP:SOFT as TraceX Guard and Initive has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable media outlets, including Prabhat Khabar, The Hindu, India Today, The Indian Express, Times of India, and Digital Journal.

These sources discuss its AI-based malware protection system, its user insurance policy, and its positioning among leading competitors such as Avast, Quick Heal.

The app has been recognized as part of India’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiatives, addressing the national issue of malware distributed via WhatsApp and Telegram. It has verifiable mentions in reputable English and Hindi-language media highlighting its technological relevance.

satisfying both WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Therefore, the article should be kept.

— Bech07 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

What is "Initive"? It's not mentioned in the article or any of the sources.
Let's go through the sources!
The first four are about mobile malware and scams in general, not about TraceX so these can be skipped over.
There rest of the sources come from TraceX's PR campaign in September and October. All the articles would not be considered reliable sources (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) and have very similar content. Because these sources are all basically TraceX press releases they would not be considered independent of the subject either.
I would also like to say I think your response here is AI generated bar the last line. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep While it’s true that TraceX Guard’s distribution is currently limited to direct APK downloads, availability on app stores is not a requirement for notability under WP:SOFT or WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bech07 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I agree with the source assessment above, and I cannot find any reliable sources myself. The reliable sources currently in the article are not about TraceX at all, but about the problem of malware APKs in general. Unless other reliable and independent sourcing can be identified this page should be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I've removed the digital journal link; it's a well known SEO/paid placement site that takes all comers and is often abused here. No need to even consider it. Concur with the analysis above by Mr. Dissident, and I was not able to quickly locate anything of substance. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any secondary sources that are not Ads or Promo. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Anyone looking to write an article on the school itself is welcome to as for WP:REFUND of this, but we have no support for a keep here. asilvering (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Army Toyama School Ground

Imperial Japanese Army Toyama School Ground (edit | talk | history | 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 can't find any significant coverage for this topic, in English or in Japanese. There isn't a jawiki article, either. I recommend redirecting this to the 1936 Emperor's Cup article as that's the main reason people are aware of this facility. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment Actually there is a Japanese article, ja:陸軍戸山学校, which is Army Toyama School, yet for some reason there is no English version for the School page, which there probably should be and this should be merged into it, if created. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    I believe you've just clarified what I said above! heh, The school grounds are not even mentioned on the school page on the Japanese wikipedia. It should be fixed to state that and that it once held the cup final there. At the moment on the English wikipedia, like I pointed out, there is no school article, where this event that took place should be mentioned. So in essence, it's actually an important piece of history for the Army school. However, 1936 Emperor's Cup is dire, and that also has its problems and really needs to be addressed. I don't believe football in Japan wasn't that big then, this is still early stages and probably needs consolidation to some kind of article of Emperor's Cup 1921 to 1940, Regards. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I found one source that mentions it https://apjjf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/article-1361.pdf but not much else. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Agnieszka653: Which page has the mention? I'm having trouble locating the mention. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    If you look at the pdf I shared and do control F for Toyama School: https://apjjf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/article-1361.pdf but again it's one reference. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    I did that before (and now), and I can find no references to the Toyama SchoolGround. The one place I can find "Toyama" doesn't mention anything other than the school doing something. It says nothing about the school ground itself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

TEXT + WORK

TEXT + WORK (edit | talk | history | 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 third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the "ethos" behind a university's art gallery. Another editor challenged the redirect to Arts University Bournemouth as the "ethos" was not mentioned there. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find independent sourcing on the subject - everything points back to the university itself and those links are broken. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Louis Matthew Sypeck Sr.

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Equine-man (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. While lackluster information online, he has made an important impact on my community and is known by a large amount of people in the area, known by thousands. LouiesWorkshop (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing in terms of any sourcing to prove that this person is notable in the slightest. The username of the creator of the article indicates a COI and the "political involvement" section is pretty laughable because it is an elaborate way of saying Sypeck voted for himself via write-in in the election for his neighborhood committeeperson to his county's Republican Party. This borders on an WP:A7 speedy delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG per above. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Absolutely zero notability. Bearian (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Thanks to both for the thorough work. asilvering (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Incarnation Anglican Church (Williamsburg, Virginia)

Incarnation Anglican Church (Williamsburg, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | 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 gave this some time in new page review but I am unconvinced by a notability claim for this small church. Coverage is limited to:

I don't see any evidence of sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. I also don't see any case for a merge or redirect to its diocese given the lack of in-depth secondary coverage; any added material that would be WP:DUE would be based on primary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dclemens1971 I'm almost hurt that you didn't ping me on this one (though I suppose that would have been canvassing)! In my time at W&M, I interacted with TEC, CEC, and ACC Anglicans, but somehow missed the ACNA congregation. However, in 2023, I attended an evensong hosted by the Incarnation-affiliated Cambridge House ministry. Googling around with "Cambridge House" yields a few promising results that help contribute (barely) to GNG, such as The Flat Hat (with all the limitations that student papers have regarding notability). I'm mixed on this. I'll come back here when I've had more time to dig deeper. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks @Pbritti -- did not have your Williamsburg connection in mind! If your assessment is different from mine I'll generally defer to yours, particularly if there's an affiliated ministry that gets it over the line. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Haha, I appreciate your kind words, but I don't think and deference will be needed in this case! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per the nom and my own comment above, firmly establishing notability for this subject proved impossible. While there is material that I can see being merged to The Falls Church Anglican, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, and possibly even Wren Building, there is no suitable "true" merge target for this rather small congregation. A redirect as an AtD does not seem necessary and, at present, would be unlikely to serve a meaningful navigational purpose. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Urnamman

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

This is an odd one, and I'll happily withdraw it if other editors think I've got it wrong, particularly if anyone can find sources to improve the article. I came to this article about a mythological figure via Felt, where other editors have raised issues with the history section. As well as giving a longer and referenced history of felt-making, the Felt article says in passing that there is a Sumerian legend that it was invented by Urnamman. This is sourced to a book called Bronze Age Military Equipment from Pen and Sword Books, which is not an academic press; the book seems unlikely to have more than a passing mention of Urnamman. Trying to find better sources, I looked at the article on Urnamman, which has the same book as its only citation. There is another book given, Sumeri ja sen henkinen perintö eritoten Vanhassa testamentissa by Armas Salonen.

I've searched online and found four or five craft-related books which, in passing, relate the Urnamman legend about felt. None of these look like reliable sources for Sumerian mythology. I've looked in Jstor and in about fifteen of the academic publisher databases available through the Wikipedia Library, and cannot find any results for Urnamman. The book by Salonen is searchable at the Hathi Trust, and there are no results for Urnamman. His name is not in the 2001 Routledge book Who's Who in Non-Classical Mythology.

The article says Some of his exploits are detailed in a cuneiform slab discovered in Nippur, so I searched for anything on that, but couldn't find him in that context. I've looked at various journal articles on textiles in the Ancient Near East too, and not finding Urnamman. I wondered if we have the wrong spelling of the name, so searched for legends about Sumerian textiles, but didn't get anywhere with that either. So on the basis of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm putting this up for a deletion discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. The claim is repeated in Lovrenčević, Dora (2023). Povijesni pregled razvoja tiskovnih podloga (Historical overview of the development of printing substrates) (in Croation). University of Zagreb.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) She also goes into European legends and claims in the snippet view I could access.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've looked at the full text of this source; thanks for finding it, 4meter4. It's in Croatian, which I don't speak, so have relied on machine translation. It is an undergraduate thesis (that is in English at the start, so there shouldn't be language confusion there), so it is not an RS. The part about Urnamman says: Zbog toga što seže duboko u povijest, mnoge kulture imaju vlastitu legendu o podrijetlu izrade filca. Tako sumerska legenda govori o tome da je tajnu izrade otkrio Urnamman iz Lagaša, a neke legende poput jedne europske spominju i apostola Jakova, prema legendi on je na svojim evanđeoskim putovanjima stavljao komadiće vune u svoje sandale, zbog znoja i pritiska vuna se zbijala. According to Google Translate, this is Because it goes back so far in history, many cultures have their own legends about the origins of felt making. Thus, the Sumerian legend says that the secret of making was discovered by Urnamman of Lagash, and some legends, such as a European one, mention the apostle James. According to legend, on his evangelical journeys, he put pieces of wool in his sandals, and the wool became compact due to sweat and pressure. That text is not footnoted or sourced in the thesis. The sentence immediately before about the age of felt is footnoted to the Holik Herbert Handbook of Paper and Board; this book is online at Academia.edu. It has the brief statement Felting techniques go back into prehistory, but does not mention Urnamman, Sumeria or any other specific places, people or legends.
So the Lovrenčević is a passing mention, it doesn't give a source, and it's an undergraduate thesis - sadly nothing we can use here. Tacyarg (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, as OP. Now wondering if he's been mixed up with Ur-Nammu, who wasn't a mythological figure but did have some associations with Lagash, which is where our article says Urnamman was from.
I've been able to look at Sumer and the Sumerians, by Harriet Crawford, which is an RS about the Sumerians, through the WP library. She mentions felt in a chapter on manufacturing, but not the legend. The book does not mention Urnamman. Tacyarg (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete as this article fails WP:V. I also found the claim here, seemingly citing this book "World Textiles: A Concise History". When I checked that book, I found no mention of "Urnamman" or "Urn Amman". It appears that Wikipedia is the original source for this claim in an example of WP:CITOGENESIS. I found no results for the search term on Hathitrust overall, none on Archive.org, none besides the recent circular sources on Google Books or Google Scholar, no sources on Google search from before 2006 (when the Wikipedia article was created), etc. Katzrockso (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The felt claim was added in 2022, though, so if the book Bronze Age Military Equipment (2011) includes the same information, the book predates the article on that point. Tacyarg (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It was added to Felt on 20 May 2006, and this article was created 3 days later. . Katzrockso (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I just checked and the book doesn't contain the phrase "felt", "Urnamman" or "Urn Amman". It contains a discussion of the cities Lagash and Umma:

The best recorded feud during this time was between the cities of Umma and Lagash, which were only about 25 miles apart. Hamblin notes that the greatest distance of any campaign was between Kish and Elam, no more than 160 miles. Each city fought to give its ruler the title Lugal Kish (‘Headman of Kish’). He was the first among his peers rather than being an absolute ruler. The title carried religious as well as military significance.

And mentions the kings of each city. There are 2 mentions of "Sumerian", one of "hero", and none contain even remotely relevant content. Katzrockso (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

List of vice presidential trips made by Kamala Harris

List of vice presidential trips made by Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | 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 events, fails WP:SBST. Equine-man (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment @Therealbrettcooper:, stop using LLM's on AfD immediately. You are required and now advised to use your own words from here on out because that's clearly not you speaking, and I've stricken the vote because of that. Nathannah • 📮 23:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Additional comment User has vanished and chosen to scramble their former username in response to this. Nathannah • 📮 17:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep – WP:STANDALONE allows a list when the group or collection of items are discussed in WP:RS. Here are some sources that may help provide that notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As to the WP:SBST argument, a spot-check of the sources shows in-depth, significant coverage of the trips, rather than just an announcement of the trip itself. Links to the WH website may have primary source issues, though. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Likely a product of her becoming the presidential candidate, lots of reliable sources looked back at her vice-presidential trips as a group. I think someone could reasonably disagree with this, since this analysis seems to have been limited to the initial period when she became the presidential candidate, so I'm not absolutely sure this list is notable, though I lean in that direction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jcgaylor. Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Sal2100 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:NLIST also List of vice presidential trips made by JD Vance exists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

India Since the 90s

India Since the 90s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a lot of OR here, many citations are irrelevant to the actual sourcing, much of which was published year before these books existed, and this article is structured in a very bewildering way. This series is not notable, even if the books may be... but I'm not sure if they are? in terms of notability, the only ref that helps is ref 51 and maybe ref 54, but I'm, not sure, and they aren't enough to support notability. There is so much OR here and so much sourcing that doesn't support the content and so little notability that I suggest delete. I wonder if there might be a COI here given the history. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment It looks like most of the references are to essays that have been reprinted in the collection, hence why so many sources predate the collection. There's a review of volume 1 by Siegel, a review of volume 2 by Jayaraj and a publishing award, and a review of volume 3 by Sareen (though there's a paywall). If a few more reviews can be found, I'd say keep. Truthnope (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
If each book got one review, that isn't enough for any one of them to pass NBOOK, and so the article is still not notable with the higher bar for a series page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per nom. Given the sources that came before the article, the promotional purposes seem quite clear to me. Svartner (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom is the sources were created prior to the book and the essays this seems like WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Inoka Rohini de Silva

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

winning a national championship and participation at the Commonwealth Games does not pass NBAD. Her coverage in the internet is scant, with the reference only showing match result. Hence GNG is also not met. zglph•talk• 18:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to 9 Kings. asilvering (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sad Socket

Sad Socket (edit | talk | history | 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:CORPDEPTH, notability is not inherited from the success of a video game. 9 Kings seems like an acceptable WP:ATD as it does appear to scooch slightly over the notability bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Redirect to 9 Kings. Not much reason to not do so given that it's their only notable product. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect- to 9 Kings- is agreeable, spot checks on the citations refer more to their game than about than the subject game studio. Additional searches reflects the same.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
In terms of WP:CORPDEPTH, I believe the studio meets the guideline, as it has several other projects of note. Its main product is Seraph’s Last Stand — not as notable as 9 Kings, but it has received global coverage and reportedly sold around 250,000 copies (per PlayTracker). The studio also developed Ending Tau, an upcoming title that has been covered by notable outlets such as IGN. Considering these, the company’s track record suggests notability that extends beyond a single title. Within the regional context of Brazil, the studio is particularly significant, which likely justified the creation of the Portuguese-language article that this one was translated from. I’m open to feedback on how best to reflect this in the English version. Regarding 9 Kings itself, I disagree with concerns about notability — the article is supported by multiple reliable, independent sources, and the game has demonstrated clear cultural relevance. RGMNotTrue (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more votes, so far only two !redirects and one user is disputing whether the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Kingdom of Loathing. asilvering (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Asymmetric Publications

Asymmetric Publications (edit | talk | history | 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:CORPDEPTH; notability is not inherited from Kingdom of Loathing or its other spinoffs. I do think Zack Johnson is probably notable per WP:NARTIST, but not the studio, and therefore the page itself would likely require a total rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Zack Johnson is the founder of the company, so it appears WP:SURMOUNTABLE. IgelRM (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I support the total rewrite but if that doesn't work out a redirect to Kingdom of Loathing will do. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see what Zack Johnson being the founder has to do with it, notability is not inherited. I have no prejudice towards a separate article being made about Johnson if notability can be shown, but this is separate unless you are proposing to move and rewrite as a Zack Johnson bio page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more votes, so far only one (weak) !keep vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hrystyna Dzhangobekova

Hrystyna Dzhangobekova (edit | talk | history | 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 link i found in the article is just about the match results, nothing that could satisfy SIGCOV and GNG..NBAD is also not met. zglph•talk• 18:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Robert Gimson

Robert Gimson (edit | talk | history | 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 GNG. Random Division III college player. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NATHLETE and GNG. I also find the Currently married to Kimberly Gimson a renowned flutist. content in the article very weird. Renowned? I looked at her social media and her following is very low so she is clearly not renowned. But Delete this article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hannes Käsbauer

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV, NBAD). zglph•talk• 17:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 asilvering (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Shreya Rukmini

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

Lack of sources that have significant coverage of this person. Article was moved to draft, creator has decided to ignore that and recreate in main space. At this point, I don't see enough to show that they meet WP:NACTOR - the sources are all just passing mentions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Dhiyaa al-den Saad

Dhiyaa al-den Saad (edit | talk | history | 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 person. Other versions already deleted on arwiki (previously deleted 7 times) and deleted igwiki. Upon further search, we find that the three books mentioned in the references are not documented and may not even exist. I could not find any documentation for them other than these "unreliable sources" mentioned in the article. And regarding the article references:

  • (1 + 11): not working. Returning to the web archive, we find that 1 (published in syrianwa on 23 January 2024 regarding a book named Riḥlat fī aʻmāq al-māḍī) and 11 (Also published in syrianwa on 16 January 2024 regarding a book named al-Siyāsah wa-al-mujtamaʻ). News about two of his books was published on the same website in less than a week, and now the news has been deleted!
  • (2): not working. Returning to the web archive, we find that the news about a book named Riḥlat fī aʻmāq al-māḍī, published on 2 August 2023, on a website that has no connection whatsoever to books, the book's subject matter, or the author. Now the news has been deleted!
  • (3 + 12) the news about a book named Riḥlat fī aʻmāq al-māḍī. The entire text is copied from all other links about the same book in all the sources mentioned in this article.
  • (4) Strange news: "The author has finished writing a book," and this book "will be published soon!" since 19 October 2024
  • (5=9 + 7) Websites for self-publishing; that is, the person of this article writes for them.
  • (6 + 8) Articles written by the person of this article. The ref.8 is a large essay written by the author about himself and his achievements.

You can see that all the news is copied from each other, all the sites above are unreliable, and also the images and data are repeated between the articles. --Alaa :)..! 17:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Spanish flu (disambiguation)

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

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER as this dabpage only contains the primary topic and one other topic, for which there is already a hatnote on the Spanish flu page. Also, none of the pandemics mentioned in the second entry are known as "Spanish flu". ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Artem Serpionov

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, NBAD, SIGCOV). zglph•talk• 16:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Russia. zglph•talk• 16:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: All I pull up in my search is the same BWF site now in the article, then social media. I don't see enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete, ditto Oaktree b monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

De Soto Pharmacy

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

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think De Soto Pharmacy meets NCORP. I have searched Google, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com. The sources found primarily focus on the business closing rather than spotlighting the business while it was still operating. A search for "Jerry's Soda Shop", which was located inside found similar results. Although there is a hit for Food Network (), I don't think this is enough to establish N. Ping me if sources are found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and California. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Generical small business with routine local news coverage, notability not established. Reywas92Talk 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. jolielover♥talk 16:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just one small local pharmacy and soda shop, not big or notable company. Coverage is only few local news when it was closing, nothing deep or independent about the business itself when it was active. Such small shop stories come in every local paper, that is WP:ROUTINE coverage, not WP:SIGCOV which WP:NCORP need. Most sources only talk emotional line like "beloved shop closing" etc etc.... no lasting impact or recognition. It is normal old business closing news. Fail WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability not shown. LexyNight (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete there’s no real third‑party coverage.--Imtisig (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Lost body hypothesis

Lost body hypothesis (edit | talk | history | 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 appears to be pure WP:OR. The Allison source has only a single paragraph of mention of this theory (and not by name), the Williams, Shwab and Brauer source does not mention the body of Jesus, and the only other two potentially non-primary sources fall under WP:AGEMATTERS and are primary insofar as they are laying the groundwork for this theory. A secondary source in this topic area would cover gather and cover previous work on this theory for criticism or building upon. To the contrary, "lost body hypothesis" gets all of zero hits on Google Scholar . This does not appear to be a widely covered or serious historical theory, no evidence of notability. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources mention this biblical event, most hit on lost body hair or simitar terms. The Source #11 in the article is tagged as red, so a non-RS. The rest are primary/biblical sources or don't seem to be linked. I'm not sure this is notable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Appears to be pure WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has been up for 13 years. A WP:GTEST today indicates it hasn't attracted any serious attention (if any) by mainstream media or religious scholars. The article's creator hasn't edited Wikipedia in seven years. It's a fascinating idea for a fictional novel or movie, but until there is significant citable coverage Wikipedia isn't the place to promote it. 5Q5|✉ 10:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to The Incredibles (franchise)#Incredibles 3 (2028). Salvio giuliano 16:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Incredibles 3

Incredibles 3 (edit | talk | history | 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 saw a report at WP:AN3 and discovered people had been edit-warring over this page, whether it deserves a full article or not. Note, there is a draft at Draft:Incredibles 3. Instead, I'll start a discussion here to see what we should do about things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Redirect for now, per WP:NFF. The draft is looking promising, and when we can confirm that the film is out of pre-production, then it seems certain to meet WP:NFILM. Wikishovel (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Speedy restore redirect: Article was created by an edit warring IP, with zero sourcing - a state which remains. This was a redirect which should have remained all along. The only reason this devolved into an edit war is because multiple editors were, rightly, removing an article which had no place in main space and created by a now blocked IP. Danners430 tweaks made 15:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't protection of the redirect achieve the same result? Wikishovel (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
It was protected, but @Ritchie333 reverted back to the unsourced article and opened the AfD… 🤷‍♀️ Danners430 tweaks made 15:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Just for the record, I only reverted for the purposes of illustrating the content at the AfD as a procedural action, in an analogous manner to restoring a deleted article at deletion review. I have no opinion on the content. If people would prefer the page to sit with an AfD notice along with a message like "this page has been courtesy blanked", I'm okay with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Restani

Joseph Restani (edit | talk | history | 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 could not find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Restani also does not appear to be active in the sport anymore. Raskuly (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Tarn Weir

Tarn Weir (edit | talk | history | 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 could not find WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to establish WP:GNG. The closest I found was this article from the Tucson Sentinel, but that is more of an overview of a single game and did not go in-depth into Weir. Raskuly (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Philip Shishov

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. References are only about match listings in club tournaments or just results about their international performances. Nothing substantial comes up when searching about them. WP:NBAD is clearly not met. zglph•talk• 13:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

PIAA football records

PIAA football records (edit | talk | history | 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 whole list feels like original research. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

2016 PIAA football season

2016 PIAA football season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One might be able to say this technically passes GNG but Wikipedia doesn't really need articles on high school football seasons. WP:YOUNGATH may apply. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that we should resist team season articles on high school football. That said, an annual overview of the entire season statewide for a major state like Pennsylvania is a different story. Leaning to keep but would like to hear what other gridiron football editors think. Without opening the door to HS team season articles, should we allow, even encourage, comprehensive statewide overviews like this? Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    Hmm, YOUNGATH doesn't actually say anything about seasons, just players and teams... I think your caveat to exclude high school team seasons makes sense. I'm going to withdraw this. I don't feel like being the grim reaper anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

People of the Sengoku period in popular culture (edit | talk | history | 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 list is a WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but some are not notable. Absolutiva 13:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Japan. Absolutiva 13:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is some sourcing, but this has been tagged since 2011 (!), so I don't see the point in sending it to draft. Too much to try and fix, TNT deletion is probably the best choice. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Popular culture. jolielover♥talk 16:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article has a valid scope; it should be properly filtered/referenced. Svartner (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    • @Svartner: Could you perhaps elaborate on The article has a valid scope? TompaDompa (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
      Due to the high incidence of historical references in pop culture/gamer/anime about real people from that period. Svartner (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
      Oh. I thought you might have something to say about sources, WP:NLIST or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. 99% unreferenced; no encompassing source suggesting this meets NLIST. This fancruft needs to go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost all the entries are unreferenced, and even if they were referenced would fail MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete The vast majority of the entries being unreferenced aside, there is no evidence that the cultural depictions of this collection of individual historical persons is treated as a meaningful and coherent topic by relevant sources. In other words, there is no evidence that WP:NLIST is met, and as such WP:DELREASON#8 (Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines) applies. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge to LJN. Salvio giuliano 16:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Baby Blinkins

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

After doing the WP:BEFORE search, it became clear that these are incredibly niche non-notable characters; all the sources are either ones that just have minor mentions, are unreliable, or are user-generated. Google search Google Books Internet Archive TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 13:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. Added citations to the article and revised to remove all the extraneous detail about the characters. Per the page move discussion, there are more sources about the animated television specials called "The Blinkins" rather than "Baby Blinkins" (which appears to refer to a subset of the Blinkins toys which were like Cabbage Patch Kids). Suggest changing the article name and revising to focus on the television series as an WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    The article is certainly much better now, thank you for the cleanup, but sources 2-4 and 6 are just passing mentions, while 1 and 5 are a TV directory and encyclopedia respectively. This is not WP:SIGCOV, so a merge with LJN is likely preferable, with this article's title (and "The Blinkins") remaining as redirects. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, you could redirect Baby Blinkins to LJN, but "The Blinkins" should be separate as it's unclear that LJN had much to do with the animated television specials. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    As of 1986, LJN was owned by MCA; the show was produced by MCA Television in 1986, so it is connected to LJN. The show can just be mentioned alongside a mention of the Baby Blinkins toys; the current listing of three episodes is not needed due to the show's minimal notability. The premise and syndication can be shortened and included. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 15:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Toys, Products, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge content about both the television specials and the toys to LJN. This seems like a good solution per the discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge. Baby Blinkins is indeed referenced in every source presented by the article except for go.gale "Doll makers vie for new positions", which cannot be counted as a valid portrayal. Merge if we can determine the best target for the merge. Otherwise, delete. There's also an interesting question posed here: Baby Blinkins may have been popular in the past, and yet did it stand the test of time? Real notoriety can shift, as something may have a great fame when released but be relegated to an unknown media curiosity as time passes. Should Wikipedia accompany that which loses or gains from the passage of time? I'm voting Merge for (I). Assuming there is a suitable merge target and (II). since the show receives moderate coverage in all examined sources. User:Deathnotekll2
  • Merge to LJN. Does not seem to be independently notable. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge with LJN#MCA ownership (1985–1990): As a one-paragraph overview of the toy franchise called The Blinkins, whose merchandise and specials flew away (metaphor intended) not long after they arrived--par for the course with competitors to Cabbage Patch, G.I. Joe, Transformers, He-Man, Care Bears,I was once a fan--and it showed early in my WP tenure. Ninja Turtles...the list goes on. (Commenting thanks to my RQM involvement--and before the nominal one-week deadline.) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Cell Phone Seat

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

Promotional puff-piece for non-notable product with no significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: There's also a version called CupPhone by another company... this is promo. I'm not sure a phone holder is notable, so a redirect to whatever that would look like is also unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Michigan. jolielover♥talk 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no substantial coverage that describes the company or its product in depth. The creator appears on podcasts and provides snippets for broader articles about TikTok Shop, but the product itself is not described at length by any independent organization. Buzzsprout, Medium, and YouTube are not reliable sources, nor are patents, since all of the above qualify as self-published sources, and interviews do not contribute to notability. -- Reconrabbit 20:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

QA & UX Manager

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

Orphan article with no real content — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete, notability is a big concern here because there are no reliable, independent sources(excluding blogs and other self-published sources) that establish notability for this in particular. At most, it would maybe merit a subsection in the Quality Assurance article. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce in Singapore

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce in Singapore (edit | talk | history | 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:NORG. Sources consist of trivial mentions (), routine business reporting on partnerships and events (, , ), and materials written by the organization or affiliated orgs (, ). A WP:BEFORE search did not yield better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom Aesurias (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contribs · he/him) 12:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

*Delete Fails WP:ORG. In addition to nom, there are only 3 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  • change to keep in light of additional sources found below. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Jinhma (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

These sources do not establish notability; they all appear to be PR pieces written to promote the organization. In particular, sources 3 and 4 share the same pictures, and the bottom of sources 3 and 4 have a note: Các nhu cầu phổ biến trên đã được VietCham tập hợp và đúc kết trong cuốn cẩm nang Viet Biz in Sing (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). Google Translate: The above common needs have been collected and summarized by VietCham in the Viet Biz in Sing handbook (https://blog.mocongtysingapore.com/vi-vn/biz). This suggests that they are not independent sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, it is hard for me to believe that a title translating to "VietCham Singapore: A decade of creating value for Vietnamese businesses" is somehow an independent source. The second source, with a title translating to "Why is Singapore an ideal destination for Vietnamese businesses?", uses classic PR tactics, starting out with a value proposition and introducing the organization in the second half of the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Jinhma (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Please stop using AI to generate and/or format replies. The fact that two different news organizations published very similar pieces about Singapore being a "launch-pad" strongly implies that both of them are churnalism or PR. It does not matter whether the publisher is independent; what matters is that the content was produced independently of the organization. The last article is just quoting a member of the Hanoi Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, it is not independent coverage of the organization. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Do you think we don't know you're using AI??? Aesurias (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I just thought it was okay for formatting help, I was using AI to help me format my replies. However, the points I made still stands. Jinhma (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This is just terrible, Jinhma. This is clearly AI use, you should just use your own words, without any formatting like this. Speak like a human person, without all of this unnecessary coding. I am not sure what here to take seriously. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A human-written source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, source 4 is primary. A source analysis is going to be biased, there is no independent press in Vietnam at all, all sources are censored to one degree or another. The sources (for what they are) mention this "thing", but none are independent of government control. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete In the discussion five sources were presented . I agree that the second is an advertisement by VietCham, and the third and fourth are identical enough to suggest they were not original work by the paper and likely originated from VietCham. The other two have no bylines, which questions their reliability. Specifically, the first is from VTC News [vi], which, according to Vietnamese Wikipedia, is non-independent from the Vietnamese government. The fifth is an article from Nhan Dan, an official newspaper of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 00:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

List of pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility device road deaths in New South Wales

List of pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility device road deaths in New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Are we really going to list all deaths by accidents around the world? We already have way too many lists with trivial or commonplace things listed for the sake of completeness, starting a whole new series of such lists (I hope it is a new series and not just the first I notice) seems like something best nipped in the bud. Fram (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete for failing both WP:PEOPLELIST criteria and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Hello,
    I appreciate you time and effort reviewing this.
    To each of your points:
    > Are we really going to list all deaths by accidents around the world?
    It does not seem feasible/possible to list all motor vehicle crashes as these are very large in number. Motor vehicle crashes in Australia are already captured in List of motor vehicle deaths in Australia by year. Fatalities of pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility devices are smaller in number and are a well defined set across a specific geographical region.
    To defend against WP:PEOPLELIST:
    • The list is not describing people's names or identities (any more than the police reports), and does not claim they are notable (with the exception of one person).
      • It may make sense to remove that person's name.
    To defend against WP:NLIST and "I hope it is a new series and not just the first I notice":
    Lists of motor vehicle deaths or road trauma death statistics seem commonplace and appear well accepted. For example:
    From WP:NLIST: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Fatalities of pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility devices are currently under a microscope in Australia. The national broadcaster in Australia ABC News (similar to BBC News) has made multiple mistakes in its reporting of vulnerable road user fatalities: . For one article they issued a correction .

    ...One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable...

    The entirely of the list is not documented in other sources, however the grouping has been. The set of pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility device fatalities is notable with recent media attention (ABC News, The Guardian) and road safety agency attention..
    The NSW Government's policy released a few weeks ago made reducing the number of road safety fatalities, including vulnerable road users, the very top priority. Jakecopp (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Sadly an everyday occurrence beyond NSW, we can never hope to compile every pedestrian death in a year within even a state, much less in a day. I also have major LLM concerns, along with this being a WP:COATRACK WP:ADVERT for Mirage News under the 'Publication of Police press releases' heading. Please don't bother with another textwall, Jakecopp, because most of us have no patience to read through all of that. Nathannah • 📮 15:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Indiscriminate list of (sadly) WP:ROTM accidents, plus the concerns raised by the previous commenter. If the topic of "pedestrian deaths in NSW" is notable, then make that an article; a list of individual deaths is a violation of so many aspects of WP:NOT that I don't have time to elaborate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It looks like there's been a consensus reached, I'll proceed with deletion. Thanks for the feedback on this - I'm still somewhat new here and this is a good learning experience. I'll make sure to take these referenced criteria on board in future. Jakecopp (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Gulf British Academy

Gulf British 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)

I previously moved this to draftspace but it was moved back, so listing for discussion here. This article cites two sources, neither of which seem independent and the latter of which has little to contribute to SIGCOV. This school fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Also, the author has not answered questions from other editors asking if there is a COI. Ultraodan (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination: had just finished a WP:BEFORE search to nominate it myself. UPE seems likely from article creator's edit history, and the article has been WP:GAMENAMEd a few times in draft and main space (Gulf British Academy (Kuwait), Gulf British Academy in (Kuwait), GBA School (Kuwait), Gulf British Academy (GBA) School in Kuwait, User:Gulf British Academy (GBA), etc.). More importantly, the only coverage found in English and Arabic (أكاديمية الخليج البريطانية) was confirmation that it exists in schools listings, paid coverage like this, and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom fails WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Only school listings and its own website used no real independent or significant coverage found... Looks fully promotional and made by someone close to the school.. No encyclopedic value right now. LexyNight (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, and really, just about no coverage at all. Ravenswing 06:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment article creator has been indefinitely blocked, as a spam / advertising-only account and for disruptive moves of the article under discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
And sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as lacks independent, reliable coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines--Imtisig (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Bunnik

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:BIO, part of a COI, likley UPE since they have not responded to two UPE warnings, campaign to produce an article for Woppah. WP:ROTM businessperson. WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Netherlands. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete If ever an article should have been kept as a draft instead of banging it into mainspace... Subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG, lack of SIGCOV. History of editor is deeply suspect as M. Trent clearly finds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – no sign of meeting WP:BASIC, nothing but trivial mentions/routine coverage of him. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Plainly fails WP:GNG and other associated notability requirements. --Seawolf35 T--C 18:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG or to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fade258. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue. Salvio giuliano 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Duangphet Phromthep

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

Duangphet Phromthep was one of the young people rescued from the Tham Luang Nang Non cave and subsequently committed suicide. A tragic, short life - but he does not pass WP:GNG (WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply). Redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue was reverted but that is really the right outcome here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Thailand. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GNG. WP:1E does not apply as Duangphet's suicide received significant coverage in reliable sources. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    A suicide isn't notable, we need something to show this individual lead a life that was covered in media. ALL sourcing is about the death, with nothing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tham Luang cave rescue: The section of the article describing the death is longer than the rest of the article, and suicide is not notable. I don't see a pass at athletic notability, frankly the article is rather bare outside of the death event. I don't see that this person is much different than any of the others rescued... Had he not passed away, the article would be two sentences long, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    I'm seconding the redirect proposal. As a reader, I clicked on this article from the main Tham Luang cave rescue page and found that most of the relevant information is already covered there. The detail about his scholarship, while notable, does not appear to be enough to justify a standalone article, which primarily focuses on a single event. Additionally, it's important to be sensitive with the details of his death, and merging some of the information into the broader rescue article would place it in better context and avoid giving undue weight to the circumstances of his passing. ~2025-31401-98 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect Sorry, this little brother is only notable per WP:BIO1E, and I can't find any achievements outside of the Tham Luang cave rescue and the suicide case following his passing. ManoiCMU (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Jagan Institute of Management Studies Rohini

Jagan Institute of Management Studies Rohini (edit | talk | history | 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 private college that fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NORG, there is no WP:CORPDEPTH in reliable sources, sources themselves appear promotional or press releases. Zalaraz (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete This institute does not meet the required notability for standalone article. After review, the coverage available is mostly promotional, campus news, event listings, or directory-style mentions and self-published material (college website). Such routine coverage is WP:ROUTINE and does not show independent, in-depth secondary sources required by WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NORG.... There is no clear evidence of significant national or international impact, major independent academic recognition, or sustained coverage in reliable third-party sources that analyse the institute’s importance. The references cited are largely local press items, event reports and the institute's own pages... this fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG for organisations and educational institutions.. For education topics Wikipedia expects independent academic assessments rankings from recognised bodies, major research impact, or long-term secondary coverage. This page currently reads like prospectus or like publicity material rather than neutral encyclopaedic entry. Recommend deletion or moving to Draft space until good independent secondary sources (scholarship, major national media analysis or academic studies) can be provided.LexyNight (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Contributors agree with the nominator, based on their thorough source analysis, that there is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for the topic to be notable. Sandstein 07:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Rights Georgia

Rights Georgia (edit | talk | history | 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:NGO/WP:ORG/WP:SIGCOV. Article is largely built from WP:PRIMARY sources and engages with WP:Original research. Many of the sources are connected to the subject and lack independence. The small amount of reporting on the topic that is independent is largely tangential (passing mentions), and is reporting on events as they happen without significant analysis or journalist rigor or transformation of content such as press releases or open letters by the organization being reported on. This makes the reporting WP:PRIMARY and not WP:SECONDARY in the sources used. See source analysis table. 4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Significant? ...
SourceSignificant?Independent?Reliable?Secondary?Pass/FailNotes
About organization, c. 2025, Wikidata Q136122120, archived from the original on 6 September 2025Green tickYRed XNQuestion?Red XNRed XNWebsite of the subject. Self-published, not independent, and uncertain on reliability for those reasons.
Rights Georgia, Front Line Defenders, c. 2025, Wikidata Q136125547, archived from the original on 6 July 2025Green tickYQuestion?Red XNGreen tickYRed XNSelf published website of another human rights NGO. Possibly a group that partners with it given they work in the same area. Not reliable as a self published source.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; Rights Georgia (10 March 2021), Asylum procedure in Georgia (PDF), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Wikidata Q136121994, archived (PDF) from the original on 23 May 2024Green tickYRed XNQuestion?Red XNRed XNCo-publication/co-authored by the UNHCR and Rights Georgia. As an author of the document, this is not independent. Also self-published making it's reliability uncertain.
Steven Schneebaum; Brittin Alfred; Sebastian Bernal; et al. (3 June 2020), Rights in Progress: How Georgia is Implementing International Human Rights Law, School of Advanced International Studies, Wikidata Q136121925, archived from the original on 27 July 2025Red XNGreen tickYGreen tickYGreen tickYRed XNProbably the most significant clue that the organization lacks notability is its absence of coverage on the group in this publication where it is used as a reference and thanked in the acknowledgments but has zero coverage in the text itself. One would expect, given the topic and the depth and length of coverage here, that it would be covered if notable.
Our members, European Network on Statelessness, 2025, Wikidata Q136141709{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Green tickYRed XNRed XNRed XNRed XNSelf published website of another human rights NGO which is an umbrella organization of which Rights Georgia is a member. The text is likely written by Rights Georgia as it has their logo.
Human Rights House Tbilisi (HRHT), Devex, 2025, Wikidata Q136121807{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNRed XNGreen tickYRed XNRed XNSelf published NGO document mentioning Rights Georgia in passing. It's also a partner organization of Rights Georgia.
"Civic Groups Call for Public Probe into High-Profile Crimes". Civil Georgia. 5 April 2006. Wikidata Q136649668.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Question?Question?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. A report involving multiple actors of which Article 42 is one named group. As a current event it is not clear how significant the event actually was, and because it is reporting on a current event in a way that does not demonstrate journalistic rigor this is WP:PRIMARY. Also contain a brief quote with a representative of Rights Georgia, but the article itself is short. Note that Civil Georgia is published and run the UN Association of Georgia, another activist NGO, which has acted in consort with Rights Georgia on occasion such as this open letter. Given that this is an activist publication with aligned interests and is an occasional partner of Rights Georgia the independence of the organization is questionable.
"Secretary Pompeo Meets Civil Society, Concludes Georgia Visit". Civil Georgia. 18 November 2020. Wikidata Q136649485.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. As current event reporting without sufficient transformative text/ journalistic rigor this is WP:PRIMARY. The article is on U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's visit to Georgia. Briefly mentions that Rights Georgia attended the event, and gives a brief quote from a representative. Not significant coverage of the group. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
"The 'clan' in Georgia's judiciary reattempt lifetime appointments". OC Media. 12 July 2019. Wikidata Q136649945.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNGreen tickYGreen tickYGreen tickYRed XNNo by-line author. However, the reporting here is more in-depth and there is independent analysis so this is SECONDARY. However, Article 42 is only briefly mentioned and mainly in quote context. It is not significant coverage of the organization as the article is about a different topic.
"Rights Georgia Condemns Facts of Gross Interference with Right to Privacy". Georgia Today. 23 March 2021. Wikidata Q136121840.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Green tickYQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNWhile by-lined, the article has zero transformative text/analysis. It's essentially a reprint of a press release of the organization. For this reason the article is WP:PRIMARY current event reporting, and arguably not independent as its essentially a regurgitation of a press release.
Albania; Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Canada; et al. (20 December 2024), Invocation of the Vienna (Human Dimension) Mechanism on the Situation in Georgia, Wikidata Q131549435{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNGreen tickYQuestion?Red XNRed XNOpen letter from the United States Embassy. This is a PRIMARY source. No mention of the subject. Not clear if the source is reliable as this is a self published letter.
"OSCE Members Invoke Vienna Mechanism on Situation in Georgia". Civil Georgia. 23 December 2024. Wikidata Q135225035.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. The reporting here is not sufficiently transformative to be considered secondary coverage. It is WP:PRIMARY reporting on the contents of a letter by the OSCE. No independent analysis or commentary is given, and no by-lined author. Rights Georgia is not mentioned. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
Georgian Young Lawyers' Association; Institute for Development of Freedom of Information; Rights Georgia (9 April 2025), Follow up on Civil Society Organization Submission to the OSCE Vienna (Human Dimension) Mechanism (PDF), Wikidata Q135225692, archived (PDF) from the original on 5 July 2025Red XNGreen tickYQuestion?Red XNRed XNSelf published document by the IDFI and GYLA. It's therefore a WP:PRIMARY source and of uncertain reliability. No mention of Rights Georgia.
GYLA, IDFI, and Rights Georgia presented a written submission within the framework of the OSCE Vienna Mechanism, Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, 10 April 2025, Wikidata Q135222559{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNGreen tickYQuestion?Red XNRed XNSelf published announcement on the IDFI website. It's therefore a WP:PRIMARY source and of uncertain reliability. No mention of Rights Georgia.
"CSOs Follow-up Report to OSCE Vienna Mechanism on Rights Violations". Civil Georgia. 10 April 2025. Wikidata Q135222533.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. The reporting here is not sufficiently transformative to be considered secondary coverage. It is WP:PRIMARY reporting on the contents of a report issued by the IDFI, GYLA, etc. No mention of Rights Georgia. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
Case of Assanidze v. Georgia (Application no. 71503/01), European Court of Human Rights, 8 April 2004, Wikidata Q136649407{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNGreen tickYGreen tickYRed XNRed XNWP:PRIMARY source of a court case filing in which a lawyer from the organization represented the plaintiff. The group is mentioned briefly in a single sentence only mentioning the lawyer's affiliation.
"European Court of Human Rights Rules Against Georgia". Civil Georgia. 8 April 2004. Wikidata Q136651031.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. The reporting here is not sufficiently transformative to be considered secondary coverage. It is WP:PRIMARY reporting largely based on press release and interviews. No mention of Rights Georgia. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
"ECHR to Consider Case Against Russia After Additional Evidence". Civil Georgia. 19 November 2021. Wikidata Q136649654.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Question?Question?Green tickYRed XNRed XNAt first glance this might be thought of as a SECONDARY source, but it is in fact WP:PRIMARY. The article is covering current events without a by-lined author, and the text is largely based on a Facebook post by Rights Georgia and a just released court document. It's not sufficiently transformative to be considered independent or SECONDARY. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
Aage Borchgrevink; Simon Papuashvili (19 May 2011), Unable or unwilling? Georgia's faulty investigation of crimes committed during and after the Russo–Georgian war of August 2008 (PDF), Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Wikidata Q136122078, archived (PDF) from the original on 27 July 2025Green tickYRed XNQuestion?Red XNRed XNPublication by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. Article 42 (aka Rights Georgia) is listed as a contributing author/researcher to the document. As such it is not independent. While I have no reason to doubt their ethics, this is essentially a self published document by the NHC that did not go through independent editorial review the way an academic journal or press or editorial board at a major newspaper would do. This makes its reliability uncertain.
European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (Middlesex University) (c. 2016), X and Y v. Georgia, London School of Economics, Wikidata Q136650582{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Question?Red XNQuestion?Red XNRed XNSelf published court case overview (yes its on the London School of Econimics website but no peer review/editorial review was done) written by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre which represented the plaintiffs and for which Article 42 was its partner. As such, the author is clearly not independent from Article 42 as they were co-council on this case. Nor are the authors independent from the case itself, which makes the reliability of the document uncertain. Also not clear that the case lends significance to the group.
"Georgian Human Rights Activists Brief ICC Prosecutor on August War". Civil Georgia. 2 February 2010. Wikidata Q136651005.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNQuestion?Green tickYRed XNRed XNNo by-lined author. The reporting here is not sufficiently transformative to be considered secondary coverage. It is WP:PRIMARY reporting largely based on press release and interviews. No mention of Rights Georgia. As a Civil Georgia publication may not be independent.
Wave of Inspections Targets Media Support and Independent Media Outlets Under Amended Law on Grants, Council of Europe, 6 October 2025, Wikidata Q136650192{{citation}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)Red XNRed XNGreen tickYRed XNRed XNSelf published NGO document mentioning Rights Georgia in passing. It's also a partner organization of Rights Georgia.
Total qualifying sources0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Close
  • Comment: I'm amazed at the level of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. 22 references and not one that indicates notability. I did a web search and found no more references that could get this past GNG. I would be surprised if anyone found a single source counting towards WP:SIGCOV. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. I thought so as well when I first came upon the article as a reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Rights Georgia. I tried to encourage the author to add WP:SECONDARY materials but nothing of significance came forward which is how we ended up here instead.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is mostly built from reliable, independent WP:SECONDARY sources that are sufficiently independent to not require WP:OR for the significant information in Wikipedia that is summarised from them; some are closer to primary than secondary, some are secondary (update Boud (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)). The table above gives the impression of objectivity, but most of the judgments on independence, reliability and secondariness are subjective, including speculations about the absence of (informal) peer review. Western mainstream media such as newspapers of record, which we generally accepted as WP:RS, are not necessarily any more independent, reliable and secondary than most of the international institutions, NGOs and media listed above. The quantitative model of Western media established the five filters according to which the mainstream Western media are filtered, i.e. effectively not independent; nevertheless, we use the more serious ones because they're better than nothing.
    Lack of author by-lines in a country somewhere between an electoral autocracy and an electoral (not liberal) democracy is a security choice rather than a sign of unreliability. The overall context here is WP:SBEXTERNAL: ... For example, a 2007 story on the BBC News website is more likely to be cited than a 1967 edition of the Thai Post or Večernje novosti. ... Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and difficulty for anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. We are allowed to use common sense here in order to reduce WP:BIAS. This is not the Core-Anglosphere Wikipedia; it is the Wikipedia that happens to be written in the English language. We cannot achieve that by refusing to keep an article on what the sources overwhelmingly show is a Georgian NGO having a major influence on post-fall-of-the-Soviet-Union Georgian legal and sociopolitical structures. Boud (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC) (update: clarification Boud (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC))
First, I am not speculating on the lack of peer review. The one source where I commented that it isn't peer reviewed is a court case summary written by the attorney who represented the plaintiff. No peer reviewed academic publication would touch that because of the inherent COI problem from an involved person in the event which is why it is self published. The fact that you are defending sources that are obviously not independent makes your judgment look bad. Second, I agree that WP:SBEXTERNAL is an issue. Where I disagree is your interpretation about what that policy actually says. SBEXTERNAL does not encourage or allow us to ignore WP:N or WP:Verfiability or WP:No original research just because it is convenient in an effort to eradicate bias. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. What the policy (not essay) page says is that systemic bias exists. That is all. It is not a work around our other policies. Yes there is bias in coverage because of source limitations. Our coverage will reflect that bias and this is just reality. We have to live with that. That is what the policy says.
Further in no way shape or form are these quality WP:SECONDARY sources. One has to only look at the web links in the articles themselves to see they are literally just summarizing press releases and open letters, and often in direct quotes or nearly identical language. Or they are interviewing people at an event without providing any original thought or analysis from the journalist. There also is no obvious journalist prep or rigor being applied here. It's literally just reporting what happened and what people said as an eyewitness account, or as a summary of press release/statement at the time it was released. This is qualitative current event reporting which is WP:PRIMARY (note that WP:ORGCRIT is clear on this point as well). See https://libguides.ufv.ca/HistoricalNews where its explains how to identify whether a newspaper article contains secondary coverage. There are very few actual secondary sources here if any. The few that are secondary either don't mention Rights Georgia at all or are trivial passing mentions. Lastly if this is such an important group, why were they completely left out of Steven Schneebaum; Brittin Alfred; Sebastian Bernal; et al. ?; a recent comprehensive in-depth lengthy scholarly overview of human rights in Georgia? The authors were clearly aware of the group because they thanked the group in the acknowledgements but did not write anything on the group. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Schneebaum+2020[1] wrote on page 59, We spoke with four NGOs engaged in research and advocacy, strategic litigation, and awareness raising.[(footnote) 247: These NGOs are Human Rights Center, Georgian Young Lawyers Association, Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center, and Rights Georgia (formerly Article 42). Each engage in some form of strategic litigation.] NGOs work together to advocate for reforms to the accountability system, as seen in the creation and early functioning of the SIS, and they are vocal, representing a vital part of a democratic Georgia. (emphasis added by me) So Schneebaum+2020 see Rights Georgia as one of four key Georgian NGOs worth interviewing; assert that RG engage[s] in some form of strategic litigation, and assert that Georgian NGOs collectively are a vital part of democratic Georgia. Boud (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
That is a foot note without much significance on page 59. It's one sentence. The text in the body is so brief and non-descriptive (no mention of RG in the actual NGO body of text), that it hardly counts as coverage. Outside footnotes they are only thanked as a partner in putting together the publication on page 7 in the "Acknowledgements" section. That's not coverage of the organization, and extrapolating out text in this way to accord significance is original analysis and clearly not what was intended by the authors who wrote more generally on NGOs and their function in Georgia as a group and did not comment on any one specific NGO in their text. Being selected as an interview subject means very little in this context without content that directly engages with RG and its activities in detail. The writers did not do that and wrote in vague terms about NGOs in Georgia in general. That can't be used to prove WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The statements [they were] completely left out ... did not write anything on the group are incorrect. The coverage of RG is brief, agreed, but it's significant. The coverage asserts that RG is one of four key Georgian NGOs worth interviewing, and it asserts that all four, i.e. including RG, "engage in some form of strategic litigation". These are both non-trivial claims. Together with NGOs being, per Schneebaum+2020, a vital part of democratic Georgia, they respond to your question of RG being such an important group. Boud (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The coverage asserts that RG is one of four key Georgian NGOs. This is not said anywhere in the text. They said they interviewed four NGOs. They did not say those NGOs were "key" or make a statement or claim of importance about those NGOs. I can interview four doctors in America, and use that to make statements about the importance of the role of doctors in America but that doesn't make those specific doctors "key doctors" or notable doctors. 4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The word key is not stated literally, agreed. By "key", I was summarising the fact that according to the authors' judgment: (1) these four NGOs were worth interviewing, plus (2) these four NGOs are NGOs in Georgia that engage in some form of strategic litigation. Claim (2) is a claim of importance. It's reasonable to assume that the authors made a choice based on in-depth knowledge of the situation in Georgia. The number of doctors in the US is almost certainly many order of magnitudes greater than the number of NGOs in Georgia, so the doctor-in-US/NGO-in-Georgia analogy is weak. Boud (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t agree. They are talking about the general function and importance of NGOs broadly in Georgia as it relates to human rights. They are not addressing specific NGOs in their writing, or making claims about specific NGOs. The claims being made are not meant to be taken as limited to just these four NGOs. You are extrapolating claims that the authors did not make. As someone who has had to go through peer review I can tell you the absence of text is intentional. If they were meaning to limit their claims to a set group that group would have been clearly defined in the text, and if they were meaning to assert a claim of significance or importance that would have been overtly stated in the text. That never happened. This is the problem of inserting footnotes into textual reading: you can misinterpret the meaning of the body’s text. The footnote is there to let you know what data/ information they are basing their claim on, it is not meant to modify and change the claim of the text. Note that sampling is a standard research methodology, and picking a sample group for interview doesn't necessarily imply any significance. Often times samples in this case have more to do with what organizations were willing to participate, and the organizations the researchers had access to. 4meter4 (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The main text has We spoke with four NGOs engaged in research and advocacy, strategic litigation, and awareness raising. This sentence on its own leaves open which of the four NGOs engage in either (i) research and advocacy and/or (ii) strategic litigation and/or (iii) awareness raising. The footnote lifts the ambiguity; it clarifies that each, i.e. all four, engage in strategic litigation, i.e. the four NGOs are key in that sense; and it gives the names of these four key NGOs. The later sentence NGOs work together to advocate ... extends more broadly to other NGOs. Boud (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes I agree that it says all four are engaged with strategic litigation, research etc. They are defining their sample group as is expected in this type of qualitative research model. What they aren't doing is making an argument that this type of work is unique, or that these four organizations are significant among other similar NGOs in Georgia. The descriptor used would be true of most NGOs globally (including others in Georgia) who do legal work and activism. It would be true of any law firm with a litigation practice with an activism bent. There's nothing inherently notable about participating in litigation or doing activist work or doing research. This type of work is being done all over the world by many, many different organizations. Just being an NGO and doing this type of work doesn't carry with it any inherent notability. For our purposes we need WP:SECONDARY coverage with WP:SIGCOV that passes WP:ORGCRIT. That means detailed coverage which addresses Rights Georgia specifically outside of the context of current event reporting. That just simply doesn't exist.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Other people reading this thread will have to decide if they agree with your interpretation of the authors' text. The comment on "globally" gets us back to WP:SBEXTERNAL.
The overall page WP:BIAS states that it is an essay, not a policy. You are correct that the page does not encourage us to ignore key Wikipedia policies because it is convenient in an effort to eradicate bias, but neither does it tell us that we should not seek ways to fix the bias. There is the specific section Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Why it matters that states "Systemic bias violates neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, so it should be fixed"; and there is a section #What you can do with some example suggestions. "We have to live with that" is specifically contradicted by these sections.
So we don't ignore key policies; we explore ways to fix the bug while retaining the key goals and methods of this encyclopedia. A side result of this AFD might be a proposal to modify WP:NGO to take into account WP:SBEXTERNAL.
This is a case where there is little doubt that the WP:RSes establish, without any WP:OR, that RG has during two and a half decades carried out significant actions on Georgian human-rights related legal cases nationally and via several different international courts and legal instruments. No WP:OR is need to summarise these by "aims to promote human rights in Georgia". The debate is about to what degree the Georgian media have given insufficient attention to RG as an organisation, i.e. failed to add extra insights (WP:SECONDARY) rather than only stating that RG did notable actions, and to what degree the various international sources are insufficiently independent from RG due to some forms of cooperation – is it likely that they could have stated misleading or false factual type information under the influence of RG or to favour RG?
A possible side-result of this AFD, depending (hopefully) on the people who contribute edits on this type of non-core-anglospheric topic, would be to propose some nuances to the text of WP:NGO to take into account WP:SBEXTERNAL, i.e. to take into account the difference between core anglosphere, internet-rich countries versus countries with much less online coverage in English, or even in their local languages. Questions would include: For NGOs that might be WP:AFDed out of Wikipedia under WP:BIAS, to what extent should we strictly require in-depth, extensive text as opposed to brief text that is significant in its meaning, in order to establish notability and satisfy WP:NPOV for Wikipedia as a whole? If the sources focus on the NGOs' actions rather than the NGOs themselves, should "significant coverage" be redefined in this context? To what extent can organisations cooperating with the NGOs be considered sufficiently reliable in fact-checking and editorial checking that their info establishes notability despite some degree of dependence?
Not everyone agrees with "We have to live with that", so looking at the actual rough consensus that emerges from debates like this AFD will give us clues to what anti-WP:BIAS nuances will be appropriate for WP:NGO in order to better satisfy WP:NPOV for Wikipedia as a whole. Boud (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, Boud, I know you are acting in good faith, but this type of conjecture ultimately boils down to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thinking which is a form of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I really don't think you are going to get much traction here because the guardrails are there to protect WP:Verifiability foremost and maintain WP:NPOV as well. Once we start loosening sourcing and notability requirements, WP:BIAS creeps in as well as WP:PROMO concerns. You might be trying to correct a systemic bias, but in doing so, you are opening the door to a host of unreliable/promotional materials being used to write articles which presents its own BIAS and errata issues. Principally, this article is currently built from materials created by other NGOs in Georgia which are partner organizations with Rights Georgia (such as Civil Georgia which is published by an NGO partner of Rights Georgia) and are therefore not independent. This has its own inherent problems with verifiability, coi, and bias in the sources themselves because they lack impartial relationships to the topic being written on. It also leads to Wikipedia:Walled garden editing/sourcing which is likely to end up at a COI noticeboard which tends to rigorously go after deleting walled garden articles.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:CANCHANGE and WP:STANDING. Boud (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
About the lack of bylines, I encourage 4meter4 to read Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ, specifically the bit that says:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?
No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
This has never been a requirement, and never will be, and irrelevancies like this shouldn't even mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Editors may also wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature, which I believe was the most recent discussion about whether sources from a human rights organization are self-published (with the conclusion that they aren't always, but no agreement on whether they are usually). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Nonsense. The lack of by-lines is a common critique at AFD; largely because pieces that lack by-lines are often press release based pieces with little or no transformation of the text that lack sufficient independence. By-lines are also often left out in cases of churnalism. There has been a long documented history of critiquing issues of credibility and accountability when newspapers and journals publish pieces absent by-lines. Pointing out this problem is perfectly acceptable when source evaluating; although I agree that the absence of a by-line alone isn't sufficient to discredit any one source. It does raise a cautionary flag.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If you believe that you know better than the policy's FAQ, then I guess there's no point in discussing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think my statement contradict's the policy's FAQ. I'm not saying non by-lined sources can't be used. I'm saying that sources without by-lines require scrutiny because they may be a sign of press release based reporting. In this case, I have good reason to believe the sources lacking by-lines are indeed based on press releases because their articles linked to them directly and the content pretty much mirrored the press releases.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. First of all, we need to distinguish between two importantly different categories:
  • "press release-based reporting" versus
  • "reprinting a press release" (with or without copyediting).
From the POV of a journalist, any unsolicited information you send to them is a press release. For example, if you're running a community event, and you e-mail a journalist at your local paper and say something like "I'm one of the organizers for the Children's Holiday Parade on the 32nd of Octember, and we hope The Local News will run a story and a picture of this very important community event. You can find more information on the event's Facebook page", then your ordinary, everyday e-mail message is "a press release".
If the paper decides to write its own story, the result would be an WP:INDY article, even though the article was prompted by and uses information from your press release.
The problem is when an outfit decides to reprint press releases wholesale (e.g., PR Newswire) or with very minor changes. If the reprinted press release is individually selected (sure, we always run an article on the holiday parade – ugh, I'm short on time, so I'm just going to copy), then the decision to make that information available to the world at large (something WP:N cares about very much) is INDY but the contents themselves (what NPOV cares about) are not.
In either case, the presence or absence of a byline is irrelevant. The general rule of thumb in print newspapers is that long articles get bylines and short ones don't, so you could have a 100% independent story about the holiday parade that gets no byline merely because it's three sentences long, and you could have a story that contains only facts received straight from the organizers' mouths (because how else do you find out what's planned for next week's parade? Time travel?) and still put a byline on it.
Note also that fact-checking is a completely separate consideration. It is possible for a press release to be thoroughly and independently fact-checked, and it is possible for an original piece of reporting to be completely non-fact-checked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
This seems like a completely unnecessary distraction since the sources aren’t independent to begin with as they are published by an affiliated NGO. This long diatribe on generic source analysis isn’t forwarding this discussion and it’s off topic.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand what seems to be a claim of a Civil Georgia affiliation with Rights Georgia (or vice versa). Civil Georgia is published on a server with an IP of Contabo GmbH in Munich in Germany. UNAG claims (credibly) to have created Civil Georgia in 2001; UNAG is published on a server with an IP from PrivateSystems Networks in Atlanta/Georgia in the US. Both declare what might be due to writing a wrong postcode (edit Boud (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)) the same Tbilisi street address on their websites, so it can be speculated that they retain a close relation, even though they publish on different servers. But how is either Civil Georgia or UNAG affiliated with Rights Georgia? Boud (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC) (correction Boud (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC))
Let's see. Sharing the same physical street address, having similar goals and interests, co-signing open letters together, etc. That demonstrates a clear relationship between these organizations. More broadly these two organizations are part of a network of NGOs that work in consort in Georgia as described in Schneebaum, Alfred, & Bernal. These groups work to support each other, which is how the NGO network is set up in that country according to reliable materials. It would be a stretch arguing independence when they are literally sharing a building, and when they have written letters together.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Civil Georgia says that it is at 2 Dolidze St 0161 Tbilisi; UNAG says that it is at 2 Dolidze St 0171 Tbilisi; Rights Georgia says that it is at 11a Akaki Gakhokidze Str, 0160, Tbilisi. There are many streets called Dolidze in Tbilisi, including Viktor Dolidze St, Gogi Dolidze St, Isidore Dolidze St, going through various postcodes, so it's quite possible that both 0161 and 0171 are correct postcodes. If (i) Civil Georgia and UNAG both wrote correct postcodes, then it's a coincidence that both are at number 2 at presumably different Dolidze Streets; alternatively (ii) it's possible that one states the wrong postcode and nobody bothered to complain and ask for the error to be fixed. Both are distinct from Akaki Gakhokidze St, with one possible path that puts the Civil Georgia office at 2km walking distance from the Rights Georgia office. So literally sharing a building may speculatively apply under (ii) for Civil Georgia and UNAG, but not for Civil Georgia and Rights Georgia. A general pattern of Georgian NGOs cooperating or having generally similar goals within the very broad range of human rights is not evidence of Civil Georgia being affiliated with Rights Georgia; "affiliation" between organisations normally means a specific membership relationship where one is a member of the other. So the "association" (not affiliation) between Civil Georgia (or UNAG) and Rights Georgia seems to be that UNAG created Civil Georgia in 2001, UNAG is a Georgian NGO, and Rights Georgia is a Georgian NGO, and Georgian NGOs often coordinate with one another, so we can speculate that Rights Georgia might influence Civil Georgia because RG and UNAG are both Georgian NGOs, and Georgian NGOs generically often coordinate. I think this just brings us back to the question of the degree of independence of a news organisation, and what degree of known or speculated dependence or independence is acceptable or required for this topic. Boud (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I think you are jumping through lots of hoops here that aren't all that convincing. Writing open letters together is writing letters together. It shows contact and collaboration and a shared goal. Having a common interest and goal and coordinating together is a form of relationship. That kind of relationship draws into question the independence of these two groups.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The debate here is not about me: ... you are [unlikely] going to get much traction ... You might be trying to correct ... you are opening the door ... you are jumping through lots of hoops. Please let's focus on the actual arguments and evidence and the goals and methods of Wikipedia.
It looks like there is consensus that we have no evidence of affiliation between Civil Georgia and Rights Georgia, and so far we don't know of any open letters written in common by UNAG, which 24 years ago created Civil Georgia, and Rights Georgia.
So we get back to the question of the degree of independence of a news organisation, and what degree of known or speculated dependence or independence is acceptable or required for this topic, which independent Wikipedians will judge, based, to some degree, on reading this discussion and the various related discussions that have taken place in the past in the WP: and related meta-namespaces, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature, WP:SBEXTERNAL, why systemic bias matters, WP:BIASWYCD and WP:CANCHANGE, and keeping in mind that for Western mainstream media sources, we do not require strict independence from governments, corporations and stock markets; instead we make practical compromises, given the goals of Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
We need to let others comment. This Wikipedia:Wall of text is likely turning off others from participating. Making repetitive appeals to WP:SBEXTERNAL is not helping with the problem. You are not going to convince me by making more comments, so please stop and let others engage. We need new voices without you or I commenting further. Also with only you and I commenting on this article and its sources, there is no consensus here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Just a note that I already posted one open letter signed by both parties above in my source analysis so the claim by Boud that it was not provided was not true. Here it is again. Civil Georgia is published and written by UNAG which is signatory number 11. Rights Georgia is signatory number 16. Here is a second letter where both organizations are signatories (numbers 11 and 18). There are others if you search in google (particularly under their old name, such as and ). This article by Civil Georgia explains the formal relationship between Rights Georgia (aka Article 42 of the Constitution) and the UN Association of Georgia which are both part of a 21-member group that officially monitors conditions in Georgia's prisons and are responsible for co-authoring regular reports to the Georgian government together. They clearly are organizations that have a formal working relationship. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. [1]
    Steven Schneebaum; Brittin Alfred; Sebastian Bernal; et al. (3 June 2020), Rights in Progress: How Georgia is Implementing International Human Rights Law, School of Advanced International Studies, Wikidata Q136121925, archived from the original on 27 July 2025
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge salient information to Human rights in Georgia. Delete Changed vote as there's clearly no support for an AtD and I wholly agree there is no rationale to keep. The source assessment by 4meter4 is bang on the money - and a huge amount of effort clearly went into it. However, the sources are all quite clearly not mainstream media outlets and are indeed primary sources. That there is virtually no mainstream media coverage (all we have is a PR in Georgia Today) is perhaps unsurprising, given the nature of the organisation and the environment it is working in, but nevetheless the standard we put articles to needs independent published coverage - be it news, feature, research or book. It's not just that the articles are not bylined (and FWIW I agree with the rationale that a byline adds credibility but in this case, we're looking at articles published by an activist outlet with no editorial board, personnel or even ownership or funding information given in an 'About' section, so taking it as an independent WP:RS does require a rather extensive leap of faith) - it's that there's no independent coverage. I think it's appropriate and even important that we cover Rights Georgia, but that can be accomplished without a dedicated article with a merge (bearing in mind WP:DUE weight for this NGO within the topic area). I also agree with 4meter4's point about walls of text... good GRIEF!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I would support a highly limited merge/redirect to Human rights in Georgia as an WP:ATD. That said, care would need to be done to remove WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in that merge and attention given to comply with WP:DUE. To be clear I prefer deletion over a redirect. 4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd have argued even a straight redirect with no merge, but I'm just as good with a delete, per the above change of heart! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Given the lack of any coverage in WP:SIRS, I don't think a limited merge and redirect is appropriate here. Kudos to 4meter4 for a convincing and thorough source assessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: unfortunately, GNG has not been met here. I agree with the assesment that the article's creator is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and though I might not be so harsh on this source, we aren't meeting WP:NORG with this. Great job on the sources table, I'm sure a lot of work went into that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per source analysis, which is as comprehensive as I've seen in months. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect/selective merge (basically just a very short description + entry in the table) to Non-governmental organizations in Georgia (country), a list article that features other NGOs in Georgia.Katzrockso (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Biswajit Biswas

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

Less than 40 professional appearances and lacks WP:SIGCOV. I only found information about a bodybuilder with the same name , but I couldn't confirm if it's the same person. Svartner (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Saumya Chaturvedi

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Only one source on page. . to demonstrate the subject won some obscure (pay to enter) industry award. No evidence of significant coverage. Jevansen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Emma Okas Wike

Emma Okas Wike (edit | talk | history | 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 clear notability, person who made article has been blocked for sockpuppeting and has made a series of pages blocked for being unnotable. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

José Ramon Argüello

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

Jose Ramon Arguello was actually a party in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Greer v. Mezes, 65 U.S. 268 (1860). Despite this, he was only locally "important" for being Luis Antonio Argüello, the governor of California's son. Cronacrab (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Aside from being mentioned as the son of Luis Argüello and a party to a single 19th-century court case, there is no significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources establishing individual notability. The article relies entirely on one 1886 tertiary source and contains no modern scholarship or context demonstrating enduring significance. AllyJams (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - while a party in a SCOTUS case can be notable for that reason, it's not automatically true, and, in this instance, there are no additional sources that show significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Qılınclı, Lachin

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

Originally prodded by Dlthewave in 2021, and deprodded by Lugnuts. There is nothing at the location given in the article, nor could I find anything with this name for miles around it. The source is a list of place-names, but in this area (i.e., the area occupied by the Armenians for decades until they were thrown out in the 2020 war) claims to land are quite sensitive and political.

From what I can see this is really part of the village of Qarıqışlaq (AKA Garigishlag) which does actually exist, so a redirect there makes sense. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Azerbaijan. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    Comment From the document that is already sourced on the page, it appears that there is a larger level administrative division known as Qarıqışlaq, which is referred to as a village (kənd) in that document, which contains 4 other lower-level administrative division, also known as a village (kənd) in that document. The ledger at the top states that there are 49 administrative territorial districts (47 villages, 1 city and 1 town), but 127 territorial districts (125 villages, 1 city, 1 town). It seems that for some purposes Qarıqışlaq is now considered the broader 'administrative territorial district'. It states "Qarıqışlaq village return" and then lists the 4 villages Qarıqışlaq, Qılınclı, Soyuqbulaq, and Zeyvə (which all have distinct "KODLAR" numbers).
    Currently, these all have separate Wikipedia articles (Soyuqbulaq, Lachin, Zeyvə, Lachin). From what I can tell from the Amrenian/Azerbaijani language versions of those two articles is that they had a significant population (800+) in 1907/1908.
    The Azerbaijani version of the article (which of course isn't neutral on matters of geography, but important to get a sense for what the locality actually is) states that the village had a population of 82 in 1907-1908. I found this Youtube video by a pro-Azerbaijani which seems to depict the area that constitutes the settlement.
    I definitely think this is a distinct settlement than Qarıqışlaq, so a redirect is inappropriate. Perhaps a merge, but I don't know the exact details of the administrative divisions of Azerbaijani geography. Katzrockso (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    What information would there be for a merge? This article is simply a name and a location (at which nothing can be seen). We cannot just use the Azeri Wiki article as a source, nor the table that is cited to Wikicommons and clearly isn't from 1908 that they use in that article. Soyuqbulaq, Lachin is cited to GNS, which is unreliable according to RSN. Ditto Zeyvə, Lachin. Probably they should all just be redirected to Qarıqışlaq and, at most, just listed there as locations within its boundaries. If you want to call that a merge I'm OK with that. FOARP (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't suggest that these are sources, I used the Azerbaijani wiki to get an idea of the information that exists for this locality - we don't even know what the Armenian name . The table is obviously a reproduction of some source that provided the information, unless you're alleging that the information is made up. The Wiki also specifically cites 82 to the source "Dictionary of Toponyms of Armenia and Adjacent Regions".
    Poke around the different language versions and you will see a variety of sources; the Arabic wiki cites a book "Directory of socio-economic characteristics of the administrative-territorial units of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". The Crimean Tatar wiki cites 4 different sources. We don't have any information to expand upon the article right now, probably because none of us can access the sources in various languages (Russian, Armenian, Azerbaijani) to verify the information on the other Wikipedias, but we have strong reason to believe that these sources exist under WP:NEXIST.
    "Probably they should all just be redirected to Qarıqışlaq and, at most, just listed there as locations within its boundaries" <- I completely reject this suggestion. I made the suggestion for a merge at the beginning of writing my comment before I did significantly more research to understand the complexities of the administrative divisions of Azerbaijan. I think that the organization of the villages in the document best points to the fact that Qarıqışlaq may be the largest currently populated village in the area, hence why it is the "administrative territorial district". Our article Qarıqışlaq calls it a village, unless we want to change the scope of the article to be that of the "administrative territorial district" and then list that the administrative territorial district contains 4 villages, it would be inappropriate to say that these localities (which do exist as separate villages according to the document we already have cited in the Wikipedia article) are "locations within its boundaries". Whether or not each of these villages should have a separate article is the relevant question; Qarıqışlaq would have an article in virtue of functioning both as an administrative district and an administrative territorial district (the terms used in the government document), but if it were to serve as the merge target, the scope of the article would need to be changed, as in the government document in question, Qarıqışlaq is listed under the Qarıqışlaq village return section, indicating that it is a village within the broader 'administrative territorial district'. Katzrockso (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think it would be silly to list the existence of villages within an administrative district that we know do not actually exist right now, because we can see that they don't exist. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
    "We can see that they don't exist" how? Looking at satellite footage from unreliable coordinates is not evidence that anything doesn't exist. We have a government document listing the village. There are passing mentions of this village in media (I have seen video footage that purports to show this village). Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - abandoned houses are visible at the coordinates, indicating that this was a real village at some point in the past. It would be good if we could find the reasons for its abandonment to add to the article. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments above and WP:NGEO.Katzrockso (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The table quoted agrees with the 1910 edition of Kavkazskiy kalendar. It lists the settlement Кличлу as having 82 residents in 1907 on page 289. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to 2024–25 Florida Gators men's basketball team. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Kevin Pazmino

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. The article relies mainly on primary or routine sources (team sites, roster announcements, social media) and has no significant independent coverage. No evidence of lasting notability or professional-level play. Acrom12 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay, I hope I didn't do anything wrong. I thought that with sources listed, they would work. Gdshordy (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gdshordy: You didn’t do anything wrong at all — adding sources is always appreciated. The issue here isn’t that the article has no sources, but that the ones provided are not independent or in-depth enough to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for athletes. Seee WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL.
Routine mentions like roster listings, player profiles, or team announcements confirm that the person exists, but they don’t establish significant coverage about the player. For an article to stay, we generally need multiple independent sources that discuss the subject in detail, such as feature stories, interviews, or major sports coverage.
So no worries, you didn’t violate any rule; this is just about the level of sourcing needed for stand-alone notability. Acrom12 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The Miami Herald article does not seem to be primary or routine, although I suppose there can be debate as to whether the coverage there is significant enough. And in any case, multiple significant sources are needed. If there are 2 more similar to this I would probably be inclined to !vote keep. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your note, @Rlendog. I agree the Miami Herald piece is independent and non-routine, but when evaluated under WP:GNG, its coverage of Pazmino is brief and shared with another walk-on. Most of the article discusses the Florida Gators’ team performance and season overview. Pazmino is quoted a few times about his experience as a walk-on, but there is no sustained biographical or analytical depth focused specifically on him.
    A single feature like this, while helpful, doesn’t amount to the “significant coverage” required by WP:GNG, and there are no additional independent profiles or analyses of comparable depth. The remaining citations are roster notices, team sites, or social media posts.
    So while the Miami Herald story is stronger than a routine roster mention, it’s still insufficient by itself to establish enduring notability. If two more independent, in-depth articles appeared, that could change the assessment; but with the current sourcing, the article still falls short of WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Acrom12 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Coverage is limited to brief mentions in team sites, local sports wires. The one independent source provides only passing attention in a broader feature about Florida walk-ons and does not constitute significant, sustained coverage. No evidence of professional-level competition or enduring notability beyond routine college roster appearances. AllyJams (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)*
  • Redirect to 2024–25 Florida Gators men's basketball team – As WP:ATD. Since the team won the championship, the redirect becomes a good idea. Svartner (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge to Anthropic. Consensus is against retention as a standalone, but this has not been refuted as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 21:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Jack Clark (AI policy expert)

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

We have interviews, biography listings, trivial mentions, podcasts, self-published blogs, a few more interviews and routine coverage generated from his controversial tweets between October 17-19, 2025. The only substantial coverage is from an article on Entrepreneur.com, which appears to be an undisclosed paid piece, as there are no other articles from the bylined journalist and nothing on Alistair Barr’s LinkedIn profile indicates any association with Entrepreneur.com. Subject lacks reliable sources that are independent to justify a standalone article and should therefore be merged or redirected to Anthropic as an ATD-R. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep - I don't think the Entrepreneur.com article is undisclosed sponsored content. It was originally published on Business Insider ("This article originally appeared on Business Insider"), where Alistair Barr works. The Business Insider source is just less convenient because it is paywalled. Barr is a former editor of Clark, but Business Insider would indicate if the article were sponsored. Secondary, independent, reliable sources centered on Jack Clark include the article from The Wall Street Journal the one from AP News, and this one from Axios. I only listed here those from prominent newspapers.
The only part that could fit in the article on Anthropic is the last paragraph, with the content related to David Sacks, the rest is too specific to Clark. A merge would result in deleting most of the article, so I believe it's more of a keep or delete decision. Alenoach (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What Clark told Axios, AP News or WSJ about Anthropic is irrelevant when trying to establish Jack Clark’s own notability, because notability isn’t inherited. The Business Insider article clearly states that Alistair Barr and Jack Clark worked together in the past, which raises concerns about its independence as well. Also noting that most of the sources cited in the article and this AfD are related to Anthropic, so you’re not actually losing out on much content if the consensus to merge is reached. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not 'inheritance' of notability if Anthropic is a major player (which it is) and Clark was a significant founder.
Keep I find the nomination unconvincing and clutching at straws, having already decided the outcome. Clark is one of the major voices in UK AI direction (and notably contrasting to most of the US techbro viewpoints). We should have this article, the clear demonstration of that is a job for editors to do some encyclopedic journalism here, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
That sounds like a classic case of "inherited" notability, actually. If he's only known for co-founding one company, then he's only really known for one event. Do the other things actually have significant coverage? "Clark maintains a newsletter" and "Clark gave a briefing" sound like run-of-the-mill activities for the chattering class. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete Aside from the Business Insider article, I had difficulty finding reliable, independent secondary sources that are about Jack Clark himself and not just something he said at one point, etc. Enervation (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Along with the Business Insider article I see APNEWS and Remio. Adding to that, he has articles on G-Scholar that have significant cites, including one that has over 50K. There are a number of interviews - which, while they do not confer notability they do indicate that he is worth interviewing. Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
As for the title, I suggest "Jack Clark, AI developer". Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, what Clark says about his company is irrelevant in establishing his notability. Remio isn’t a reliable news publisher and the paper/book with 50k citations lists 30 other authors, with the main ones being: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) — Edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin. Also the citations are irrelevant here since he is not being evaluated under WP:NPROF and your keep vote isn’t based on any policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Lots of people who are not academics do research and publish, and I see no reason to exclude his publications in this analysis. (I've also found some book chapters that I'll try to add to the article.) That one article is an outlier(1), but there are others. Also the BI and APNEWS are not him talking about his company, they are others writing about him. I do agree that Remio is a "trade publication" and not a source of notability. We should add his government commission positions to the article. This still leaves us with two good sources - and that is a policy: wp:gng.
(1) The number of "authors" on research publications varies greatly by field. In areas like biology I've seen >100 names on an article because they include everyone involved in the research, which can involve research labs in multiple countries. So I think we should withhold judgment about the importance of the number of authors unless we have information about the context of the publication. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I should have accessed the paper first. It says: Jack Clark led the analysis of ethical impacts — fairness and representation, human assessments of the model, and broader impacts analysis, and advised Gretchen, Amanda, Girish, Sandhini, and Ariel on their work. Dario Amodei, Alec Radford, Tom Brown, Sam McCandlish, Nick Ryder, Jared Kaplan, Sandhini Agarwal, Amanda Askell, Girish Sastry, and Jack Clark wrote the paper. It sounds like he had a solid involvement. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – This article reads like a self-promotional resume/CV padded with routine coverage and recycled press mentions. It fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO by a wide margin. Nearly every citation either quotes Clark as a spokesperson for Anthropic or republishes his own statements from Import AI. That is not independent, significant coverage, it is media repetition of a company mouthpiece. The few “secondary” sources offered (AP, WSJ, CNBC, Politico) are about Anthropic or the broader AI safety debate, not about Jack Clark as an individual. He is simply one of many interchangeable policy commentators quoted for a line or two. The Entrepreneur/Business Insider article touted as “in-depth” is dubious at best — clearly functioning as puff coverage, not independent journalism. The rest of the article is propped up by sources which fail basic tests of reliability and independence. Clark’s actual influence is derivative of Anthropic’s prominence, and that’s already covered in that article. Absent multiple, in-depth, independent profiles focused primarily on him, not his employer or his own media output, this page is promotional fluff masquerading as encyclopedic content. Strong delete, with a redirect to Anthropic as an ATD-R at most. AllyJams (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)*
  • Merge: to the "Anthropic" article I suppose is fine, not much for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or alternatively merge to Anthropic per nom and AllyJams. Puff piece throughout, including the title. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Institutionalism in political parties

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

Original essay about one political scientist's writings. It appears to be unrelated to the concept of institutionalism that comes up in reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. The article starts off okay then sways off topic, discussing separate things Aesurias (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Tagged since 2009... The concept exists but this would have to be re-written. The one source in the article is fine, but if no one's updated it in almost 20 yrs, I think it's fine to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    I agree ~2025-31230-10 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is essentially original research by one scholar. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. It would be helpful if interested editors could add newly found sources to the article in case there are future AFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Ning Li (physicist)

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

This is an article on an "anti-gravity researcher." It is filled with a dozen sources, however, on close examination these are things like U.S. Government grant filings, business registrations, papers Li herself authored, and a paid obit.

  • We currently have three pieces of biographical coverage: one paragraph in a WIRED article, a captioned photo in a Popular Mechanics article, and a very robust article in the Huntsville Business Journal. The first two certainly don't pass the threshold of WP:SIGCOV; as for the third, we have consistently considered trade publications--specifically including Business Journal-brand papers--as non-contributive to WP:N (though otherwise reliable) due to their articles being WP:ROUTINE.
  • Researcher does not have a remarkable H-Index, nor did she hold a named chair, that would allow her to crest WP:NPROF.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete I am not finding anything relevant in GScholar except for citations of the work of other people with the same name. Based on the content on the article, this sounds like a WP:FRINGE situation, in which case we should go by the WP:BIO standards. Except for the Huntsville Business Journal article, there does not appear to be sufficient sources providing specific significant WP:BIO type coverage here. Moreover, for WP:FRINGE cases we would need some more substantive WP:RS than the Huntsville Business Journal discussing the relevant scientific facts and background. Nsk92 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only source that potentially contributes to notability here is the Huntsville Business Journal. However, it's not stellar, and even though the article claims that her research was " big news in both scientific journals and mainstream press", I can't find any evidence of that. Cortador (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    WP:GREL sources like New Scientist, Science and Wired did cover Ning Li's work in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Examples: Going up, Anti-gravity research on the rise, Breaking the Law of Gravity, Holden, Constance (1996-10-11). "NASA's fling with anti-gravity". Science. 274 (5285): 183–185. doi:10.1126/science.274.5285.183. ISSN 0036-8075. JSTOR 2892153. - Amigao (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Each of these vary between two to three sentences (within very long articles) about Ning Li, and none of them provide biographical information; rather she's incidentally mentioned in a tangential manner in regard to her research. That's certainly enough to prove Ning Li was a real person. But notability is about more that simply demonstrating the person is non-fictional. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The Science article cited above would not be considered a mere "tangential" mention. In fact, Ning Li and her work are central to that article. - Amigao (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as the threshold of WP:NBASIC appears to be covered from the cited sources. Also, per WP:SIGCOV, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Thus, this Wired article discussing some of Ning Li's work would likely still count. - Amigao (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. The sources found by Amigao.
    2. Powell, Corey S. (May 1999). "Zero gravity". Discover. Vol. 20, no. 5. pp. 31–32. EBSCOhost 1769172. ProQuest 205987827.

      The article notes: "In her laboratory at the University of Alabama, Ning Li tinkers time and again with a device she believes will transform the world. ... Nevertheless, Ning Li, who had published theoretical papers on antigravity in the late 1980s and early 1990s, promptly rose to the challenge. In collaboration with a NASA team, she constructed superconducting flywheels as much as a foot in diameter-a messy and technically demanding project-and tried to reproduce the results of Podkletnov's experiments. Li and the NASA group have since undergone an amicable split. NASA is focusing on validating the basic experiments, while Li is concentrating more on applications. She has stopped publishing papers and no longer speaks of her techniques or experimental results, saying she fears any delays will give foreign researchers the lead.

    3. Logan, Noah (2023-07-30). "Uncovering the mystery of Huntsville's brilliant anti-gravity scientist". Huntsville Business Journal. Retrieved 2025-11-04.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

      The article notes: "Not only was Dr. Ning-Li from Huntsville, she was also a trailblazer in the field of anti-gravity research. After migrating to America from China in 1983, Li began working at the University of Alabama Huntsville’s (UAH) Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research. She became famous and somewhat controversial for a series of papers she co-authored from 1991 – 1993. In her work, Li described a practical method of producing an anti-gravity field, which had never been done before. It’s always been held that, because gravity is a basic force of nature, constructing an antigravity machine is theoretically impossible. However, Li and her co-author, Douglass Torr, theorized ways around this belief using a high temperature superconductor (HTSD.)

    4. Burkey, Martin (1996-12-07). "UAH co-workers have spat over laboratory space". The Huntsville Times. Archived from the original on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Dr. Ning Li, who made news recently when she made an agreement with NASA to develop an experiment that could measurably decrease the effect of gravi-ty, came to her lab at the UAH optics building Friday to find the contents of one lab in a hall. She was using the equipment to heat-treat high temperature superconducting powder to be pressed into a disc for the gravity experiment. A shaken Li said Friday she believes she's the victim of an academic turf war with colleagues who question the value of her research."

    5. Burkey, Martin (1996-09-22). "Report levitates interest here in gravity experiment" (pages 1 and 2). The Huntsville Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "After reading about the research in London's Sunday Telegraph on Sept. 1, Stanford University scientists reportedly are planning to visit UAH soon to discuss the research with theorist Dr. Ning Li. Stanford is also rumored to be trying to woo the physicist, sources said. Li's research is paid for partly by NASA's advanced propulsion program, Brantley said, which is divided into a small booster program, air-breathing rockets, orbital transfer stages and propulsion research. ... Both apparently were unaware of Li's theory, first published in Physical Review D in 1991, then Physical Review B in 1992 and Foundations of Physics Letters in 1993, UAH officials said. ... Instead of measuring a very large mass spinning very slowly, however, Dr. Li's theory proposes it can be measured in quadrillions of atoms spinning quadrillions of times per second in the same direction, Koczor said. That, she says, is what occurs in the highly ordered lattice structure of a superconducting material."

    6. Burkey, Martin (1993-08-16). "UAH duo hopes to reverse gravity: Revolutionary theory awaits proof in lab" (pages 1 and 2). The Huntsville Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "In the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters, physicists Dr. Douglas Torr and Dr. Ning Li offer mathematic justification for an anti-gravity field. They call it "gravito-electric-electric coupling via superconductivity." ... Torr and Li don't take gravitational humor or skepticism lightly, and they reject any possibility that their gravity-in-a-bottle project could be another false alarm like "cold fusion" research of a few years ago. ... Torr and Li's experimental hardware would consist of a chamber less than two feet in diameter, made completely of high-temperature superconducting metal and immersed in liquid helium."

    7. "Taming gravity — it's no longer impossible". Orlando Sentinel. 2000-10-07. Archived from the original on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Prospects for the Alabama HTSD are attracting serious attention because this particular disc was fabricated by Ning Li, one of the world's leading scientists. In the 1980s, Li predicted that if a time-varying magnetic field were applied to superconductor ions trapped in a lattice structure, the ions would absorb enormous amounts of energy. Confined in the lattice, the ions would begin to rapidly spin, causing each to create a minuscule gravitational field."

    8. Faulk, Kent (1996-10-14). "Can gravity be bent? Marshall scientists trying to duplicate Russian experiment" (pages 1 and 2). The Birmingham News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-11-04. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Ning Li, a research scientist at UAH's Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research, some graduate students and Marshall engineers are working to duplicate Eugene E. Podkletnov's experiment. ... Ms. Li had already been working for years to prove a theory that could lead to the creation of measurable man-made gravitational fields when the results of Podkletnov's experiment were reported."

    9. Cook, Nick (2002) [2001]. The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology. New York: Broadway Books. pp. 103–104. ISBN 0-7679-0628-4. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "In 1993, the Advanced Concepts office at the Marshall Space Flight Center was handed a copy of a paper written by two physicists, Douglas Torr and Ning Li, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. It was called "Gravitoelectric-electric coupling via superconductivity" and predicted how superconductors ... In their paper, Torr and Li went out of their way to avoid the term "antigravity." One whiff of it, they knew, and no one would take their work seriously. It worked. NASA promised money for an experiment. ... At first, Ning Li, the brilliant Chinese woman scientist who had Ning Li, predicted a one percent weight change in her original calculations, joined forces with the DeltaG effort. Then, apparently frustrated by the pace of work at Marshall, she set up to pursue the experiments on her own. If she was getting anywhere with them, she wasn't saying, all her most recent tests having been conducted behind closed doors."

    10. Highfield, Roger (2002). The Science of Harry Potter: How Magic Really Works. New York: Penguin Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-14-200355-8. Retrieved 2025-11-04 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "In the case of anti-gravity, another scientist, Ning Li, had been independently researching gravity modification at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and had studied the possibility that superconductors might generate unexpected gravitational effects, as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity). In the mid 1990s she, too, seemed to be getting somewhere - fast-spinning charged atoms in her superconductor produced a measurable change in a gravitational field - but then she dropped out of sight."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ning Li (simplified Chinese: 李宁; traditional Chinese: 李寧) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cunard - can you start using the reflisttalk template instead of blasting discussions with these walls of text? Thanks. In any case, I'm not questioning whether she was a real, living person; she was. I'm questioning whether she was notable. You've provided proof -- via one or two sentence mentions nestled within multipage articles -- that she was alive, on Earth, for a period of time. However, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources ... is not usually sufficient to establish notability"; see WP:NBASIC. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
These are hardly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. With all these mentions, WP:NBASIC appears to be more than satisfied (i.e., If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.). - Amigao (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Don’t delete this is an important part of the UAP discussion,

Deletion would be suppression of important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31204-61 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: Cunard's refs are enough to establish notability. -Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as meets BASIC. Cunard provides sources from newspaper articles and books with enough different authors and time periods to meet notability guidelines. Some of these are in the Wikipedia article, which could use some clean-up. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: She got a half a million dollar grant from the DoD regarding her anti-gravity work, the work at that point became classified and she was no longer allowed to discuss it publicly. I think your average person would find that notable, nevermind what became of the work.~2025-31400-00 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note to Closer This AfD is the subject of offsite canvassing in the fever emporiums (e.g. , etc.). Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per argumnets by User:Nnev66. -Mardus /talk 16:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks