Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < November 05, November 07 > ...
< November 05 November 07 >
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 redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Embassy of Azerbaijan, London

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

This article is based on primary sources and merely confirms the embassy exists. Fails GNG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Peter Engels

Peter Engels (edit | talk | history | 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 attractive, nice, and well-formatted article on a professor of AMO physics. However:

  • Does not pass WP:GNG: Current sources provide passing mentions in relation to a minor scientific achievement in 2017 (and are all clustered in a two-months period in 2017, ergo failing WP:NOTNEWS) but nothing of biographical depth. Indeed, so little information is available about him, we don't even know his place of birth. A standard WP:BEFORE is non-redemptive.
  • Does not pass WP:NPROF. According to his official CV his professorship is non-named and he has only received institutional awards. His H-Index is 36; an H-Index of 50+ would be necessary for inherent notability in a field like AMO.

Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 23:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Chiral Photonics

Chiral Photonics (edit | talk | history | 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 a promotional one-sheet for a company called Chiral Photonics. Cleanup to make the one-sheet encyclopedic is impossible with the current selection of sources which are a list of patent applications and scientific papers in which the company's inventions are tangentially mentioned. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find anything redemptive. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:01, 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 keep. Once sources were presented, consensus firmed up on the retention side. Owen× ☎ 14:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Revolting Puppets

Revolting Puppets (edit | talk | history | 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 sourcing is... at the very least, incredibly weak. There is only 1 article from almost a decade ago, the rest of the sources are either primary, or reddit(🤮). monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete : Tried a .ch Gnews search . The band still seems to be active, but all I find are concert listings or music releases (no critical analysis or reviews). Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I found some reviews of their first (only) album. . This review feels too positive but I'll link it . The Berner Zetiung source on the page also seems good. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    If anything, this would mean that their first album is more notable than the band itself, which is not uncommon for indie bands. Also, @Toadspike, congrats on the RfA! Link 6, that you provided, is a primary source(an interview) AFAIK, so it by itself doesn't establish notability. @StarTrekker, I'm not sure about 8, 9, and 10, but 11 is another interview.
    also is this what the afd guidelines meant by discussion? I'm not too sure myself monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - great name, but no reliable sources exist. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The article has , as Schützenpanzer mentioned. Swissdox also turns up and three passing mentions. Not much for a Swiss band, tbh, but I'll hold off on casting a formal !vote 'til I can look at all the sources closely. Toadspike [Talk] 02:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I can't read German, but I found , , , and , but I have no idea if they're worthwhile sources.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given newly found sources which I think should call for more examination. A source analysis/assessment table would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Gimme a sec, I'm looking... Toadspike [Talk] 09:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes ~ Leaning yes on all three counts. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes ~ Same author and site as #1. ~ Maybe
Yes This is a radio episode that lasts over two hours – I can't listen to the whole thing to find out if/where there is sigcov. It seems it's an interview with the band starting at ~1:20, in which case it's not quite independent. ? Unknown
No No No Announcement of an upcoming show. ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes Solid source. Independent? Probably. ✔ Yes
Yes ~ Seems to be a review in a fan magazine or something. Author has an...interesting bio here , but is actually a professional journalist in his day job. Genuinely unsure if this is has editorial review, esp. as it ends with "Anzeige". ? Unknown
Yes Yes Yes Looks like a solid review from a smaller website. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Another review, this one even longer, from a small music site. ✔ Yes
Yes No byline, can't find any evidence of editorial review. Perhaps "Das UNDERDOG ist ein autonomes Zentralorgan" means they are morally opposed to editors... ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close
  • Leaning keep, see table above. I think the GNG is met and possibly significantly surpassed here. Toadspike [Talk] 09:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I know I'm a bit late here, but I'll ping @Oaktree b and @Bearian again to take a look at the above. In particular, I think it disproves "no reliable sources exist". Toadspike [Talk] 10:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the sources found and analyzed by Toadspike. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep source table above shows some critical notice, which helps notability. Should be fine then. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 14 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 Draghi report#Draghi Observatory. As a proposed WP:ATD. The "keep" opinions do not cite any sources that would establish notability per WP:GNG. Sandstein 11:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

European Policy Innovation Council

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

Think tank founded last year, mentions in passing but not seeing anything that goes to the WP:SIGCOV level. Does not seem notable Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

With such approach, 90% of articles about think tanks and similar organisations in Europe would have to be deleted. Bulionedits (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
If no good sources report on all these think tanks, why should we keep those articles? Cortador (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bulionedits And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says - not a problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
My view on this is exactly oposit. Similar articles are poor or do not exists, and this is a gap that should be worked on. Bulionedits (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi PK! I think this topic fits well with what Wikipedia should be covering. Think tanks play a big role in Europe, yet this whole area is still quite underrepresented here. The EPIC is a young organisation, but it’s already made unusually big impact in Brussels. There is a real gap in how we understand and map the ecosystem of think tanks. Deleting it now would only make that gap bigger, when what’s really needed is a more complete and structured picture of how these actors influence policymaking. And they really do. Se5hat03 (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I’d also add that the existing sources go well beyond trivial mentions. Several articles and interviews discuss their initiatives and positions in detail, not just in passing. 80.53.255.22 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. No !votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Well done article imo. Keep. Gawrawiki (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep, sources seem to support WP:GNG and WP:NORG well enough. The subject is notable enough to justify an article, IMO. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm also supporting to Keep. Se5hat03 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Monkeysmashingkeyboards Which sources - can you list WP:THREE? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll get right back to you with the exact sources once I get home, in about an hour. IIRC there were numerous news articles that report on their formation, and the policies they've influenced. Cheers! monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully they are better than press releases... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I've remembered incorrectly about the in-depth sources - there isn't a single article where EPIC is the primary topic. I apologize. But there are enough sources that justify EPIC's mention on Wikipedia, so perhaps merge into Draghi report? All reliable, independent sources discuss EPIC in context of this report. Cheers! monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@Monkeysmashingkeyboards That makes sense, this is something I actually proposed we do on pl wiki, where this was AfD recently (and that discussion, still ongoing, made me start the discussion here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Draghi report#Draghi Observatory. This think tank doesn't have notability for a standalone article. A merge is not necessary because that section already dedicated four paragraphs to them. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:02, 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 03:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Izhaar Malihabadi

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

Draftify - this has been returned to Draft previously, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. I would have returned to Draft myself, but may not; it requires consensus. I see scope for potential notability under WP:NPOET, but not as written and as referenced. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete – no significant independent news coverage. Does not clearly meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.Shinadamina (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:44, 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Stella March

Stella March (edit | talk | history | 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 indication of meeting GNG - I have searched for sources to no avail. qcne (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and LibStar. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:45, 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Jeanne Bender

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale: "Commons upload history (of Emilydaniel, the primary but not initial author) suggests undisclosed paid editing. Sources in this article may not meet Wikipedia's requirements, especially considering that entries on this author have already been deleted on Simple and Wikidata, the latter of which has a comically low and spam-prone notability criteria." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. The three book reviews cited ( ) are all from the Kirkus Indie program, which means that they are paid reviews and are not usable for establishing notability. The piece in Language Magazine has no byline and appears to be a promotional spot, and the piece in Norway Today is an interview. The piece in Woman's World is labelled as "contributor content" and is blatantly promotional. While the site claims that all contributor content is reviewed by the Woman's World editorial staff, I would regard this as a similar case to WP:FORBESCON. Nothing here qualifies towards WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    About the byline-less piece, see the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ:
    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 article: https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ba419a44791100d0b90c03b98c7ffb1/1 is written by an editor at the publishing house and might make a good comparison for whether any sources have copied from a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing I agree with you of course that the lack of a byline doesn't necessarily make a source non-independent, but I think from context it's pretty clear that this piece is not an independent source. The site in question publishes most of their other original stories with a byline, so it's not that this is an outlet that just doesn't use bylines in general. The site also has a contact address for press release submissions. Reading the source itself, I find it very, very difficult to imagine it being anything other than a press release (Jeanne Bender is passionate about providing interesting, forward-thinking books for everyone. Her priority is to cultivate stories with terminology that can be both challenging and familiar., It is available from all major distributors including Follett, Ingram, and Baker & Taylor., Bender’s intention is to provide education and excitement for readers. She aims to inspire children to pursue their passion for literature and a desire to “continue reading.”) MCE89 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Don't all news agencies have an e-mail address for press releases? I clicked on half a dozen "News" articles, and I didn't actually see any bylines. (But maybe that's because I'm running NoScript.)
    We all have our ideas of what makes a credible source, and many of us want "serious" sources for Wikipedia. But leaving our personal preferences aside, there's a market for enthusiastic, even gushy content, and independent sources can't be identified by tone alone. See, e.g., any aspirational/luxury magazine. Consider travel guides, which have to ration their superlatives so they don't run out before the end of the book. Think about how many sports games are deemed "the most important game of the season". It's just part of the genre for some subjects, and I suggest that it may well be part of the genre for book reviews aimed at special education teachers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Most news agencies accept press releases, but most don't prominently advertise that they welcome them. That "resources" section of the Language Magazine website also includes things that are unambiguously press releases, e.g. is a republishing of this press release , and is a republishing of this press release , and several that are just straightforwardly advertising . We might just have to agree to disagree here — it's not impossible that you're right and an independent journalist wrote the piece, but I find it very, very unlikely (especially given that we know this author has paid for other publicity, e.g. the Kirkus Indie reviews). MCE89 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Jeanne Bender is named in the abstract of this EBSCOE journal article. I don't have access, but it is possible this might be WP:SIGCOV. The PROQUEST article from Texas Library Journal seems like it is independent and would count as one source. I agree that the other sources seem like press releases or puffery and should be excluded as evidence of notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the Texas Library Journal article. It's very heavily based on quotes from the author and her editor, and it says The Lindie Lou Adventure Series, from Pina Publishing in Seattle, was proud to be a Bronze sponsor at the [Texas Library Association] conference. The Texas Library Association is the publisher of the Texas Library Journal, and the piece is really mostly about reporting on their own conference while noting Bender's participation in it as their sponsor. Things like Educators learned all about the series and its educational connections... make me think the piece is really more about promoting their conference to authors who might be interested in being future sponsors. MCE89 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps. I think being featured as a speaker at a state convention for educators lends some notability to the author, so I'm inclined to count this as one piece of independent significant coverage. However, this is just one piece of evidence, and I go by the rule of three. So as of yet, we are at one confirmed source, and one possible source which is not three. If nothing more comes forward, I do think deletion is the best choice. I did see in another google scholar article (which was an interview so not independent) that she was a speaker at a convention in New Zealand. I get the impression that she has had some success, and this is someone approaching notability who isn't yet quite there.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Probably TOOSOON. I tried a search on Common Sense Media as she is a kids writer , nothing comes up. We just don't have enough to show notability. The other Kirkus reviews are as explained, not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: This appears to be an interview, but it's still only one source. I just don't think we have enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    There's an accessible PDF version on Google of that EBSCO source ("The Joy of Words" by Callan Goodall) that you and 4meter4 have mentioned. I'm not going to link to it because I'm not certain the site has the rights to host it, but it should be the only result if you Google "callan goodall" "jeanne bender". Unfortunately I don't think it helps at all in establishing notability here. MCE89 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: This needs to be stubified. Some sources are good, but some, like Forbes, are garbage. Bearian (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 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 keep. I see some support for the nomination in the unbolded comments here, but rough consensus seems to favour retention. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

List of male detective characters

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

Renominating this list as it fails WP:LISTN and is redundant to List of fictional detectives which has much of the same content and was created earlier. Seems to have been an unnecessary content fork. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment last time's debate was dominated by Andrew Davidson's long list of references discussing gender in detective fiction. Gender in detective fiction is undoubtedly a notable topic. But this list article doesn't discuss gender in detective fiction (no accompanying text, one inappropriate reference to iMDb and two inappropriate, arbitrary external links). We don't seem to have an article on gender in detective fiction. We do have discussion of the subject in Female_detectives_in_the_United_Kingdom, an article that can't decide whether it's about real detectives or fictional ones. What we have here is a navigational list in form, but not a useful navigational list because it's never going to be orders of magnitude smaller (more manageable) than the list of all fictional detectives. Undoubtedly it could have been a stand-alone list based on Andrew's references, it could have had introductory text, it could have been informative, but no one has bothered to make it such. And this renders it fairly pointless. The remaining arguments last time were all variations on "if we delete this list, we'll have to delete other gendered lists", which is just other-stuff-exists. There is no hope whatsoever of this AfD being successful. These lists are something that many people like to make, so there will never be any consensus to delete. But I have to agree with Zxcvbnm that in its current form, this list doesn't really help anyone. Making lists is, unfortunately, addictive. Elemimele (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    The thing is, the last time, List of fictional detectives wasn't actually called that, so there was some significant confusion and belief there wasn't a corresponding male list. Now it's properly named according to its content, so it's painfully obvious that this list is completely redundant. Move List of fictional detectives to List of fictional male detectives if you wish, but this list is a pure fork, and has no encyclopedic purpose. I think there is more of a chance of it being deleted than before, and Andrew D has since been indefinitely topic banned for numerous spurious arguments so this deserves to be re-evaluated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    To add to that, I would dispute that These lists are something that many people like to make, so there will never be any consensus to delete. There have been plenty of examples of us deleting such lists through WP:AfD before. I would prefer it if there were a broader consensus that these topics are not to be covered in a list format to begin with (only prose articles such as Mars in fiction, a WP:Featured article), but that has so far proved elusive. TompaDompa (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Zxcvbnm: Move List of fictional detectives to List of fictional male detectives Did you mean that in the sense of having List of fictional detectives just refer and defer to List of female detective characters and List of male detective characters? Daranios (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - I'd started that before further input came. Daranios (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
A list of lists sounds like a good idea to me, which could be a central navigation page or be included somehow in the List of fictional detectives. Which in turn at the moment is actually a list by type. Daranios (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I am generally of the opinion that for topics like this, a prose article and a category would be preferable to a list. TompaDompa (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesnt a category do this better? ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
A list has the advantage of providing the name of the work(s) and/or author together with the name of the character, which in a proportion of cases will be more well-known. (E.g. I was aware of the series Criminal Minds, but not the individual David Rossi.) The list currently provides less than it could, but already does more than a category, and has potential for further expansion. Daranios (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a lot of discussion here but only two editors who committed to an outcome. I'm relisting is because at this point, it would need to be an No consensus closure after taking into account the nominator's stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
OK, I'll commit to an outcome: although I agree with TompaDompa, I don't think that's going to happen. So I'm going to go with keep, but this is a keep issued by an angry editor armed with a Trout, and eyeing the perpetrators of these lists with a view to doing some serious fish-whacking. (1) The reason that List of male detective characters earns a keep is that it is a well-structured navigational list, its weakness being that it doesn't discuss the relevance of gender in any way whatsoever; it certainly doesn't justify its existence as a set-based list. (2) Meanwhile List of female detective characters is an utter shambles: it fails as a navigational list because many of its subjects have no articles; it interprets "detective characters" as broadly as "anyone found in a detective book" and therefore includes Irene Adler, who is in no way a detective; it includes vast swathes of commentary with no referencing. But at least it's alphabetical in the same way as the male list. It desperately needs a big clean-up. (3) We have List of fictional detectives, which isn't handled alphabetically in the same way as male and female, but instead is divided up by guesswork about what sort of detective they are. This fails because many are hard to categorise; Poirot, for example, was a detective in the Belgian police before becoming a private detective (and is therefore also included in List of fictional police detectives along with Inspector Japp, who interestingly is in the List of fictional detectives but not in the list of male detective characters); within each category, it gets messy having no subdivision by letter of alphabet, and some of the categories (Forensic specialists) stray quite a long way from "detective". I therefore can't recommend deletion of the list of male detective characters because this alternative list is far worse. (4) and we have List of fictional police detectives which is a decent navigational list structured, for no particular reason, totally differently to (5) List of fictional private investigators (which is missing Jupiter Jones, although he's in list of male detective characters. Oh, and we have (6) List of fictional detective teams, which is a highly awkward list because it's obliged to contain such combinations as Poirot and Hastings, where Hastings is no detective, and missing from half the stories. My strong preference would be a decent debate somewhere on how to rationalise all these lists into something more coherent, consistent, useful, but that's not a reasonable outcome to request at AfD. So Keep. Elemimele (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I basically agree with Elemimele, though I am less committed to a solution. There ought to be a better way to create a navigational aid here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Daranios. There's analysis of the intersection between men/masculinity and detectives in film here too, for example. This is more than enough to pass WP:NLIST, as "male detectives" are discussed in reliable sources as a coherent grouping. Katzrockso (talk) 09:42, 14 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. Complex/Rational 21:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael Sullivan (soccer, born 1995)

Michael Sullivan (soccer, born 1995) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:51, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Gerardo Dúran

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:42, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

John Keith (linebacker)

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

Couldn't find any SIGCOV. Never actually played in the CFL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete And WP:SNOW. Clearly quite obviously fails in GNG considering basically nothing is mentioned besides WP:ROUTINE stuff like the teams he played for and contracts he signed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:05, 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. Nevermind, I found another piece of SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Quinton Meaders

Quinton Meaders (edit | talk | history | 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. Only SIGCOV I found was this. His name is unique so I don't think my searches missed anything. He only played junior college football, and never actually played in the CFL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:49, 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 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 23:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Johnny Thomas (wide receiver)

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

Low-level indoor football and NAIA player. The best coverage I found was some here. However, note that part of that article is about a different receiver. Fails GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:39, 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 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 23:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Matt Singer

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

Couldn't find any SIGCOV. Just passing mentions. Never actually played in the CFL. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:25, 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 keep. That's enough for me. (non-admin closure) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Eric McCain

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

Low-level junior college and indoor football player, and CFL camp body. I could not find any SIGCOV, other than whatever the heck this is. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Lennart Hannelius

Lennart Hannelius (edit | talk | history | 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:NATHLETE. With him competing in the 1924 Summer Olympics and winning the Bronze medal in the 25 m rapid fire pistol event being the only thing mentioned that is not his birth and death place and days. Redirect to Finland at the 1924 Summer Olympics #Shooting where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP, WP:BLAR, and WP:ATD Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging both @Jähmefyysikko and @Tioaeu8943. I was supposed add the rationale for redirect as WP:ATD but totally forgot to! Just added it into the rationale. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable per the coverage cited at the Finnish article and as an Olympic medalist. We should not be redirecting Olympic medalists with zero attempt to search newspapers of their era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - for goodness' sake, what BEFORE was done here? clearly none. It is NOT difficult to check the interlanguage links, which as above would have revealed the existence of adequate sources. Ingratis (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly this topic is verifiable. /Julle (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Snow keep – Olympic bronze medalist, clearly notable. Very poor nomination. Svartner (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    Comment If this is clearly notable, would this be notable on the other hand?: Antti Valkama? Are olympics medalists mostly considered notable? Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    Antti Valkama is notable, there are good sources in fiwiki article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    Does anyone know what generally indicates notability for Olympians? Medals? Example, Víctor Francis does not appear notable and other editors seem to agree with me on the AFD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've no experience on Olympians, but these Finns pass WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:42, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Scrapy

AfDs for this article:
Scrapy (edit | talk | history | 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, no SIGCOV, most of the references are non reliable primary sources. Equine-man (talk) 19:01, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Lingyun Gu

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

Looks like an autobio (see edit history ), and I can't see any evidence of real notability. The sourcing looks like it isn't either primarily about him or is promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 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 redirect to Pacific Airlines#Destinations. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

List of Pacific Airlines destinations

List of Pacific Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | 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:V, WP:LISTN, WP:NCORP and WP:NOT

The list as a whole is unverified, because the overwhelming majority of listings are not verified. 26 services are lists, but only 6 of them have any source at all.

The list fails WP:LISTN/WP:NCORP because, in as much as it is sourced at all, it is sourced entirely to WP:SIRS-failing sources. Specifically these are:

  • The JetStar Group website.
  • The Flight International directory (industry press per WP:TRADES, whose information is collected from airlines, and is not significant coverage of the destinations but instead a bare listing).
  • Airlineroute, a blog per WP:AEROROUTES
  • RoutesOnline, also a corporate blog per RSN.
  • WP:ROUTINE coverage of a future (WP:CRYSTAL) plan to open a single route in the Saigon Times. Not significant coverage of their routes as a whole, and based entirely on statements from the airline.

WP:NOT is failed as this is an exhaustive listing of all of the services of an airline, and as such fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE/WP:NOTGUIDE. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NLIST hard. Thank you nominator. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with the entire premise of the nomination. Lists don't need to meet NCORP, especially for a defunct corporation. Lack of verification can be remedied - there's no suggestion that any of the information here is wrong, just that it does not contain a reference. Lists do not violate NOT per a recent RfC. The only issue with this is that it is under-sourced, possibly at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    "Lists don't need to meet NCORP" - If this were taken seriously, it would mean that you could write articles listing the goods/services of companies, but not about the companies themselves. That would be a total nonsense. Worse still you could just do an end-run around WP:NCORP by writing your WP:PROMO article about the company as a list. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer, the consensus of DESTNOT is currently under discussion. I note you commented this on the 7th, which predates the new RfC. Just wanted to make you aware. 11WB (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pacific Airlines#Destinations as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST – I haven't been able to find any significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources of a "list of Pacific Airlines destinations" which would establish the list's notability. Most of the coverage is just primary routine news reporting. I would usually vote for a merge, but in this case, the table of destinations is poorly sourced. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect: I am !voting based only the sources, which currently are inadequate for the article list. All entries in the list need to have a source. At the moment this is not the case, so the list is incomplete. Redirecting to Pacific Airlines#Destinations would be an appropriate outcome here, with no opposition to merging either. 11WB (talk) 14:36, 12 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

2024 Hollister tornado

2024 Hollister tornado (edit | talk | history | 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 major damage or sourcing outside of NWS (which procedurally does this for all tornadoes such as this) and does not meet WP:NTORNADO or WP:NOTENADO. Z E T A3 18:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Z E T A3 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    I am sorry if this article did not meet expectations for Wikipedia. I really was trying to add context for this tornado. Feel free to delete this if it doesn't meet standards. I apologize in advance Boomersooner6553 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. I don't have a problem with weak or generally non-fatal tornadoes having articles, they just have to have an aspect that makes them notable. This one doesn't. EF5 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom, and the coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE news coverage for a tornado. The impact section has almost no details, so it's hard for the subject to merit its own article. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:23, 12 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 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael Doyle (American football)

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

Low-level American football player in England. I could not find any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - I also didn't see any significant coverage, and the article only has one inlink, 2015 Birmingham Bulls season, where he's the only player with an article. All citations on the page are from the Birmingham Bulls website/social media, so it's essentially all primary sources in the article.
Local Internet User (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: A newspapers.com search didn't reveal any WP:SIGCOV, and I don't see a good redirect target unfortunately. Let'srun (talk) 16:20, 11 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 23:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Werner L. Maier

Werner L. Maier (edit | talk | history | 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. I could not find any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:42, 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 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 23:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

B tuning

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

Seems to fail WP:HOWTO and WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:41, 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 keep. I managed to find a little bit. The article is still pretty shady though. (non-admin closure) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Mark Cohen (American football)

Mark Cohen (American football) (edit | talk | history | 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 couldn't find any SIGCOV in Newspapers.com or on a web search. Just passing mentions. He also did not play in the World League of American Football like the lead claims. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:27, 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 Procedural Close. Given the renaming of the target article, the article under discussion has not had the AFD tag at its top during most of the discussion period; thus, there has not been sufficient notice to page visitors to take place in the deletion discussion. If User:Fram or any other user wishes to nominate the now renamed target article convection doors again for a new AFD discussion, they should feel free to nominate it again immediately. Malinaccier (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Convection door

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

Doesn't seem notable so far, basically referenced in a few articles about one project only. Fram (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Fram (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Refs. 1 and 2 do not mention "convection doors" at all. Ref. 3 does, but only in passing in the context of a single house. Ref. 4 (about this same house) is paywalled so I don't know about that one. Ref. 5 doesn't exist, seems to be hallucinated. Not a good look overall. Topic does exist but does not appear notable, and the nonexistent reference (plus other signs of AI like the bulleted "advantages" and "disadvantages" list) do not put me in a charitable mood. Not notable or WP:TNT at very best. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete (Changed by User:Archiwoman to reflect User:JanttArch's comment below.) This article has already been vetted under "Lev door" - I have simply moved it under "Convention door" in good faith as that is what its inventor calls it and it is quickly becoming the more common term used here in Australia. It is a new invention, but it is already in use by tens of thousands of people (from what I gather from related articles online) who are using the architect's open-source affordable housing plans, as well as other professionals including myself. The topic has been covered in variety of printed media in the past 2 years and I will add these relevant citations shortly. As a relatively new invention (first published 2023?), it may not be prolific online, but it certainly is quickly becoming prolific. Article is (and always likely will be) industry specific and of understandably somewhat niche interest, but so are many other articles. It is in the interest of the community (builders, architects, home owners ...) to have an explanation of the door's function readily accessible. It serves better environmental outcomes. User:JanntArch — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanttArch (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    Oh my, what a convoluted mess you have made of things. I don't know why you did it in such a complicated way, but the article at AfD should be deleted, and Convection doors (with the end-s) should be moved to the current title. Fram (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies. Wiki didn't allow me to do a clean swap, despite following the option B (updated) - I'm not sure why. Can you please fix anything that requires fixing? From my end I just wanted to move lev door to convection door - it seems to have worked anyway.
    The feedback above about references and also the format of pro's and con's was useful though - I have improved those sections and expanded references.
    Can the delete case be cancelled yet, or does the article need any immediate fixes still? I might come back to it in the coming weeks with more references, but many are in printed form only, so it will take time.
    Thank you and sorry again. JanttArch (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    I understand the issue: this new page needs need to be deleted and the original page (now called Convection doors (plural) needs to be moved to Convection door. I don't seem to be able to do it, but I have restored the content of Convection doors and created a redirect to it on Convection door. Please kindly delete the new page and move the original to that name (singular door), if you're able to?Architectsmag (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    I see. Yes please, then Delete door (singular) and Keep "doors" plural (the original article I botched), then move to "door" singular ... JanttArch (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk) 10:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Delete Edit: Agree to delete "convection door", then move "convection doors" to "convection door". Original: Agree with Jantarch, above. Convection doors have been only recently popularised together with their inventor's efforts in the affordable housing space (some of which are in the referenced articles). There have been adopted in many projects by now and there are a fair few houses utilising these already. Their function can be misunderstood as ventilation/cooling (like in transoms). I would recommend keeping article.Archiwoman (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete Please delete this new page "Convection door" singular and replace with the preexisting page, now titled "Convection doors" plural, previously "Lev door," so that it ends up titled "Convection door" singular. Architectsmag (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    (Previous statement) Lev doors article was reviewed months ago and was just fine until this move. See History of what is now Convection doors - after the less than perfect swap by JanttArch. While I don't dispute that the convection door is the more common term, and the swap as such as OK, I would ask to close this Deletion case. I checked the articles and the issues identified by others have been fixed. Ta. Architectsmag (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    (Previous statement)I understand the issue: this new page needs need to be deleted and the original page (now called Convection doors (plural) needs to be moved to Convection door. I don't seem to be able to do it, but I have restored the content of Convection doors and created a redirect to it on Convection door. Please kindly delete the new page and move the original to that name (singular door), if you're able to?Architectsmag (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been moved to Convection doors, plural, but the content and topic seem to be the same, so I can't quite follow why the plural form should be kept and the singular not. Regardless, please identify reliable sources covering the topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Conor Miller

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

Low-level football player in Europe. Could not find any SIGCOV. I couldn't even find anything from his college career (other than three brief passing mentions), which isn't surprising considering he only played in one game at Florida Atlantic (and somehow made a solo tackle) Note that he is called "Conner Miller" in some sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Seems to fail GNG. The article may also attribute the actions of a separate athlete with a similar name to this person. CabinetCavers (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Rainer Polak

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

Does he pass WP:NSCHOLAR. GScholar says each of his publications are cited by ~100 articles. But I couldn't find peer reviews of his works and general bio coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, and Africa. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - This resumé-like article, which has been edited by the subject does not seem to meet GNG nor NSCHOLAR. His h-index as a scholar is quite low (15) for an Associate Professor, so it does not indicate his work has been widely acknowledged by his peers. The article is sourced to his own personal website, his faculty profile at the university where he teaches, an academic database, and his Google Scholar profile, none of which contribute to his notability. The long list of his publications seems promotional. Holding off on !voting for now to do a search for independent sources, but it seems doubtful. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Article is unnecessary at best, in my opinion. To keep it, it'd need a major makeover. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Best regards, Rainer RainerPolak123 (talk) 21:11, 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. ✗plicit 14:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Curlicue

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

Contested prod in 2011. As per WP:DICTIONARY, this has no justification to be an article. Coeusin (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not only per nom, but also considering the blatant lack of sources. CabinetCavers (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per CabinetCavers. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ornament (art). The term exists, and is mentioned in books, though not in depth. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - almost 16 years tagged as unsourced. If you rescue or merge this, then ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. LDW5432 (talk) 12:54, 11 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 Anne Wheeler. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Dancing Trees

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

Nominating for deletion for reasons of notability. The current sources (both on the English page and on the other language versions) are either the director's website or IMDb-like movie databases (e.g. FilmAffinity). I searched the Internet Archive and only found similar coverage in reference works that say nothing more than "this movie is part of Anne Wheeler's filmography" (example). I searched the Quebec library archives (BAnQ) for newspaper coverage and found nothing (though this focuses more on French-language coverage whereas the movie was in English). The only mention of this movie I found online that's not an IMDb-like database is an interview with a supporting actress which talks a bit about the movie but I don't know if that's enough to establish notability. I haven't searched any other Canadian archives for print sources because I don't have access.

Because of the lack of independent, reliable coverage, I believe this movie fails to meet the notability guidelines. TheZoodles (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find anything for a film, some books or people dancing with trees. Nothing in my .ca searches either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anne Wheeler. The director exists, and the film exists, so better to direct people to the article we have on her, and make mention of the film, than to leave them with nothing, and tempt someone to recreate this article. If enough information becomes available, the film can be split out back into a standalone article. SilkTork (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Anne Wheeler. The film is already listed in the filmography section, under the TV movies section. There's very, very little coverage for this. I found a TV listing and that's pretty much about it. I don't think that there's any need to further highlight this in the director's article considering that it was so solidly ignored back in the day. It received no reviews that I could find and its sole claim to fame was a single nomination for a Leo Award for one of the actors. If it had won then that would certainly merit more of a mention, but it didn't. At most this could warrant a mention on the actor's article. Part of me saying this shouldn't warrant a mention is that if we were to go into depth about this film, then we'd have to mention all of the others as well - why highlight such a non-notable film in specific? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    Good find on the Leo nomination, that's a source I hadn't found before. I think a single line on Boland's page (something like "she was nominated for a Leo Award for her role as an autistic teenager in the drama movie Dancing Trees) is acceptable given that the Leos are major awards and she was the one nominated. I'm not sure if it's relevant enough to mention anything about it on Wheeler's page beyond a listing in the filmography. But as far as notability goes for the movie itself, I think a single nomination for one actor hardly counts as "significant coverage", especially because there appears to be zero other relevant significant coverage of this movie otherwise (though I admit I am a bit less sure than when I first wrote this proposal of deletion, because of the award nomination). I am not opposed to merge/redirect to Anne Wheeler for the reasons mentioned by SilkTork above (as opposed to a flat-out deletion). TheZoodles (talk) 08:45, 13 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 Mario Kart 8#Fan response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Luigi's death stare

Luigi's death stare (edit | talk | history | 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 short-lived meme that has very little in the way of sustained coverage in reliable sources. It also lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. Merging to Luigi (character) may be an WP:ATD I suppose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm rather shocked to see this article has existed for a year. The correct title Luigi Death Stare, has been a redirect to Mario Kart 8 for the last decade, (the prior consensus on how to handle this) and no one ever linked to the wrongly-titled article there. I'm open to solutions on how to handle this, but I feel pretty strongly that "Keep" is not the answer. Definitely needs to be some sort of delete/merge/redirect outcome. This article is bloated beyond belief, there's very little of substance here. It reads like a fan wiki or Know Your Meme entry. A racing game character uncharacteristically frowns at other racers in an otherwise happy-go-lucky game. People laughed and made memes about it. That's it. That's not nearly enough for a Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Going with Redirect to Mario Kart 8#Fan response because I don't believe there's much to be retained in an actual merge. The content already there more concisely covers the main points than this article does. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge: Per non. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Merge with Mario Kart 8 because of the redirect CabinetCavers (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mario Kart 8#Fan response to Luigi's death stare. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mario Kart 8#Fan response. There really isn't much to merge beyond the small tidbits already present in the Mario Kart 8 article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mario Kart 8#Fan response: Per above voters. There's really nothing of substance here. The meme is already covered more concisely at the game's article. MidnightMayhem (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Luigi (character) - I know I probably shouldn't tempt to turn this meme into an article, especially since a lot of the sources I could find are very short and often written like a tabloid. I originally doubt this meme could just be a section in Luigi, due to the sources more relevant toward the character rather than the game. Especially since I was able to get reasons why this meme subject should be a redirect to Luigi (see a discussion on WP:VG) plantCOAL 14:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mario Kart 8#Fan response - Adequately covered already in the Mario Kart 8 article, doesn't need its own article. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge: I disagree that this meme doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. The sources are pretty vast in quantity and are almost all reliable. I am instead !voting to merge the article on WP:RFORK and WP:INDISCRIMINATE grounds. Any information in the article is better covered as a section elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect I don't see anything worth merging. The game has a short paragraph about the meme that covers all of the important points. 04:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Niafied (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Ladislav Rott

Ladislav Rott (edit | talk | history | 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 considered expanding and sourcing the article, but the only SIGCOV I found is in the magazine of his still-operating company with an article about the history of the Rott family. There are many passing mentions in media because he was the first person to have the idea to build a metro in Prague, but in my opinion that's not enough to pass WP:GNG. FromCzech (talk) 10:51, 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 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 11:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

CHAMP Goal-Setting Model

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

Not yet notable per WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Though I might have found one here, but it turned out to be an unrelated and even less notable goal-setting model created by someone else, sharing only the name. A few notable organisations have used this CHAMP model, as noted in the article, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 08:22, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

DJ Makosam Official

DJ Makosam Official (edit | talk | history | 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 significant coverages have ever found for this singer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER Faldi00 (talk) 08:00, 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 redirect to It's Every Night Sis. ✗plicit 04:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Alissa Violet

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

Alissa Violet sang on the Rice Gum single "It's every night Sis", the only possible source of notability in this article. She has a YouTube channel and has appeared with The Sidemen. Notability is absent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. A short in WaPo about her suing a company, an incident which has provided no further coverage, is pretty much all there is out there in the real world... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to It's Every Night Sis. A redirect has been in place for 7 years until a new editor added a little bit more to the article. No reason for deletion, when the redirect can be reintroduced. As the new editor 7 years later shows, there is interest in the subject that can be satisfied with a redirect. GuzzyG (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with redirecting the article - since there's clearly enough interest that someone searched it years later and edited it, even if that took seven years, that means even if it doesnt meet WP:GNG enough people are still interested enough in the broader topic to warrant a redirect. ~~ ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
From what I can tell, her stock went up after she appeared on the Netflix show "InSide" earlier this month which is probably why the editor added more to the page. I'm currently adding the proper citations as the only ones there before were to Every Night Sis. I've checked and her entire filmography is also not listed on this page. So I will add that aswell Mohammedenibszarak (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 07:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: The sourcing just isn't strong enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:NBIO. I do not believe this individual was ever notable enough to warrant a standalone article. 11WB (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect: It's Every Night Sis as a redirect is a perfect usecase for WP:1E. ✝ barbieapologist (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested, and as a reasonable ATD. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 11:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

1957 United States Air Force incursion into Albanian airspace

1957 United States Air Force incursion into Albanian airspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With no casualties to speak of, I fail to see how this article meets WP:GNG. There is, however, no reason the incident can't be listed as a short entry at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Merge – This information could also be merged into the Communist Albania section on the Albania–United States relations article. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete - Creator User:NormalguyfromUK "has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.". — Maile (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge to a target to be determined per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 04:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above, there is significant coverage in media, including an article from the British Key.Aero (Key Publishing) and 1958 The New York Times. . This source mentions the event as relevant to Albania-US relations circa 2010. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:40, 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. ✗plicit 11:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Kathleen Blomquist

Kathleen Blomquist (edit | talk | history | 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:NBIO. Was a random, low-level press secretary in the Bush administration 20 years ago. Expected to be quoted in WP:RS related to job. But doesn't meet notability. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 04:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Huron Capital Partners

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

Existing sources are not independent. Googling indicates this fails NORG and GNG because the sources are not independent. Failed PROD. Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: The references from Detroit-area newspapers such as Crain's Detroit Business are independent. https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130113/NEWS/301139970/huron-capital-raises-its-largest-fund includes a writer's byline. The only reference from Huron Capital's own website is used to add detail rather than establish notabiliy. The article uses technical terminology specific to the private equity sector, but that's an argument for editing. That is, a private equity fund is other people's money that is invested (along with the firm's own money) is a variety of companies, and the firm makes not only profits on its share of the fund, but also on a carried interest in the gains of the other investors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know what would lead you to believe Crain's Detroit Business is independent. That is a pay-to-publish PR source. Czarking0 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Crain Communications' local business publications such as Crain's Detroit Business are independent, reliable sources. They've been used at many other AfDs. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    This an advertising agency not RS Czarking0 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the source listed above, Mergers & Acquisitions declared Huron "Seller of the Year" and dedicated a page to the company. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    This entire publication is clearly promotional material Czarking0 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    The publication is independent from Huron Capital. They submitted their application and were declared winners in the category. These were the rules for the 2025 competition. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:48, 12 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 11:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hippa (disambiguation)

Hippa (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)

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom now that the other entries have been removed. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete — per the comments above, this isn't a case where a disambiguation page is needed. We're basically dealing with a single primary topic. A simple hatnote on the other pages would address the navigation issue, which I believe Hippa has already taken care of. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:21, 13 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 04:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Civil Georgia

Civil 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:GNG/WP:ORG. None of the sources cited contain in-depth independent WP:SIGCOV in reliable materials. The first source is from the website of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian studies, and is simply a list of resources for students doing research. It's reliable and independent but it is two sentences long, and a mention on a resource page for students is not significant. The second source is from Window on the Media which is in-depth but it is a self-published blog, and is therefore not usable as its reliability is questionable. The last source does not even mention the subject, and does not verify the claim being made in the article. In doing a WP:BEFORE, I found several websites mentioning the organization but they all seemed to be connected in one way or another to Civil Georgia. I also found several academic publications citing the publications, but I was unable to locate materials about Civil Georgia. The lack of independent significant coverage is concerning.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 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 redirect to George Rolle. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

John Rolle (1522–1570)

John Rolle (1522–1570) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be WP:NOTGENEALOGY - by far the majority of the article's content is about his relatives, such as his father or his nephew by marriage, or his descendants (none of whom are notable in their own rights). A brief mention of a memorial in a church is mentioned, but this would be equally suitable in the article on the church. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. He lived and died, and did little else. The article struggles to link him to people who are notable - such as his wife's great-great-nephew. Notability is not inherited. I'm not even sure if a mention of his memorial is worth including in the church article, given that he is not notable, and nor is the memorial. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    I support a redirect to George Rolle. That makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Rolle, his father, where he is already mentioned (WP:ATD). Ingratis (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per comments above. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Ingratis. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:57, 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 Santa Dog EP#Santa Dog '78. (non-admin closure) EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Santa Dog '78

Santa Dog '78 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references in the article. Searching online, I couldn't find any significant coverage of the song in major sources. I don't think this meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSONG. – numbermaniac 03:32, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Pokémon Showdown

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

Don't let the article size fool you: This article does not meet notability independently of either Pokémon video game series competitive play or Pokémon fan games. This article is bulked up and riddled with unreliable sources (Smogon, Wikipedia:THESIS papers, Wikipedia:SELFPUB sources, etc.) For instance, outside of Wikipedia:PRIMARY interviews, the entire "Development and features section" features only one reliable source, with that being Citation #1, the Kotaku source. Similarly, the Controversies section is also sourced to entirely unreliable sources, such as Odyssey, Imgur, and Have I Been Pwned?

Reception isn't doing much better either. 26 and 27 are both Wikipedia:VALNET sources, which do not contribute to notability, and the Polygon source doesn't even mention Showdown (The only thing that does is a user comment). Kotaku is again the only source actually providing anything here. The Academic Projects section largely relies on THESIS papers and a source from a self publishing website (Coup Critique). The only sources showing notability are the ones showing attempts to train AI on Showdown, but that discussion is minimal without going into UNDUE detail. Copyright concerns relies on Sports Illustrated, was has been deprecated by at Wikipedia:VG/S, TheGamer, another VALNET source, and again, only the Kotaku source.

The "Use in competitive Pokémon" section isn't even about Showdown; it's about Smogon's tiering systems and the relationship to Pokémon World Championships-style playing. The only relationship that has to Showdown is that Showdown is what is used to play Smogon's tiers, but it is not the creator of the tiers. This is discussion of Smogon, not of Showdown. What worthwhile information exists in this paragraph is better suited at Pokémon video game series competitive play, which already has several paragraphs dedicated to Showdown and Smogon.

On the whole this article is filled with unreliable sources, sources that do not provide notability, and a handful of PRIMARY citations. Of all of these sources, the only reliable, significant, secondary coverage I can see is the Kotaku source and those few sentences about AI training, which can easily be placed into Showdown's pre-existing entry at Pokémon fan games without bloating that entry. As it stands this is a notability and sourcing failure, and once all the bad sources are removed there just isn't enough here to sustain a whole article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment There's a lot of weak or self-pub sources, but it also looks like sources include The Verge, Kotaku, both during periods when they had editorial oversight. And, oddly enough, two papers in IEEE publications. Perhaps the article should be pruned rather than deleted. ApLundell (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    The article has pre-existing sections discussing it at both of the targets I've mentioned. As stated in the nom, by the time the pruning is done there'd be so little left that I don't see why it would need to be separated from either of the other sections. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Replying to @ApLundell: The only self-published source was Coup Critique, which thanks to now being brought to attention, has been removed. As I outlined in more detail below, the Smogon webzines are not self-published as they had article application and editorial processes. VGC Guide has a limited number of authors, as seen here. Odyssey has a team of editorial contributors. Nugget Bridge has a web team of former world champions. The only source remaining that is technically self-published by definition is Imgur, however that page contains screenshots of a source from a different website (the original page is not available), so it acts as an archive page in a similar manner to Internet Archive. The rest are gaming outlets and academic papers. 11WB (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    From the Odyssey Online article: "This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator." Very clearly self-published.
    VGCGuide: Having a "limited number of authors" is not the same as editorial oversight. Anyone can make a website and list a name (or two or three or six) on an about page. You might be able to make an argument for the subject matter expert exception to WP:SPS if the article were written by Glick, but I doubt you could for Traylor.
    Nugget Bridge: Not sure how you got a web team of former world champions from Our players have earned titles like World Champion, National Champion, Regional Champion, and “First-Timer”. Again no editorial oversight.
    The idea of Imgur as an archiving site is already very shaky. In this case it is a forum post of screenshots from... where? How do you figure this isn't SPS? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    These are fair points. Based on my research there have been a few incidences that are discussed on forums, but these are obviously not usable. I felt that the Odyssey article gave an interesting account of these. For some reason, the Rochester Institute of Technology is included in the byline. Why? No idea. This would be correctly labelled as an opinion piece. It is backed up by wherever the Imgur images came from, the history there I have no knowledge of and couldn't answer where it originated.
    I would think Traylor would absolutely count as somebody who is knowledgeable. Glick has the largest number of wins, but I don't think it's fair to discredit one for the other. In a similar vein, Nugget Bridge is one of the main websites for VGC specific news and information, written by people who have previous experience in exactly that.
    If the Odyssey and Imgur sources are an issue, they can be removed with that subsection, as it doesn't change the notability of Showdown in any way. 11WB (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Per WP:SPS Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This is a standard even Glick may not meet despite being the most well known and most decorated player in VGC. It absolutely doesn't apply for "MindApe" on Nugget Bridge. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know about MindApe specifically, but he is attributed in the Wikipedia writing. For Nugget Bridge, it doesn't appear they disclose their editorial process. Their contact which lists an "administration email", at the bottom of this page, suggests they have some type of internal team that does something. 11WB (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Nugget Bridge is entirely run by fans of the series; even if they have an editorial process there's no guarantee they have any journalistic credit or experience that would be needed for a publication like this to be reliable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Quite a lot to unpack here. I am not going to !vote as the author, and I'm also not going to leave a super long comment either. About a third of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and are used to verify information about the simulator specifically. The remaining sources are generally from gaming outlets which are mostly marked as WP:MREL. Many of these articles are about Showdown only. I understand the concern regarding theses being used. However, taking ref 9 as an example, the authors are professors in computer science, see this (click on the authors' names). WP:THESIS says this is acceptable. I have no problem with trimming sources from the article if necessary, but I don't think it fails the various notability checks. 11WB (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Just wanted to address the sources that come directly from Smogon. They have had multiple webzines, The Player which was active around 2015, did actually have an editorial process which is outlined here. The same is true for The Smog, which was active from 2009-15. This is pretty respectable considering Smogon operates as an unofficial project. These webzines count as primary sources anyway, but they do not count as WP:SELFPUB sources due to the fact submitted articles could be rejected. For Coup Critique, bearing in mind I was previously unfamiliar with this website, it appears @Pokelego999 is correct based on what it says at the bottom of this page. I realise the challenge of finding legitimately reliable sources for a fan-made game, as generally it is going to be written about by fans as well. The article needs work, and I'm happy to collaborate with other editors to achieve this! Also happy to check over other sources to make sure they are acceptable for use! 11WB (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Just because they have editorial processes doesn't mean they're reliable, especially when all of those contributors are lacking in professional experience. These sources also do not hail from the zines in question either, so this is a moot point. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Kotaku, Destructoid, and TheGamer would seem to put it over the line, all of which are already in the article, plus this other article. The amount of sourcing isn't the craziest, but this article will never be deleted, at worst it can be redirected into Pokemon fan games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Just want to ask this as I am genuinely confused as to how the reliability of gaming specific outlets are assessed. TheGamer, Game Rant, Destructoid, Sports Illustrated, Inverse and Comic Book Resources are all evaluated as marginally reliable/no consensus on the cite plugins, however as is noted above, they are considered unreliable by WP:VG/S? I aim to use the best sources where possible, however for video game articles I've found the reliability to be assessed differently, dependent on use. Are those okay to be used as sources for video game articles, or should they generally be avoided? 11WB (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Destructoid is only unreliable if it's a community blog article, and I don't believe that one is. TheGamer is also considered reliable after a certain date cutoff, while Inverse is considered reliable. Date cutoffs are not arbitrary and usually happen when there is a major change in staff or ownership. GameRant and CBR are content farm sites so they are usually almost completely indiscriminate in what they cover as the motivation is solely to capitalize on search engine searches, so while they are usually accurate, they aren't allowed to prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    They are not deemed unreliable (Bar CBR) and can be used, but they do not contribute to notability, which is the main gripe I'm getting at. Only Kotaku and Destructoid provide any notability meeting sourcing and all that they provide is covered at Pokémon fan games#Pokémon Showdown already. I will also note TheGamer does not provide notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    WP:VALNET says that "in general". In this case the article isn't churnalism or a pile of social media posts, isn't needed for BLP details, and was written by an editor with a strong byline. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 19:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    Valnet historically has had a poor editorial and is well known for bad working conditions and AI use. Even if this article doesn't have it there's a reason Valnet is typically not considered usable for notability. It's just not a strong source no matter how you slice it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    TheGamer says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247." at WP:VG/S. There's nothing about it not counting towards notability. The site does have some churnalism and listicles, but this doesn't appear to be that either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    The WP:VALNET descriptor applies to all Valnet sources, regardless of reliability; the reliability indicator indicates if those sources can be used in the first place. All Valnet sources do not provide notability and should not be used to demonstrate such, even if TheGamer is a more "reliable" publication than other Valnet sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999, I understand your main issue is with the use of VALNET sources. They can't be used on their own to establish notability. However, as has been discussed now, there are valid sources that establish notability just fine. The one problematic self-published source has been removed, and in addition @Zxcvbmn found another reference from Vulture. Showdown is covered by many outlets, academic sources (not all theses), extensively from its own webzines and also from expert websites such as VGC Guide. A Showdown or Smogon article is a more appropriate place for a competitive Pokémon section relating to Smogon. As was pointed out here, the Pokémon video game series competitive play article should focus on official competitive play, not unofficial like Smogon. 11WB (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: Per @Zxcvbnm. I reviewed the sources in their !vote and concur that there is sufficient coverage (i.e. more than a passing mention) in those articles to establish notability. The AfD rationale describes some potential ways that the article could be improved, but AfD is not cleanup. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@11WB many of the other sources in the article are still unreliable as pointed out above. As for the article itself, unofficial battling formats are an important part of competitive history and indeed the competitive Pokémon article is in fact largely about the official formats as it stands, with unofficial formats only being a small part of that article. There's really not enough to split that isn't already well covered by either parent article, it's just duping content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Repeat after me: AfDs are not referendums on the current state of the article. “But all these other sources are unreliable!!!” is not a real response, and it downplays the hard work of volunteers who go out of their way to find quality sourcing.
There is a clear lack of understanding on your part of what AfDs are supposed to establish. Please (re)familiarize yourself with WP: ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOPAGE is a valid concern when there's such a small amount of sourcing in this article not already used in pre-existing articles, and is very much an important thing to consider when trying to determine a subject's individual notability. This page's reliable content discussed in the above sources is already discussed at pre-existing articles, and when these pages cover Showdown in the context of a number of other related topics (Which is suggested per NOPAGE), and when the only potentially merge-worthy content and the only content exclusive to this page is a few sentences, indicates to me this topic would benefit from NOPAGE given the merit to discussing it separately seems minimal and largely unhelpful to readers, whereas as part of a wider topic, like it was prior to this article's creation, strengthens the whole article.
This is largely rewording what I've already said above but should hopefully clarify my stance a bit in regards to why I am specifically arguing about page content and sourcing issues so much. I would appreciate not making assumptions about my intentions, as I respect people trying to find sources as much as the next guy and do not have issue with other editors' efforts; I simply disagree that the other sources justify an individual article, and that disagreement is not indicative of any personal grudge. I have a strong respect for both of the other editors involved in this discussion, and I am familiar with their good work elsewhere on the website. I argue based on policy and nothing more. I hope this makes sense; let me know if I can clarify my stance in any way, and if you disagree with my policy, please retort with a policy or counterargument in turn instead of casting personal aspersions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
It's okay. Your initial nomination message whilst quite lengthy, did not at all violate WP:FOC. It respectfully focused on content only. I will concede that the sources are not the greatest and there are definitely improvements to be made, structurally for instance. I was considering also researching and creating an article for Smogon itself. I've decided to hold off on doing this until this AfD has closed and I'm able to find the most reliable sources, rather than sources that are only marginally reliable. In the event a Smogon article is created, at that time a discussion can take place (hopefully not at AfD), as to where the competitive battling information belongs. As it stands, I agree with points made by everybody who has participated here. I fell short of using the best sources this time around, so I am using this as an opportunity to improve my article creation process. 11WB (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
For my part, I do apologize if I came across as harsh or rude in any way during this nomination. I appreciate the work you've put into this article as a whole, and for what it's worth your prose writing is particularly strong. You're doing good work, and if there's anything I can do to make up any potential stress this has caused you in the future do let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Again, you've completely missed the point here. The question we are considering is whether the sourcing is strong enough to build a standalone article. This particular AfD is concerned with finding high quality sources, and pointing out that other sources are unreliable effectively ignores the efforts of people who have found high-quality sources. This may not be your intention, but this effect is real. Please be aware of this going forward.
The claim that "WP: NOPAGE is a valid concern when there's such a small amount of sourcing in this article not already used in pre-existing articles" is total nonsense, because the contents of an article are fluid and can be revised at any time. In fact, WP: NOPAGE is probably a reason to keep a standalone article. It asks us "What sourcing is available now?" when considering whether to maintain a standalone article. The Kotaku and Destructoid articles are each at least several paragraphs long, are essentially entirely about the subject, and are written by credible journalists. This is enough for a standalone article, and the presence of a related listicle doesn't change that.
Separately, I'm not sure how citing WP: ATD is not rooted in policy or a personal aspersion. I agree that editors should remain WP: CIVIL, but I must remind you that it is not a shield from criticism. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@HyperAccelerated, I agree with you on your points regarding high quality sources. However, as the author, I do not believe @Pokelego999 has acted uncivil or maliciously. When it comes to video game article sourcing reliability, I would put my trust in them and @Zxcvbnm above my own, even as a new page reviewer. This AfD, whilst never what we hope will happen for articles we ourselves have authored, is necessary. Smogon as a whole is seriously under-represented on Wikipedia, despite how big they are in terms of player-base and popularity. Popularity doesn't translate to notability though, it's the sources that ultimately make the difference! 11WB (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I have not claimed that anyone in this AfD has acted maliciously or an incivil manner. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
You didn't say those words verbatim, however you did say that @Pokelego999 was 'downplaying the hard work of volunteers who go out of their way to find quality sourcing'. You've also made out there is a lack of understanding. These comments were unnecessary and border on being uncivil themself. It is fine to disagree, but the way you have spoken to PL here is quite combative. Now that you've made your points clear, respectfully, it would probably be best not to escalate this any further. 11WB (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
"You didn't say those words verbatim..." Right, so stop putting words in my mouth. We're done here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@HyperAccelerated No, 11WB is right, and I'll add you're being combative and rude, trying to throw around your weight. Assume good faith on the part of other editors. It is also entirely fair to question the validity of a source for reliability. Just because other editors 'worked hard to find them' doesn't mean they're always usable, and nothing Pokelego999 did here suggests they were acting in bad faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Never assumed someone was acting in bad faith, but do whatever makes you feel happy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I feel there's some miscommunication going on here. NOPAGE's entire principle is about whether a standalone page should be created or not, which is the entire point we're arguing, hence why I brought it up. NOPAGE gives multiple criteria as to what could potentially be a separate article and what could not be, and I am arguing on the side that it could not be.
While your point that content is fluid is a fair one, there's only so much you can change when there's a finite amount of sources. When all sources are incorporated, and the article is still failing NOPAGE, there's not much you can do without stretching sources beyond their limits, and at that point it's a stretch for it to be separate. I feel there's only so much more that can be done to expand and truly separate the article from its parents, and I am on the boat that it is not optimal with the current sourcing. Just because SIGCOV exists does not mean NOPAGE doesn't apply, and is in fact one of NOPAGE's principles.
Though your ATD point was not part of my argument, I am very confused by it in the first place. What part of ATD do you feel I'm not following here? I'm not quite sure what you're arguing and would appreciate some clarification. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I am convinced at this point that you don't actually understand what WP: NOPAGE says, nor have you actually read the articles that Zxcvbnm has taken great pains to find. The article does not fail WP: NOPAGE because we have articles that cover the subject at a sufficient depth for there to be a standalone article -- these are from reputable journalists that are entirely dedicated to the subject of Pokemon Showdown. Your argument would make sense if these sources contained two or three sentences about the subject in the context of the competitive Pokemon landscape, but if you took even two seconds to actually read the articles, you would know that this is obviously not the case. This is not a "miscommunication": this is a total lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policy on your part. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
NOPAGE says nothing about reliable sourcing straight up equaling separate notability. All it discusses is how best an article should be covered, and whether or not an article should be merged even if a topic may or may not be notable. Multiple associated topics, for example, may be covered better together rather than making several smaller pages that are harder to read for someone wanting to learn about this topic, which in this case is what I feel is happening (Or, as stated in NOPAGE, "Do related topics provide needed context?"). I can go into further depth about how each of my points relates to NOPAGE but it would largely be a rehash of what I've already said, so I'll refrain from doing so for the sake of discussing your other points.
Your argument is that just because SIGCOV exists a topic is separately notable, which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of cases of articles being merged or redirected due to heavy content overlap elsewhere, and NOPAGE says nothing about what you're arguing: It says "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable," and nothing about sources inherently saying an article should be separate by default. If you disagree that NOPAGE applies here and you feel the content is distinct enough to separately exist from its parents, then that is its own argument, but saying something not in the policy is misrepresenting what it's arguing.
Also, I have read the sources found because I've researched this topic multiple times in the past and repeatedly found there wasn't enough for a split. I read the Kotaku and Destructoid sources months ago. Destructoid is just a game guide basically that tells you how to find and play the thing, with minimal commentary that indicates impact beyond merely existing. Kotaku is very strong but is entirely in the context of competitive play. Vulture just states a single time it was referenced in pop culture. Video game articles need a reception section to show notability and impact; articles without them are routinely AfD'd with success. Any video game article with this selection of sources as its only coverage would have been killed off a long time ago. Given we only have one source actually giving reception, and that reception is already discussed in another article where the context of its impact within competitive can be more greatly understood, NOPAGE applies here per my argument above. It's why I have been so focused on ensuring it is understood that many sources are unreliable; the actual content of the few reliable sources we have is just minimal and when you build an article on them alone there's just not enough to sustain something that warrants a split out.
I don't appreciate your assumptions that I haven't done my research, nor that I am unfamiliar with policy. I understand that my points are not infallible and can be argued against, but that is not my point. If you disagree, feel free to, but please focus on discussing the content rather than making unfounded claims about what I have and have not done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"Video game articles need a reception section to show notability and impact" Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you. You have made claim after claim that is not based in policy or a plain reading of the source material yet continue to act offended when these actions are pointed out. In any case, we all know by now that WP: NOPAGE says to consider sourcing quality when deciding whether a subject should have a separate article. We have multiple high-quality sources that discuss the subject at length, so that means we have to keep the article. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I am not in any way offended, moreso confused by your points. That being said, it's clear this discussion isn't becoming productive and we're unlikely to change the other's mind. Let's agree to disagree and see what others have to say on the matter. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I will say that (a) While TheGamer is a Valnet site and thus usually can't count towards notability, the article from there was written by the site's editor, who also wrote for "Eurogamer, The Guardian, IGN, Kotaku" etc. This would seem to put him in the realm of subject-matter expert regardless of the article's provenance. The article also doesn't seem to be typical clickbait churnalism. (b) The idea that Valnet sites cannot be used for notability reasons is a pure WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It's good to have something to point to in case of clickbait, but I don't think "per WP:VALNET" should ever be used as if it were an actual policy rather than a rule of thumb. (c) The nominator arguing this much about it as though it was obvious when there is still large uncertainty over its notability definitely goes into the realm of WP:BLUDGEON. There was already a fairly large case made in the nomination itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Definitely agree that the nominator’s behavior is well within WP: BLUDGEON territory at this point. Most of their responses are largely restatements of their (poorly conceived) nomination and aren’t actually responsive to the content of Keep !votes that are well-founded. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zxcvbmn, I have to respectfully disagree with you. PL has simply engaged in discussion with other participants here, including having to deal with some quite unpleasant accusations. I'm genuinely amazed some editors here are taking such issue with the points made by PL. As the author of the article, these points have actually been helpful to working out which sources contribute to notability and which do not. 11WB (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Not to derail the discussion too much, but statements like "Your argument is that just because SIGCOV exists a topic is separately notable, which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of cases of articles being merged or redirected due to heavy content overlap" is demonstrably incorrect. Notability and article-worthiness are separate things. At its base level, AfDs are only required to demonstrate whether an article is notable. Sometimes an article can be redirected/merged in an AfD if everyone thinks there's an overlap, but it's not required to happen, and trying to say "Yeah, it's notable, but it needs to be merged" is outside of the scope of an AfD and merits a withdraw. Often a page is kept at AfD and enters a merge discussion with the new knowledge that the topic is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Sourcing wise I think the Kotaku and Destructoid sources are SIGCOV, which makes it at the line of GNG. The usage in academia makes me push it right past the line into "good enough" for notability. Once notability is reached, the sources needed for verifiability for article content become a different standard. It is perfectly acceptable to use WP:ABOUTSELF sources for non-controversial article content. There are some issues with content/sources (ex. the Imgur source & supported content), but I don't think its at the point of WP:TNT/WP:NOPAGE. Jumpytoo Talk 05:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is a very fair assessment of the article. The main issue which seems to have taken centre stage at this AfD is the use of WP:VALNET sources. 11WB (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: per ZXC. Looks like the article is notable, but needs to be cleaned up due to unreliable sources. I personally would suggest someone who's interested rewrite it from scratch. Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Withdraw (Which I believe should be fine since I believe no one's voted anything but Keep except for me?): I do concur there's some merit to considering a merger over an AfD in terms of discussing my issues with this article, so I will close this for now rather than drag out the needless hostility above. I will likely refrain from further action for the time being though to allow the author to work more on this topic, since they did turn up some sources I was unfamiliar with and I believe there is some potential for further reorganizing/expansion depending on the results of the Smogon search. I will advise axeing many of the unreliable sources from the article though in favor of reliable ones already cited, but that is all from my part from now. Particularly for the article creator I do apologize for how this AfD has gone; keep on cooking homie. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    No hard feelings at all. I have no issue with a withdrawal of the AfD, although I would've liked the AfD to have progressed the full seven days. I am working on another draft at the moment, however I will make sure that Showdown is in an improved state as soon as possible! 11WB (talk) 01:52, 12 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 04:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

International Human Rights Tribunal

International Human Rights Tribunal (edit | talk | history | 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 event described in this article appears to be non-notable. Sources do not establish WP:GNG as they are mostly either not independent of the subject, or not WP:SIGCOV, or are actually explanatory notes. Per WP:NEVENT the coverage needs to show a lasting impact from the event; this appears to have just been something like pseudo-legal performance art.

Also worth noting the article was created by a banned sockpuppet linked to one of the event organisers, Christian Michelides, who has an extensive history of using sockpuppets to create WP:PROMO articles about himself. See more at the SPI page. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 03:04, 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. ✗plicit 04:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

Christian Michelides (edit | talk | history | 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 individual. The sources here are not enough to establish WP:GNG because they are largely not WP:SIGCOV or are not independent of the subject.

Also worth noting that this article was likely created by the subject as WP:PROMO. Accounts related to the subject have a long history of self-promotional disruptive sockpuppet editing both on enwiki and dewiki. See SPI page for more info. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:57, 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 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 04:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Đỗ Nguyên Mai

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

Subject is not notable or only marginally notable, and most of the sources do not meet the notability standard Dnm67 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 04:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Llapushnik

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

WP:CFORK/WP:POVFORK of the longstanding article Lapušnik prison camp. Also contains possible elements of a hoax because the Kosovo Memory Book only lists one death in the village between 7 and 10 May 1998, and three deaths from 25 to 26 July, not 47 as the article claims. This in itself undermines its notability and dispels any notion of a noteworthy battle having taken place here. If we were to have a separate article for every minor clash or skirmish we would have literally thousands of articles per conflict. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Selective merge to Lapušnik prison camp per WP:ATD. Some of the content in this article is solid, and not currently in the Lapušnik prison camp article. It should be preserved. Agree that we don't need two articles on essentially the same content area and this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to meet WP:GNG and there's good info that's not in the article for the camp. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The battle is different from the concentration camp. I skimmed through the sources, and it looks like they describe the battle on its own, not in the context of the camp. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:04, 11 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 Switzerland at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Otto Vonlaufen

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to Switzerland at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. LDW5432 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It is hard to find further significant independent coverage or biographical details on Otto Vonlaufen. Textcurator (talk) 20:43, 12 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 Liability insurance. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Excess insurance

Excess insurance (edit | talk | history | 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 may not know much about insurance, but I know how to read a reference. As of rev 1277633329:

  • ref 1: can't access the 2011 edition
  • red 2: accessed the book, same ISBN and everything, and page 112 is not about "excess insurance" but rather life insurance - I could find no other mention of the term "excess insurance".
  • ref 3: the III does not appear to have published an article by that name , and the reference itself leads to "example.com"
  • ref 4: same story, url listed in our article is a fake

With two out of the three references being fictitious, and another not verifying what the content says, I'm proposing that we WP:TNT this article. If somebody I trust rewrites it, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally created this article, and I have to admit I have messed up pretty badly here... I've now removed all the sources and replaced them with correct ones, so this should be solved.
What happened: I had written this with the help of an LLM, checked and rewrote the content, then did some copy-editing in a separate tab of my browser to remove the hallucinated sources, etc. But for some reason, I see that I ended up publishing the wrong version, with the hallucinated sources, instead of the corrected one... :S
I'm very sorry about this, and thanks for spotting this! 7804j (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This is why we dont use LLM. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you for doing that! I'll withdraw this now. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I actually think this is still not independently notable. Could you leave it up so we can have the process? ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
!voting for anything other than !keep automatically nullifies my ability to withdraw, so feel free! I will go back to my default opinion "I may not know much about insurance" for the remainder of the AfD. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yea, I am just asking not to withdraw and we can see what the consensus is. ←Metallurgist (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to liability insurance. Cant see how this is independently notable, and the originator admits to using LLM to create an article. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: the fact that I used the assistance of an LLM has no impact on the assessment of notability. As to the content, it should be assessed based on its own merit rather than based on what tool was used to generate it (now that I have resolved the reference issues). 7804j (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    @7804j, I'm not going to !vote in this AfD. However, I do want to note that whilst I support OKA's mission, the use of Grok in OKA translated articles as outlined here opens up the possibility for errors and hallucinations considerably, as has been discussed in this article's case. You'll already be aware of WP:AISLOP. Whilst not a policy or guideline, it is important nonetheless. 11WB (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    LLM usage is frowned upon and more or less not allowed. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Liability insurance?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to liability insurance. I agree that this is not independently notable. Citations offered, to the extent that they are not commercial cites, are overly mentiony. BD2412 T 01:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested. Otherwise, I would be obligated to go with TNT. This exists - but the article is LLM-generated and the topic is not especially notable. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Merging is undesirable given the history. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 13 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 11:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Fearless Leader

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

The page has very few sources, and no reception section. Article has been like this for years, implying it is unlikely that it can be further expanded. I have seen articles with many more sources get deleted for not being notable enough, so this character clearly does not pass WP:GNG. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@TheSilksongPikmin: Very few sources appeared: But a Google Books search alone provides 120 hits... And if most mentions are as brief as you describe, could you please comment on the few others? Daranios (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
You have to search for the series name as well since the name is so generic. Most of those books aren't about the character. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@TheSilksongPikmin: And that's exactly what I've done for the Books search linked above. And ended up with ca. 120 hits. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Any thoughts on Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends#Characters. Minor character. I dont even remember him from watching as a kid, altho I admittedly didnt watch that much of Rocky and Bullwinkle. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • (Speedy) Keep The nomination does not contain a policy-based reason for deletion, because its first claim conflicts with WP:ARTN, while the others fall into the "arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion" of WP:IMPATIENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and with regard to clearly does not pass WP:GNG, WP:JUSTNOTABLE/WP:VAGUEWAVE. Later claims that there are very few sources seem unconvincing, given the boilerplate-like nomination with regard to other deletion nominations within a short time and failure to respond to further questions. The efforts of the WP:BEFORE search should not be pushed onto other editors. They are required from the nominator, AfD is not supposed to be "let's just nominate and see what sticks". Looking at some sources confirms that there are indeed many which just confirm the character exists and who has played him. But there are others, which collectively allow for at least a short article: The Moose That Roared has a lot of plot summary, but also has three sentences of creative background and characterization. War and the Media, p. 80-81, "45th William T. Fitts, Jr. Oration “A Seussian tale of a trauma time traveler: Wormhole chronicles”", and others go into the nature of the Fearless Leader representing a Communist figure in the context of the Red scare. Anti-Communism and Popular Culture in Mid-Century America, p. 86-87, goes a bit deeper into the conflation of Communist and Nazi stereotypes common at that time, as does to a lesser degree "POPULAR POLITICAL CULTURE: ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE AND THE RHETORIC OF THE COLD WAR". That's the result of only the first two pages of only the Google Scholar search. Daranios (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with Daranios about the "speedy keep" as the nominator does present a policy-based argument that GNG is failed. At the same time, WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been performed sufficiently. I don't like merging an article unless it is non-notable or overlaps so greatly that there is no point having it stand on its own. WP:SOFIXIT (instead of AfDing it). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 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 keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Ferrari Virtual Academy

Ferrari Virtual 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)

Fails WP:GNG. VirtualR.net is a Wordpress blog. DSOGaming is an unreliable source per WP:VG/S. FormulaPassion.it and Road & Track refs are both fairly insubstantial news stories. Redirect to Kunos Simulazioni? Mika1h (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - Found reviews by Level (magazine): , The Games Machine (Italy): , Giochi per il mio computer: . I added them to the article. --Mika1h (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Italy. Mika1h (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. BuffaloTaro (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect – It doesn't seem to have ever been the subject of much coverage or interest. There is little discussion of the game on the developer's article but at least it would serve to confirm the basic details (i.e. release year, platform, developer). 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Why still vote redirect? I found 3 reviews, all are significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
      That by itself doesn’t mean this warrants a dedicated article. Tvx1 20:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
      I already expanded the article with additional sourcing, I don't think it warrants a merge now, let alone just a redirect. --Mika1h (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
      • You can't withdraw a nomination that other people have started !voting on unless all the !votes were for keep. That's not the case here, where everyone except you (oddly enough) supports deletion or redirection. My !vote is unchanged. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
      • Can you explain why 3 sizable print reviews are not enough for notability? --Mika1h (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
        • I don't place much weight on reviews of any media when considering notability because they are typically WP:ROUTINE in nature. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
          • That reasoning runs afoul of WP:NGAME: "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer." There exists non-significant reviews out there, though (capsule reviews), as well as unreliable ones (blogs). Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
            • It would run afoul of NGAME if I was obliged to follow that particular essay's interpretation of notability guidelines. Which I am not. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reception section can also be expanded from the available sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? Nominator withdrew but other editors apparently disagree with their withdrawal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the WP:GNG-qualifying coverage found by the nominator. No aspect of WP:ROUTINE applies to this coverage, which is manifestly in-depth and specific to the topic. Either way, WP:ROUTINE only applies to events, WP:NOTNEWS#2 discusses "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities", but provides no basis on which to dismiss reviews consisting of detailed critical analysis, which are not "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities".Katzrockso (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG, not much more to say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 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 keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Lucas Feutsa

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

Former cyclist, competed in 1984 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NCYC. Single piece of coverage is an interview. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Cameroon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – The non-interview parts of the article still constitute significant coverage of him (more or less 130 words in French by my count). He was also described as a "star" in this article; there's some coverage of him in this article but I'm unable to fully access it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per Aviationwikiflight sources. Svartner (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: It fails to meet WP:V and WP:SIGCOV as there are no independent, in-depth, or reliable sources available that cover the subject. I would also suggest merging it into the article on the 1984 Summer Olympics. Morekar (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Two of the three sources are routine mentions, and the last one is a interview. A redirect to Cameroon at the 1984 Summer Olympics, where the subject is listed may also be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have access to the allafrica.com sources? I can only view snippets. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm unable to access the allAfrica links that I posted. I was only able to see small previews. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Not all of the article is an interview. The non-quoted parts comprise the following:

    Lucas Feutsa devient cycliste par passion. [...] Sur conseils de quelques connaissances, Lucas Feutsa se rend à un regroupement de cyclistes au carrefour Ndokoti. "[...]" se rappelle l’ex-grand champion. Après plusieurs mois d’entraînements, Lucas Feutsa dispute sa toute première compétition en 1983. [...] Cette éclatante victoire, en présence de feu Atangana, entraîneur national de cyclisme à l’époque, ouvre grandement les portes des Lions Indomptables au jeune Lucas Feutsa. "[...]", déclare Lucas Feutsa dont la fin de carrière est intervenue sur une note triste. [...] Devenu taximan après la fermeture de la Socar (31 mai 2000) dont il était employé, Lucas Feutsa, 44 ans (né le 2 janvier 1962), est marié et père de quatre enfants. Il a été tour à tour sociétaire de Papa Billy vélo club, Zéphir vélo club, Ucb vélo club et Socar vélo club. Formé en Europe à l’encadrement des cyclistes, il attend qu’une opportunité se présente.

    Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per coverage found. That he still gets SIGCOV in modern times shows clear notability, especially considering that nearly all of the coverage devoted to pre-internet African sportspeople are in offline, African newspaper archives, which we have not searched. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Meets WP:OLYMPIAN and WP:NSPORT criteria, which is sufficient for presumed notability. The article is short but verifiable via Olympedia, Sports Reference, and additional French-language sources (Le Messager, JRI). Recommend cleanup and expansion rather than deletion.
  • Keep - Meets WP:NSPORT criteria, indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Although the subject competed in the 1984 Summer Olympics, he does not meet the cycling-specific notability criteria, which require wins or podium results in major UCI events or multi-sport competitions. Olympic participation alone is not included in the criteria listed here. In addition, there appears to be no significant independent sourcing beyond routine results databases. Without reliable secondary coverage, the article does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCYC. Morekar (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
    • According to Scribbr, the above comment is AI-generated. Even if that's not the case, how is there no significant independent sourcing beyond routine results databases? Have you looked at the sources that have been presented, which are clearly not "routine results databases"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
      But in my point of view, the subject still does not meet WP:NCYC and WP:SIGCOV criteria. He has not even won any medals, he has only participated. Morekar (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
      I looked at this source. It is a good source, but I think if there were more in-depth sources, then WP:NATHLETE, GNG, and SIGCOV would be satisfied. Morekar (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:08, 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 merge to Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services#Group companies. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Schoolnetindia.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough in-depth citations WP:CORPDEPTH. Existing Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Merge into Infrastructure_Leasing_&_Financial_Services#Group_companies at best. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect per EmilyR34's suggestion. Niafied (talk) 04:16, 13 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

SK Finance

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

Going public (IPO) doesn’t constitute a meaningful notability factor. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subject has some coverage in independent business media, but most reporting is limited to financial figures, IPO announcements, or investor funding rounds without in‑depth analysis or feature-length profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have seen multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [], [], [] and [] only are enough to establish notability.Omawane (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Before found a featured article in Business India Magazine with detailed coverage. There is likely more available. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete not meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at all. I checked most sources, all are routine business news like IPO update, fund raise or RBI licence etc or etc.... That is very normal for any NBFC and not deep coverage even the so-called “Bloomberg” or “Moneycontrol” links are mostly reprints of press releases not real independent study or profile... Also company is still private and just planning IPO... that alone not make it notable under WP:LISTED. No independent analysis no major feature article nothing showing long-term importance. Feels more like company profile copied from PR sites... Tone also looks promotional in some parts like “expanding business” and “increasing loan book” etc... not neutral encyclopedic. So overall fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV both. LexyNight (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – This is a long established Indian NBFC founded in 1994 and has grown to over 9,600 employees. Based on the sources identified by editors and listed in the discussion above, there appears to be sufficient coverage to establish notability. Royaltee121 (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – The "keep" votes all came from socks, and the arguments regarding WP:CORPDEPTH is evident. Svartner (talk) 10:25, 11 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 00:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Nick Wieland

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

Low-level German Football League player. Couldn't find any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:10, 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. ✗plicit 00:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oliver Beeck

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

Low-level German Football League player. Couldn't find any SIGCOV. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom LDW5432 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have done a quick BEFORE search but didn't found references to meet WP:GNG or to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 05:59, 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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks