Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 19

Firmin Edouard Matoko

Firmin Edouard Matoko (edit | talk | history | 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 profile appears to be a standard example of a UN official performing routine professional duties. While the individual may hold a responsible position within the organization, there is currently limited evidence of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies, significant coverage in such sources is required to establish encyclopedic notability. Comparable cases (e.g., the recent deletion discussion on Eric Fault) have found that holding a position within an intergovernmental organization, without substantial independent coverage, does not in itself confer notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitiste2023 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. @Hitiste2023: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Africa. jolielover♥talk 16:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dionysodorus Can you kindly share a feedback on the article’s requirements? Hitiste2023 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking my opinion in particular, but on the whole I think we should probably keep this article, since the subject appears to have been covered in a variety of sources that are probably sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I was curious, because in all your interventions you often have completely different opinions, and I wonder how we can ensure consistency and fairness with all these divergences. In this case, for example, various sources now seem to be the main criterion for you. OK. Hitiste2023 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• According to a news source I found he lost the election. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep looks like a GNG pass to me based on the sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 20 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.

Shaeer Kabir

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Article is sourced only to event databases/primary pages (Smoothcomp, Arnold Expo) and lacks significant independent, reliable secondary coverage. Subject is a minor and claims are routine amateur results, not encyclopedic notability. Acrom12 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Delete He won a combined total of 3 under-16 white belt matches to win his two gold medals, which does not show WP notability. He hasn't competed as an adult or at the highest level or at a major competition. In addition, there is no significant coverage, just some database references. Papaursa (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Per heavy use of databases as sources and GNG. x2step (lets talk 💌) 06:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. These sources are no good. I looked for better ones, but I can't find anything good. Brosticate (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete- lacking in SIGCOV so far even with additional searches to suggest standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails in having reliable sources totally absent. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a failure, and don't fails WP:GNG. 14:39, 25 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.

4104

4104 (edit | talk | history | 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 fails WP:NUMBER. Individual integers are notable if they're three unrelated interesting properties of the number -- there's only one here, that it can be written as the sum of two cubes in two different ways. Note that it is not a Taxicab number. mikeblas (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: We don't need an article for every taxicab number, especially given this number has no other notable property. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment 4104 appears in a "hard" OEIS sequence, the number of Cayley graphs on ${\displaystyle n}$ nodes. It also counts the number of distinct 4-colorings of a particular annular map. Moreover, it appears in a few other OEIS entries since it is the sum of two distinct powers of 8 (i.e., 4096 + 8). That could be four "interesting properties" in all, if we're feeling generous. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify- willing to reconsider my vote if possible SIGCOV sources can be presented to check, so far unable to find ones in my own search.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I think WP:NUMBER is just downright silly, particularly for integers. Once you get past 10 or so, it's hard to justify most of these. There are a few exceptions -- powers of 10 (although those can get merged together), and maybe some examples that have some overriding cultural significance to the point where they gain independent notability, but by and large, these are just dumping grounds of trivia (be it pop cultural, or mathematical), and nothing more. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify Having read through previous AfD's about numbers, I don't think the properties listed above quite rise to the level of "interesting" that has met consensus there. For example, the map-coloring sequence isn't marked as "core" or "hard", and 4104 doesn't appear until a ways into it. But the article isn't really objectionable, either. It's not spam; it's not numerology. It's just a little below the threshold. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing notable about the number itself. The "interesting" bit about it being a Ramanujan-Hardy number could easily be contained in a table on that page. Effectively arguing this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK for Ramanuja-Hardy numbers. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Roughly 10-20% of numbers in the range appear more often than 4104 in OEIS, including 4099 that appears in 358 sequences, 4 of them "hard". Or 4111, 666 sequences, 3 'hard'. The Category:Integers contains fewer than 10 numbers from the range 3,000 to 10,000 that are not multiples of 1,000. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 26 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.

Japanese financial system

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

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

The article can be easily merged with "Economy of Japan", financial system article doesn't seem to have enough references nor separable content that can't be addressed at the target article. Greatder (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merged- to the Economy of Japan is a logical ATD. To note though even a brief search from Google Scholar gets a lots of hits mentioning the title specifically.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - as Lorraine Crane points out, there are an absolute TON of hits on google / google scholar for the Japanese financial system specifically, and as opposed to the economy as a whole. In addition to all those, the article currently has an entire published book actually titled “Japan’s Financial System” in its reading list. Where the article is let down as currently written is in its total lack of line citations, but a lack of line citations is not sufficient reason for deletion - it can be fixed via editing. If this is seen as not possible / unlikely, then, as Lorraine Crane suggests, a merge to Economy of Japan makes sense as an alternative to deletion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Absurdum4242 can you show a good financial system article on a specific country that wouldn't be sufficiently covered by Banking in X instead? Greatder (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, banking is part of finance, but isn’t all of it? So it makes sense to make the broader finance article, and then have banking as part of that article? The government institutions and securities sections of the current article, for example, would not be part of a banking article, but ARE relevant parts of an article on finance. Corporate finance rules and systems in Japan wouldn’t be caught by “banking” either. More to the point though, the “Japanese Financial System” is a clear and well delineated idea/topic/subject, which has a huge number of articles, books, etc written about it - which is why it makes sense to use it as a category / article subject, seperate to the “Economy of Japan”, which is another well delineated idea.@Katzrockso’s point that a seperate article will allow for more eventual expansion/detail than as a section in the Economy of Japan article is also well made.

  At the end of the day, my main objection to the normination, and the reason for my keep vote can be summarised as this - there are an absolute ton of references to the “Japanese financial system”, so it is a nonsense to argue that there is a lack of such references. In addition, if the intention is to merge the article, then a merge proposal would have been the correct first step, rather than a proposal for deletion. And finally, given that banking system/financial system are not synonyms, any more than financial system/economy are, I think there is a genuine utility to keeping the articles seperate, and I would have argued as much in a merge discussion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 18:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. This is absolutely worth of a separate article, even if it is currently short. See for comparisons Financial services in the United States, Banking in the United Kingdom as articles that cover a similar scope. The current article needs to be expanded, sure, but it is absolutely notable distinct from the broader economy of Japan. Merging the article to Economy of Japan will hinder any further expansion of this topic. Katzrockso (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Katzrockso The financial services in united states article itself is pretty non-notable and not a good candidate to keep this article separate. The banking in the UK article is excellent, but has a different focus entirely. Japanese financial system only dedicates a small section to banking in Japan and related credit union parts. If you want to move the article to Banking in Japan or such with relevant updates that is fine. But, the state of the article in it's current state is not fine. Greatder (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ATD, "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". If you are suggesting that books like this do not qualify as WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable secondary sources, I am not sure what exactly does qualify as WP:SIGCOV. If your argument is that the name of the article is wrong, then WP:MOVE is an easy solution. In general, an article should not be brought to AfD is the intent is to merge the article. That's what merge discussions are for. Katzrockso (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, with the additional point that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.

it might actually help us to step back and ask which of the 14 reasons for deletion are being asserted in this discussion. If it’s number 8 (as seems to be asserted) then IMHO there are an absolute ton of sources showing notability, so it’s an obvious keep. If number 5 - content forks (as seems to be the actual reason as shown by nominator’s continuing messages), then that’s more a matter of opinion, but I don’t think the article violates any of the major rules against forks. Though others are, of course, free to disagree. Absurdum4242 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Katzrockso I am suggesting that merging or moving to banking in Japan is the better solution. I was unsure how to make an article for discussion, that's why I brought it here. Greatder (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

How to move an article is described here H:MOVE, and information on merging is WP:MERGE.

If your suggestion is that the article should be merged to Economy of Japan, I still strongly object on the grounds that such a merger will not be liable to allow the article to expand and will only require an unnecessary recreation of this article when the expansion eventually occurs. I think it is evident that there is sufficient material to produce perhaps quite a length encyclopedia article on this topic, though that is obviously not the case right now. Merging this article to Economy of Japan only for it to have to be WP:SPINOFF in the future is pointless and ultimately ends up destroying the edit history of the material in the article. Katzrockso (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The article should have ample ability to be worked on at Banking in Japan Greatder (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

So, “banking in Japan” actually redirects to this page rather than the other way around. Which is how it should be, since “banking” is a sub-category of “finance” which also includes other government institutions, securities, and corporate finance rules and systems. It should maybe be possible to carve a banking article OFF from a finance article in the future, but it makes sense to keep the larger category, which also includes banking first, rather than cancelling the larger category article, deleting half the content of it and whittling it down to the smaller category. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The topic easily passes WP:GNG. Financial system encompasses more than just banking. For an example of a similar article, see Finance in India. Also there is a GA Global financial system. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:15, 26 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.

Mohamed Aly (gymnast)

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

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently is a database and a check for sources on the Eastmain MENA database only came up with namesakes. Let'srun (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Let'srun (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• A redirect to Gymnastics at the 1948 Summer Olympics is likely the most appropriate outcome here if no one can find non-English sources. GauchoDude (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  That article does not mention the subject, however. Perhaps the relevant event article could be a redirect target. Let'srun (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics as I just added his name there. --Enos733 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect- to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics is a sensible ATD for now, as not enough SIGCOV sources, online at least to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics I did a google search and there are definitely records of him competing in the 1948 Olympics. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect- to Egypt at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics which is the best WP:ATD and I always prefer a good redirect to a straight deletion if we can avoid that. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:54, 23 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.

United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia

United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is not enough here to establish notability. The news out there are simply passing mentions of this organizations, and does not have depth of coverage that is needed for wikipedia. Most of it also is the exact repetition of the organizations press releases. Also this seems to be a defunct org with nothing of sorts since 2018. I would suggest a deletion or merger with Insurgency in Northeast India Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Terrorism. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, Assam, Nagaland, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – The nominator's characterisation of the citations currently present in the article seems inaccurate. The citations all have significant coverage of the alliance and its attacks in 2015, and do not mention the alliance merely in passing. There is also coverage beyond 2015 that has not yet been cited in the article, so the alliance's notability was evidently not contained to those initial attacks. Examples from 2016, 2017, and 2018, as well as invocations this year after its dissolution: e.g. 1, e.g. 2. Yue🌙 00:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: per Yue. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep please add these found sources to the article, but per the above seems to pass WP:GNG at least. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge >> Weak keep I do not see how there exists sufficient material to write anything beyond a stub. So, this should be merged to an article on militant groups in the region. Upd Edit (talk) 12:23, 24 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.

Shashi Pratap Shahi

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

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

The article appears to be promotional and may have been created by someone with a conflict of interest or paid involvement. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources beyond routine announcements of appointment. The subject therefore does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or the biography guideline (WP:BIO). AbhinavAnkur (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete It does not seem notable enough ~

Finnmahoney (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep looks like a pass of WP:ACADEMIC 6 as the vice chancellor is the senior administrator in the British/Indian system. Jahaza (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  The University does have a Chancellor, though. Unless that is a figurehead position (which is doubtful), then Vice-Chancellor doesn't satisfy #6. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the British (and Indian) systems, vice-chancellor is the actual head of the university, and chancellor is indeed a figurehead position. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Jahaza. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep — vice chancellors usually pass notability on position alone. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see some arguments with certain outcomes and not conclusions based on what it "seems" like.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: it's filled with promotional and misleading language; he is not the vice-chancellor of the whole university, which would rate an automatic keep per WP: PROF, but rather Vice-Chancellor of the School of Education. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as he is the VC of a public state university. See this. @Bearian: not sure why you think he isn’t VC? Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Probably because the first Google hit for "Vice-Chancellor Magadh University" is a web page in the school of education that lists him as vice chancellor (of the university). But the main page for the whole university does list him as VC as well, so it's unambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I thought he wasn't from the other source that I linked. Either he was recently promoted, or the other one is out of date, or he holds dual titles (education school and the whole university). Bearian (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's not a dual title or promotion; it's merely a web page within a subunit of the university carrying a greeting from the head of the entire university to that subunit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, WP:PROF#C6, head of major public university. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - change of !vote due to new information. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:PROF#C6. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF#C6 which makes sense here. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Upd Edit (talk) 17:16, 24 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 Footprint

The Footprint (edit | talk | history | 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:NALBUM, the supposed independent reviews are actually non-independent promo pieces.

Source 1 is "reader submitted", source 2 is WP:BROADWAYWORLD, source 4 has a generic byline, source 5 was "created with our nice and easy submission form", source 6 is a press release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• I also can't verify that the album charted. This seems to be fake since the citation leads to the wrong chart category and the citation access date is before the album was released. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Update: I went through every week in the TurnTable album charts and confirmed that this album does not appear, so I removed the claim of charting. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have removed source 5 and the {{music ratings}} template from the article. That was the sole review included and as user-submitted content it does not meet the definition of a 'professional rating' nor is it a reliable source that can be cited on WP. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG and NALBUM. I started to clean this up but the entire article would have to be blanked because of the sourcing issues. I cannot find any coverage of the artist on Google News except for promotional piece from OpenPR.com that I can't link to because the site is blacklisted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G5, sockpuppetry by User:TheChineseGroundnut. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Kourage Beatz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourage Beatz NSI (producer), etc etc etc Wikishovel (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - As has been done for all other attempted articles involving that non-notable rapper, as this album is equally non-notable. Possibly speedy delete and salt for the reasons suggested by Wikishovel above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per user:Myceteae who makes a good point for deleting this. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:57, 23 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.

Koray Çalışkan

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources that were placed in the article are not independent. Most of them are his own work. Not adequate for passing GNG, may be considered as promotional content. Kadı Message 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Keep — Upon review, the article does meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF standards for inclusion.

  While some citations are Caliskan’s own scholarly publications, the article also contains multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage of his work:

  • Sarah Quinn, review of Market Threads in American Journal of Sociology (2011).
  • William Davies, review of Market Threads in Journal of Cultural Economy (2013).
  • Discussions of his research in Theory, Culture & Society (2018).
  • Coverage of his recent book Data Money (Columbia University Press, 2023) by an academic press of recognized standing.

  These are all independent, peer-reviewed, and secondary analyses of his published work, precisely the type of sourcing that establishes notability under Wikipedia’s academic notability guideline (WP:PROF #1 and #2).

  Caliskan is also a Professor at Parsons School of Design, The New School, with a long record of publication through leading academic presses (Princeton UP and Columbia UP). Together, these facts demonstrate enduring scholarly recognition and satisfy the general notability guideline.

  The article could benefit from improved citation formatting. Deletion would remove a verifiable, reliably sourced biography of a notable academic. Silaesny (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Promotional and needs more trimming but WP:DINC. I think there are enough reviews of his two published books for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Koray Çalışkan wrote columns for the Radikal newspaper in Turkey, and his columns were pretty influential. Here is an example where his column is discussed in secondary sources: The newspaper is no longer active and the archives are gone, but I believe he is more notable as a political commentator in Turkey than an academic, so the article needs to be updated to reflect this. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I have revised the sources to reflect his recent research, which has had a significant impact on economic sociology. I addressed the concerns of the user Kadi by adding three articles:

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17530350.2025.2459748
2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2025.2498825
3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17530350.2024.2423687

Please note the first one is a book review written by Michel Callon, who was one of the most influential scholars in the field.

Second, and the third are articles co-written by Caliskan, Callon, and MacKenzie (all of which have a Wikipedia page).

Also consider that he has been cited 4678 times: source is Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=caliskan%2C+koray&btnG=&oq=caliskan%2C)

Note that many of the academics who have a Wikipedia page do not have such academic impact.

Therefore it is ludicrous to argue that he fails WP:GNG. Silaesny (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Silaesny (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

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

Thawānthābā

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

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

Sources are about the Dynasty in general and don't realy prove notability; contains very subjective wording that may fail WP:NPOV. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Request withdrawn I would like to withdraw this AfD per below. waiting for someone to close it. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Manipur. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. The sources I put talk about the king in different section, like the Cheitharol Kumbaba and the Khuman Kangleiron, and History of the People of Manipur and History of Manipur. Yes I can fix the subjective wordings but with due respect, saying that the sources are just about the dynasty, are you sure that you checked all of the sources? The Cheitharol Kumbaba is the royal chronicle of the kings of Manipur. The title literally says it. Its more of about each king of Manipur, not just the dynasty. And the Khuman Kangleiron? I only used that source just for the reign year of the Khuman King. The History of the People of Manipur talks about the origins and migrations of each ethnic groups of Manipur and is essentially focused on the Meiteis and each Meitei clan's royalties. The History of Manipur by Wahengbam Ibohal is also the same with the third book.

Now, the first two sources (not any four of the above), I used them just for the reign year of the Meitei King. I don't know why I am explaining but I just want to make sure that the sources are not "just" about the dynasty.

Also, just wanted to include: Other new pages reviewers did not have any problems with reviewing mine and other articles with sources like those. I am not speaking with anger but I just want to resolve this quickly peacefully. :) Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Victor Ningthemcha. Your response is too long; that said, I appreciate your efforts to fix the article. I agree that the article will be a lot better if the subjective wording is fixed. As for the sources, that's my mistake - I didn't look at the refs closely enough. I think this article can be kept, just fix the wording a little bit. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. :) Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Ningthemcha Since these are all from books that I can't access, can you clarify if any of these books cover Thawānthābā in detail; like how many paragraphs of content does each book have on the topic? It's not necessary that the book, chapter or even page be about him, so long as there is sufficient detail. Katzrockso (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't access any of the sources? Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Katzrockso I think you can access the Internet Archive ones. But for one of the Google Books, A History of Manipuri Literature, I gathered like 42 lines from it. I cannot see the paragraph numbers as I cannot see the pages fully. However, I mainly got the texts from page 29-36. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I just used "Thawānthābā" for the title because of how it is pronounced. With per respect, you need to put the name "Thawanthaba" to search in the other books. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see there was an archive.org one. That one provides WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. I did see some other reliable sources that provide enough significant coverage (), so I am going to !vote to keep. I'm afraid I am out of my depth here for evaluating Indian historical sources, though.

@Seanwk if you think this article should be kept, you should withdraw the nomination. I missed that earlier. Katzrockso (talk) 09:38, 22 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.

List of World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union

List of World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure what the need for this article is. The listed sites are already on List of World Heritage Sites in Russia, List of World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, and List of World Heritage Sites in Uzbekistan, where it is easy to see the sites listed in 1990. No sources or content is USSR-specific (the Russia article also includes the date of ratification). No need for a list of sites in Czechoslovakia or West Germany either, it's redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Ukraine. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Redirect to Russia with hat notes for Ukraine and Uzbekistan as Russia is the successor of the Soviet Union AND has most of the soviet sites. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  If an article about the Soviet Union and UNESCO is created, then it can be redirected to that with a hatnote for the successor states.

• Yup, probably there is no point in having this article. I fixed it when I was working on the others, but as pointed out, all information is in the three successor state lists. --Tone 22:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - The Soviet Union ceased to exist as such in 1991. Please consider deleting this article as is. List of World Heritage Sites in Russia is a Featured List and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is not redundant because Russia and the Soviet Union are not identical geographically, with the USSR covering significantly more area. Although these sites are included in various lists for other countries, there is not one single source that duplicates this list. Because there are sources discussing the world heritage areas in the Soviet Union, this topic meets notability as required for a stand-alone list article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY says, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." So the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists in not a reason to delete this article. Rublamb (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Because there are sources discussing the world heritage areas in the Soviet Union I see none of these in the article... This is not notable, and even if it were, it's redundant and unnecessary. — Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The appeal to NOTTEMPORARY above is flawed -- the notability here is of World Heritage sites overall, not of World Heritage sites in X country. The splitting is just Wikipedia's organizational structure, and necessarily changes as political boundaries change. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  This article is not about general world heritage sites, but about world heritage sites in the Soviet Union. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, its notability has to match the topic of sites in Russia, as notability is not inherited from the World Heritage Site article. Rublamb (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Move to the "Soviet Union and UNESCO" which is a notable topic , , , , , , , (more sources can be found if newspapers and the like is also searched. The currently existing list would be a helpful subsection 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 20:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose as irrelevant. If someone wants to write a draft creating that different topic these links could be a good starting place, but UNESCO is far more than the WHS program, these sources do not cover it and entirely predate the 1990 designation of these sites, and this list would still be entirely redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

    delete 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 00:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yeah, I just got beat to the punch, but I checked out the sources, and none of them talk about World Heritage sites, so I agree that if you think there's a notable topic about the USSR's relationship to UNESCO more generally, then by all means, go write that article, but the one under discussion isn't that. All we have here is a list that collates existing list information in a redundant and generally unhelpful way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - USSR existed for nearly 70 years, which makes it necessary to allow such an article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  What difference would it make if it lasted for 7 months, 7 decades, or 7 centuries? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, useful list for anybody with this exact question. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fallacy fallacy. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Good news! If your question was "Did the USSR have World Heritage Sites?", then List of World Heritage Sites in Russia answers that for you! No need for another article to say the same thing! Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92: Wrong, both geographically and temporally. Was Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv a world heritage site of the Soviet Union? Yes it was. Is it on the list for Russia? Of course, not, not in Russia. Were the Golden Mountains of Altai a world heritage monument of the Soviet Union? No, they were not listed while the Soviet Union existed, but are now listed for Russia. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
      • The two in Ukraine and Uzbekistan have been added to the lead for appropriate context. A history section that could include other sources linked here is welcome. The lead already listed the three in Russia so it would be clear that Altai wasn't one of them. — Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

        Good solution to have added the extra text. Speaking of former countries, Yugoslavia also does not have a separate article but several of the sites in the successor countries were listed while they were still in the common state. Tone 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

        It is completely WP:UNDUE to add information about sites in Uzbekistan and Ukraine to an article about World Heritage Sites in Russia - no extant sources connects the World Heritage Sites in these two countries to Russia. Katzrockso (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Probably a lot of sources exist from 1990 when the sites were listed, it is just hard to find them online. Czechoslovakia had no World Heritage Sites, and East Germany had only one that was shared with West Berlin. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is just an essay, while actual guideline states, WP:NEXIST: Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  According to the article, Czechoslovakia had three sites listed in 1992, just shortly before the dissolution. Tone 20:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  I wrongly assumed that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1991. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  • That's hypothetical gibberish, even if there were sources that covered their listing in 1990, that *still* doesn't mean they need to be listed now in a duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

    A book titled Building a Common Past: World Heritage in Russia Under Transformation, 1965–2000 dedicates pages 293 to 311 to the section 'Soviet Heritage Sites Become UNESCO World Heritage'. But for this topic sources are presumed. A featured article on Heritage Sites in Russia contains nothing but links to the UNESCO site. There are similarly sourced articles about the sites in Liberia (3 sites), the Marshall Islands (1), Comoros (4).

    This is not a duplicative article, no other article covers or should cover these five sites together. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

    All contents of table already exists elsewhere, identical word-for-word. That's a duplicative article. There's not a need for them to listed in one place together. This is a very good source, but I believe it would fit well in the Russia article. — Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

    Since not all of the sites are in Russia, that really does not address the issue. The bottom line in that the Soviet Union was different country with a different list of heritage sites. Rublamb (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment With respect to the redundancy, the template "Lists of World Heritage Sites" includes 19 elements. Of these, 16 duplicate information present in the country list articles, 15 by region and 1 lists sites that are in danger.
  Some country level articles include information about the tentative list. The 1989 list for the SU contained 28 elements, of which 25 were later inscribed. The list is relevant only to the SU article and the information about it cannot be easily recovered from articles on post-Soviet states. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  The danger list is useful and has sufficient sourcing. There is no state party named "danger" which has been superseded by other states. Also, there is now a consensus to convert the region lists into simple list to combat duplication and to make sure they are of a manageable size. This consensus was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Asia. However, Wikiproject World Heritage is somewhat inactive currently, so we have not done that yet. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  I crossed out that paragraph. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per Easternsahara. This list is redundant to the lists covering the successor states. Per WP:CFORK, such rendundancies should be avoided. Sandstein 07:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of World Heritage Sites in Russia with hat notes as suggested by Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the information is adequately covered elsewhere.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Kelob2678 and Hyperbolick. Kelob2678 provided a source that adequately demonstrates that the subject of the list (World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union). The material is not duplicative and addresses both a different geographic and temporal cross-section of UNESCO World Heritage Sites than the ones listed in the article on Russia. That localities are listed in one more than one list is no issue, this is extremely common for lists. See also discussion of the topic in .Katzrockso (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • This source is actually not about World Heritage Sites (a term never used in the article), but rather heritage protection generally, such as with the International Register of Cultural Property. Again, calling it "not duplicative" is blatantly false – it explicitly duplicates the exact same content in the table that is on other articles. You can say the duplication is okay because it's organized on its own rather than with sites listed after dissolution, but don't make up crap that it isn't in some form redundant. — Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

    I reject your accusation that I am "making up crap". If the claim is that any information that is (re)produced at more than one location is "duplicative", then we might as well delete the entire encyclopedia, as all the content created on Wikipedia can be found in the Library of Babel. The point is that the specific organization of sites (1 in Uzbekistan, 1 in Ukraine, 3 in Russia; and all identified by UNESCO before 1991) is not contained at any other page, and hence is not "duplicated anywhere", rather than picking apart the article and then claiming subsections are reproduced elsewhere. As noted above, there are many articles where content is reproduced in other articles, but not synthesized together as a whole. It appears this accusation is aiming to hint that the article in question is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK without directly claiming so as it does not fit the criteria. Katzrockso (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  You make a very good point about the notability of the Soviet Union's World Heritage Sites but that can be covered by "World Heritage Sites in the Soviet Union" which is not currently a page. The actual number of world heritage sites and tentative listings would probably only deserve a passing mention as the conflict between the western aligned UNESCO association and USSR would be the notable bit there (presumably). We can redirect to save all those sources for future use. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I think given the entity of Russia and The USSR being different along with the geographic makeups of both entities being different demonstrates a keep. Per @Rublamb’s comment regarding WP:NOTTEMPORARY follow that up with @Hyperbolicks and @Kelob2678s additional sources, I am much more comfortable in keeping this article over deletion. However I believe that additional sourcing is necessary for much needed support. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Were this solely a matter or organization, there would be consensus to delete, but I see a good-faith argument being made that heritage sites in the USSR are notable, and I cannot dismiss that argument. Can we please take the temperature down in a notch in determining whether that's enough to have a standalone article, or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per EasternSahara's suggestion. That is the best WP:ATD here. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies NLIST. Not only is there significant scholarship on the conflicted relationship between the USSR and UNESCO during the cold war, there's related scholarship on the Soviet Union's (and other state socialist countries') prolonged refusal to ratify the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Two examples: see pp.82-92 "Disputes over univsersalism: World Heritage without the Soviet Union" in Building a Common Past: World Heritage in Russia under Transformation, 1965–2000 and "Protecting the heritage of humanity in the Cold War: UNESCO, the Soviet Union and sites of universal value, 1945–1970s" (International Journal of Heritage Studies Volume 26, 2020) doi:10.1080/13527258.2019.1664621. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep enough reliable sources exist to prove notability - otherwise merge per EasternSahara's suggestion. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: is the topic of heritage sites in the Soviet Union notable enough for a standalone list, independent of other lists with subsets of this material?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep Enough sources exist to establish notability, and a nation is not necessarily the sum of the land that formerly composed it. By all means, it's a different entity. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Goldsztajn. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Find it difficult to believe that this AfD is going on for a month now. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 24 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.

Chicken Stars

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article relies entirely on user-generated sources (KnowYourMeme, TikTok) and includes no independent, reliable secondary coverage establishing notability or significance. Existence alone isn’t sufficient for inclusion; we need substantive analysis or coverage by reliable sources. Requesting community discussion. Acrom12 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I was unable to find significant coverage from reliable sources on this topic. Not notable. death pact (again) 16:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination - I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

on no.3 i do have a blog from a confirmed website about chicken stars. Also this meme is actually a real meme and cannot be fake as many people have reported seeing the meme and this scene has existed. Basketballer7309 (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You said that you have a "blog" from a "confirmed website" - WP:RELIABLE clearly states that blogs are not reliable sources. In addition, as Acrom12 already said, the article only cites from sites like TikTok and YouTube. These are all primary sources that aren't reliable. Sources in an article should be WP:SECONDARY. Please read WP:UGC. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Clear GNG failure. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources on this topic. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I've draftified the article, I think we can close this now. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable meme. If, miraculously, this is kept, it needs to be rewritten almost entirely to meet minimum standards of good prose and referencing. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete not popular. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I mean, half of the links are linked TO WIKIPEDIA. I'm not even sure that's allowed. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete This article has 2 references to Wikipedia, this fails WP:GNG and has a lot of error in spelling. Gabriel120YT (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete how is this slop still here someone just get rid of it already, this is very obviously not notable.

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This article is so ugly, sucks and poor. And the meme is unpopular. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, easily fails WP:GNG. Some of the citations are literally to Wikipedia, and there's no reason this article should continue to exist HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 01:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete- lacking enough SIGCOV to support notability as a standalone, at the very least I may consider it being merged any salvageable info to the Leo movie. Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Complete and utter lack of reliable sources. Also the meme is stupid

BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@BombCraft8 I agree, the meme sucks. It's better to listen the The Housemartins than this meme.

The Housemartins is better VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete failing WP:SIGCOV entirely. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. A very non-notable, stupid meme, and the article is horrendously written. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I Agree. This meme sucks! VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in RS. paintdvd ^{talk to me} 00:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Surprised this article isn't deleted yet, there's an overwhelming consensus to delete. Plus, it fails virtually every guideline on notability. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:17, 26 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.

Little Hardhats

Little Hardhats (edit | talk | history | 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 only uses primary sources meaning notability cannot be properly assessed. A quick search also turns up no reliable sources. This article fails WP:GNG. 11WB (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. 11WB (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails in GNG owing to no independent secondary references from reliable sources having significant coverage. Almost all the sources are WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't help in establishing notability. And the only critical reception doesn't help since it not amounts to "multiple critical reviews". BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Leech, Barbara (2008-04-13). "Filmmaker's successful formula: little kids, big machines". New Hampshire Union Leader. Retrieved 2025-10-20.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

     The article notes: "Little Hardhats films, created for preschool-age children, has made national news over the past 17 years since its humble beginning. With DVD titles available such as "Where the Garbage Goes" and the award-winning "Road Construction Ahead" (an in-depth look at how roads are built and maintained and all the big equipment that is required), children as well as their parents seem to be hooked. ... Levine began Little Hardhats in 1991 with his first children's film, "Road Construction Ahead," after working several years as a corporate film producer. When companies began to cut back on discretionary spending for promotional films, Levine found himself out of business. ... With the success of its first DVD, Little Hardhats took off, with Levine producing one DVD each year."

  2. Edelstein, Art (2000-08-24). "Fred Levine offers up new kids video on farming". Barre Montpelier Times Argus. Retrieved 2025-10-20.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

     The article notes: "After Road Construction Ahead, the feedback from the public was for more big machine videos. With this in mind, his company, Little Hardhats, took on fire, planes and garbage. ... Little Hardhats productions are distributed nationally through several video distributors including Montpelier's Rounder Kids. The videos are also carried in catalogs such as Birthday Express, which features children's products. ... Ertle packages his videos with their farm toy replicas. The videos are linked to the Cape Cod Potato Chip company web site, and are offered by Teddy Peanut Butter. Both food companies were prominently featured in the recent video release."

  3. "Vermont Made Videos Available for Kids". The Transcript. 2000-08-21. Archived from the original on 2025-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.

     I was unable to clip the article from Newspapers.com because of this error message: "Oops, we are having trouble loading clippings." The article notes: "Farm Country Ahead is the sixth in the "Little Hardhats" series. This new release takes kids on a fast-paced and exciting trip to see where some of their favorite foods come from. Stowe, Vermont actor Rusty DeWees is the video's friendly and hard-working host. Rusty introduces each action-packed segment showing up in, on and around huge and fascinating pieces of farming equipment. ... Little Hardhats has always been a family affair. Levine and his wife, Lisa, keep busy running the business and parenting four. The Levine children have grown up in the videos. Mariah (8), Miles (13) and lan (15) were 2, 3 and 5 when they first went to work behind the scenes and in front of the camera. Riley, age 2, makes his video debut in Farm Country Ahead. And more talent is on the way with another Levine due in December."

  4. Bange, Stephanie (August 2008). "Big Boats & Busy Harbors". School Library Journal. Vol. 54, no. 8. p. 61. EBSCOhost 33767708. Archived from the original on 2025-10-20. Retrieved 2025-10-20 – via Gale.

     The review notes: "The latest release in the "Little Hardhats" series focuses on activities around harbors. Host Rusty Dewees provides background information and defines important terms. Most segments open with Dewees using a globe to indicate where in the world the cargo is coming from and how far it must go to reach its destination."

  5. A Parent's Guide to the Best Children's Videos, DVDs, and CD-ROMs (2 ed.). Los Angeles: Mars Publishing. 2001. pp. 52, 54, 149, 151, 155, 158. ISBN 1-931199-04-3. Retrieved 2025-10-20 – via Internet Archive.

     The book reviews five episodes of Little Hardhats. The book reviews Cleared for Takeoff on page 52, Fire and Rescue on page 54, Farm Country Ahead on page 149, House Construction Ahead on page 151, and Where the Garbage Goes on page 158.

  6. There is additional coverage at https://littlehardhats.com/#media-reviews (archived here) including an article in New Hampshire Weekly and television coverage in Good Morning America and CBS News with Harry Smith.
  7. "Fun to Film". The Burlington Free Press. 2000-09-06. Archived from the original on 2025-10-23. Retrieved 2025-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Montpelier's Fred Levine hit farms in the state and beyond to film "Farm Country Ahead," his latest addition to the kids' video series "Little Hardhats." Two years in the making, the 45-minute video features Rusty "The Logger" DeWees as host of a trip documenting where milk, peanut but-ter, jelly, bread and potato chips come from."

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

  Cunard (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC) I fixed the links and added another source. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The first source appears to be an interview type article, which would come under WP:PRIMARY. The second source is fine and should be used. The sixth source is definitely primary and really shouldn't be used in place of preferable independent reliable sources. It may be worth having a neutral editor do a source assessment. 11WB (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

An interview type article can include both primary and secondary aspects in it. The littlehardhats website is merely linking to Youtube videos that are the relevant sources in question, not the website itself. Katzrockso (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

An interview is WP:PRIMARY and YouTube really shouldn't be used per WP:RSPYT. This show just doesn't have the required coverage for a standalone article I'm afraid. 11WB (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Katzrockso is correct that articles that contain quotes from people affiliated with the subject can contain enough independent reporting, commentary, and analysis to amount to significant coverage. That is the case here. There is sufficient independent content in these sources to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSPYT states "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability". These are broadcasts from a news organization, the television equivalent of a news article. Katzrockso (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems we disagree, which is fine. I would recommend having a non-involved editor create a source assessment. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the extensive WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources identified by Cunard which is more than sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Keep also per above WP:SIGCOV. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep My analysis of Cunard's sources: 1. Independent, and more than a mere interview. It's a bit hype-y (local boy makes good!) so I won't give it a full point (1/2 point towards notability) 2. This source has more information and less interview, but I'm going to discount it because it twice directly advertises the produce ($14.99 available at....!) 3. I'm giving this source a full point. Yes there are some interview aspects to it, but this seems independent, reliable, and in-depth. 4. The link doesn't work for me, but I have no reason to doubt Cunard's statement regarding content. As such this is an independent review of the series, from a reliable source. Full point. 5. As the above, an independent review of the series, I can't find reason to define this source as unreliable. Full point. 6. This isn't a source. Cunard is merely pointing out that there are additional sources referenced on the company's own page. 7. Independent, Reliable, short. Certainly more than a casual mention. I'll give this half a point. In any case, I think we have three independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, plus others which an objective assessor may or may not deem worthy. There are other sources demonstrated to be likely independent and reliable. As such, I think this topic clearly meets GNG and therefor my opinion is Keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Number 4 leads here. I would not count this as coverage. It seems this AfD has gained a consensus to keep, so I will accept that I am wrong on this occasion. I am happy to close this as speedy keep if others agree. 11WB (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The sources provided by Cunard contain enough WP:SIGCOV and enough are reliable to meet WP:GNG. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:06, 27 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.

Grace Under Pressure Tour (1983–1984)

Grace Under Pressure Tour (1983–1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOUR. The article relies entirely on user-generated sources (setlist.fm and greendaylive.fm), which are not reliable under WP:RS. There is no independent, verifiable secondary coverage establishing notability of the tour. The content may be merged into Dookie, but as a standalone page it does not meet verifiability or sourcing standards. Acrom12 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The mismatch between the article contents (Green Day's 1994 Dookie Tour) and the article title (a Rush tour from a decade earlier) is reason enough to remove this before any other consideration. The creator also created Draft:Grace Under Pressure Tour (1983–1984) (a repeatedly-declined draft that is about the Rush tour), and has acknowledged on the AfD talk page that the creation of the Green Day tour page on this title was because of a misclick, so this could fall under G7 (and possibly the "created in error" part of G6). I offer no opinion as to whether material on the Dookie Tour should be folded into the Dookie album article, but retaining the current article under this title is a non-starter. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Wcquidditch. I couldn't find significant secondary coverage of the tour. If it's kept, it should as noted be moved to Dookie Tour. Wikishovel (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete-lacking of SIGCOV to support its notability as a standalone even with additional searches, nom s suggestion of merge to the Dookie article is ok for me.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as Lorraine Crane states, fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:01, 24 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.

Nepal Red Cross Kalikot

Nepal Red Cross Kalikot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, two sentence stub that seems it should be merged into Nepal Red Cross Society. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Nepal. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Nepal Red Cross Society as suggested by the nominator. Nothing warrants notability to this subject to have a standalone article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. As this is an uncontroversial merge it could have been done boldly with no need to bring it to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per nom, uncontroversial merge. Khagendra (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge- to Nepal Red Cross Society is a sensible merge target for now given lack of enough SIGCOV sources to support its standalone status. Confirmed the branches existence via a brief online search.Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Nepal Red Cross Society as the best WP:ATD as I always prefer a good merge or redirect if we can find one to a straight deletion. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:03, 24 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.

Xpose Uncensored

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Nearly all sources are low-quality, primary, or brief mentions. The only coverage is a short-lived October 2025 controversy. No significant independent, reliable analysis of the show itself. Content may violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Absent in-depth sources, not suitable for standalone article. Acrom12 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Trans7#Controversy per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 25 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.

Selebrita

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The article relies entirely on primary network pages (Trans7 website) and one low-quality entertainment blog. There is no significant independent, reliable secondary coverage establishing encyclopedic notability. The “Controversy” section is weakly sourced and likely unrelated to the main topic. Unless verifiable secondary sources can be added, the topic does not merit a standalone article and may be better covered within Trans7. Acrom12 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Trans7 under WP:ATD. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:38, 22 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.

Storm Adam

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

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

Storm does not appear to have had lasting or widespread consequences. Coverage seems mostly to have been warnings that bad weather was coming with local disruption to travel and schools. Does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and specifically WP:EFFECT Mgp28 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lebanon. Mgp28 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 19 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.

Black Sabbath (compilation)

Black Sabbath (compilation) (edit | talk | history | 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 would have WP:PRODed this but the article was kept at previous AfD (under a different title): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Sonderauflage.

Apparently this is a bootleg sold in Germany at fan clubs which was given an official release in 2006. I guess this could be merged to the discography article based on the VH1 reference but I would just outright delete this. Mika1h (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Mika1h (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Black Sabbath discography, and do the same for Club Sonderauflage which currently redirects to this one. Under both titles, it was a legit fan club release but it received very little reliable media coverage and there is not enough out there for an encylopedic article. It is possible that someone would search for either title, hence the suggestion to redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 12:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect as proposed. There isn't much to say about this album, giving very little coverage. LightlySeared (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. For a bootleg to get an official release is noteworthy in itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 19 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.

Deferred tax uncertainty

Deferred tax uncertainty (edit | talk | history | 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 it does not mean anything, and completely unreferenced (the one reference that was there was a complete non-reference). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This should be obvious enough. Either it is a neologism or a rare jargon term, but one usage in an FASB report is not enough to establish notability. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - a single primary source is not significant coverage. If you find reliable secondary sources, ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per user:Bearian and the fact that one source is never enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:06, 24 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.

Terrence Oung

Terrence Oung (edit | talk | history | 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. A redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Myanmar. Let'srun (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as usual, this time to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing as suggested by the nominator. Nothing to warrant a standalone article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing. The content on here is notable enough for inclusion but not notable enough for its own page per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Redirecting seems like a good WP:ATD.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article mentioned above as I found nothing to save the article. Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Boxing as a non-notable boxed beyond this redirect. I always prefer a good redirect as the best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 24 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.

Anant Ladha

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

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 10:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails in GNG owing no SIGCOV. None of the sources are independent. Just interviews and routine coverages clearly makes this article a WP:PROMO. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC ChrysGalley (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: G7 declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete — Financial Express reads more advertorial than journalistic, full of puff and filler language. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:22, 25 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.

Dan Seagrave

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

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

He has a lot of credits to his name, but his work lacks substantial coverage. Gbooks and ProQuest, when searched for Daniel Seagrav, give mostly law-related articles. Gnews doesn't have anything —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, England, and Canada. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - two sources are insufficient for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 23 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.

2007–08 Libyan Third Division

2007–08 Libyan Third Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. RSSSF contains no coverage. C679 09:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Libya. C679 09:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that most of the teams in the tournament aren't notable shows how minor and not covered this league is. Doesn't pass WP:GNG unsurprisingly. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – And delete 2008–09 Libyan Third Division too. Svartner (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails on WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:08, 24 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.

Unitus Seed Fund

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Academic sources include , . The New York Times source is also good. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: per the sources attached by Helpful Raccoon. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Decent sourcing. Upd Edit (talk) 12:10, 24 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.

Payworld

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Haryana. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I can find very little non-routine independent coverage. The best I could find was this source and this paper which don't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Almost all the sources are WP:CHURNALISM, WP:RSNOI and WP:ROUTINE. The source cited by Helpful Raccoon is independent but as he mentioned, it lacks CORPDEPTH. Overall, the subject fails in NCORP owing to failed CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. If more reliable sources are found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails on WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:CHURNALISM for this routine promo-like drivel. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anything from Indian Media profiling the corporate world is suspect. Upd Edit (talk) 12:19, 24 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.

Fullerton Securities

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Haryana. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Almost all the sources are directly from the company itself. (WP:PRIMARY) The few other references from RS are evident WP:RSNOI. Hence, the article fails in WP:NCORP owing to failed WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - nowhere near WP:SIRS in terms of notability. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Looks paid/promo content. Svartner (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as failing significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails on WP:NCORP with available sources and looks like WP:PROMO. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:12, 24 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.

Fashion Entrepreneur Fund

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

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

Probably AI-generated - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Nigam. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Fashion, and India. jolielover♥talk 10:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia editors are deleting much better content than this article so this one definitely should be deleted. Wikipedia is also not showing up in search anymore. Better to continue the trend. We should delete anything useful from other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gocrazy69 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: @Gocrazy69: Please don't use sarcasm in AfDs; it is not appreciated. Also note that page creators are discouraged from participating in AfDs for their own articles, and their votes may be discounted. A page creator voting delete in their own AfD can be seen as a U1 request and result in speedy deletion, so be very careful if your intention was not to have the article deleted. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm genuinely saying we should delete the article. Because I've seen better articles being deleted - whatever the reasons maybe. And I am already seeing Wikipedia showing up lower in search engines. It is losing its stature. You can do a speedy delete. Gocrazy69 (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps if editors would be happier if they wrote higher quality articles instead of focusing on how high up the articles appear in a google search. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per HighKing. Upd Edit (talk) 12:09, 24 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.

List of generalist television channels

List of generalist television channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"Generalist TV channel" lacks a clear definition which seems that LOTS of TV channels can fall into that list. Coddlebean (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. If you think the term lacks a clear definition, why are you nominating this list and not "Generalist channel"? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The term isn't well defined and this list just seems to be a generic list of broadcast stations and networks; term might be more familiar in Europe but isn't really known elsewhere. Nathannah • 📮 19:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete In the article defining what this is it says that generalist television channels "account for 70 percent of global television market volume". If 70% of all channels are in this vague category, too much to put on a list and no real purpose for it. Dream Focus 20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete- The way I see this is even though the term Generalist channel does have its article established, the issue here is more of who gets to verify/qualify these "generalist channels" to make the actual cut into this list? a brief check into the citations here does not exactly help the qualification process. Would not be opposed to draftify as an ATD if reasonable enough rationale or SIGCOV sources can be presented to support the existence of this list.Lorraine Crane (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above comment that the category is too broad and vague. Probably better served by a category tag rather than a list article. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:27, 26 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 Speed Traders

The Speed Traders (edit | talk | history | 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 reviews for WP:NBOOK or other indication of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NBOOK Ultraodan (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I would usually support a redirect to the author, Edgar Perez, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. However, the author, who was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Perez, likely is not notable, though it is difficult to searches for sources since he has a common name. I am basing this opinion on my searches for sources and a review of his website, https://www.mredgarperez.com/media/, which lists many interviews he's done but does not list any significant coverage in reliable sources about him. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Man, the article creator really screwed themselves over with how they represented the sourcing. I'm not sure of the reliability of Futures (now called Modern Trader), but it's probably usable - we just need to find the review. As for the second review, that one is tricky. Brenda Jubin was the first woman dean at Morse College. She also taught at Yale. The catch is that she taught philosophy, not market trading. So while she'd certainly be a RS for philosophy, it's uncertain if she would be a RS for this specific topic area. She probably is, but there's another issue: the review was kind of misrepresented.

The review in question has been represented in several places (not just in the article) as if it was an official review for Seeking Alpha. It wasn't - Jubin is a site user, not a staff member. Seeking Alpha is kind of like Linkedin and Goodreads in how it operates, as it allows people to create accounts and (re)post their own content to the site. So because someone tried portraying the review as if it was an official one for Seeking Alpha as opposed to something that originated on her personal blog, it puts the entire thing into question. We'd scrutinize it anyway, as that's what we're supposed to do, but now we have to really take a hard look at it.

Offhand this is probably not going to pass NBOOK, but I'll give a good faith look. But if Cunard couldn't find anything then I'm unlikely to find anything either. A search on Newspapers.com already came up with nothing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried to find the Futures review without luck but I'd be open in theory to considering it half an NBOOK pass. I don't believe a blog post or blurb has ever been considered a notability-conferring source for NBOOK even in a case where it's a subject expert, so I'd consider Jubin basically a dead end. If you do turn up something non-self-published that would change my mind. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It's happened before (blogs, not blurbs). It's not super common, but it happens. For example, I can't remember the book name but it was something dealing with mythology. The blog was written by a fairly well respected academic who was very frequently cited in academic/scholarly stuff. There was another situation where the blog was written by the former chief editor of a major newspaper. In another situation the blog was usable because it was used fairly heavily and regularly as a source in books put out by major academic/scholarly outlets and/or well-known subject experts. Of course in that situation it was a blog put out by a set staff, rather than a crowdsourced site. Of course blurbs are always unusable, as they're almost always 1-2 sentence statements directly solicited by the publisher and/or author in order to promote the book. They're always going to be favorable. The only time they wouldn't be is if they deliberately wanted to put something negative on the cover, usually for comedic effect.

My point with all of this isn't to argue for this blog to be usable, rather just that we should be cautious about making blanket statements. I don't want there to be a situation like the mythology book and for an otherwise good source to get tossed out as unusable because there's an assumption that blogs are always unusable. In this situation the blog isn't usable because while a blog post by Jubin would be usable as a RS if we were sourcing a book about philosophy, this specific situation she isn't because it's about a different subject area and she's kind of an unknown quantity in that regard.

tl;dnr: In most situations blogs aren't usable to establish NBOOK (or any notability guideline) but it does happen more frequently than you think. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The 551-word review from Futures (now Modern Trader) is archived at Internet Archive and linked in the article:

• Siewers III, John. "The Speed Traders". Futures. Archived from the original on 2016-08-18. Retrieved 2013-08-23.

I missed this while searching for sources as I didn't click on this link in the article. This review brings the book halfway toward meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. If there were just one more review, the book would be notable. But I couldn't find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Just in case, I’d say draftity for now instead of just deleting. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering how in the world I'd missed that, but it looks like the IAbot found an archived link after I made the nomination -- the link in the article did not lead anywhere useful when I looked and during my unsuccessful hunt I formed the perhaps-unfair suspicion that (like the Jubin review) it was a blog. Glad you pointed this out! Now that I can see it, I do agree it would be 1/2 of NBOOK, though the second half is still not found. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:43, 23 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.

List of embedded analytics tools

List of embedded analytics tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, there are no reliable sources that compare or discuss different embedded analytics tools. I could only find unreliable corporate blogs. Every entry under "Purpose-built embedded analytics tools" is non-notable, so there is not much of a reason to merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Software, and Lists. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Helpful Raccoon - I agree the separation of the tools into groups was probably unnecessary so I have made an edit to reflect that. The category as a whole is very significant with multiple independent sources cited and market guides shared in the references, along with evidence of the significance economically (Dresner Advisory, Forbes, Fortune Business Insights, BARC & Eckerson Group). I have added Nucleus Research as an additional independent comparative research source in the latest edit. Rjsage (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

    You should not be editing the article at all since you have a conflict of interest; you can use the Edit Request Wizard to propose edits for review. The Nucleus Research source does not seem to be independent, since their website states Nucleus provides a broad range of products and services to help technology vendors deliver a credible ROI message to customers and prospects. The Forbes source is just a PR piece. The BARC report doesn't just focus on embedded analytics. Not sure about the other sources, but there are a lot of market research companies that churn out low-quality reports. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Reads like a user-based analysis. Koshuri ^(あ!) 03:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Koshuri - I agree the tone and wording wasn't in line with Wikipedia style. I have updated it to be more 'matter of fact' - I think this should resolve your concern. What do you think? Rjsage (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - too WP:TECHNICAL and cluttered with bad formatting. 182.185.42.137 (talk) 08:45, 25 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.

2028 Utah gubernatorial election

2028 Utah gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not have enough information to be encyclopedic, with no candidates identified, and so is too soon. There is also a draft, which has somewhat more information but is still not ready for mainspace. This article should be deleted rather than draftified, and the draft should be left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Utah. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Please do not make articles if there's nothing to say. Redirect to 2028 United States gubernatorial elections#Utah is also appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 03:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete: There’s not much of a reason for this to have a published article this soon. Would be best to wait until after midterms in my opinion. Argkitsune (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete There is not much of anything on this page, if there is more stuff, Like the Washington one, I think it could be justify the article existence. But now, not ready for it to be in article space.

Fad8229 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Delete and republish this page when there are actually many reliable sources covering it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: as per WP:TOOSOON, that and lack of enough citations to support article at this time, if being generous drafitfying is a possible ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep hi, I am not the author but I have expanded the page with new sources. I think the new sources pushes it over GNG. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ping @Reywas92, @Argkitsune, @Fad8229, @Gjb0zWxOb, and @Lorraine Crane to re-review new sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete new sources do not change the situation as it is still far, far, WP:TOOSOON. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:14, 24 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.

Gaza: Still Alive

Gaza: Still Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Israel, and Palestine. jolielover♥talk 04:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It does have notable independent sources from RT (TV Network), Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and Anadolu Ajansı.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  A fully deprecated source like WP:RT.COM and a WP:GUNREL source like WP:AAPOLITICS would not be considered independent sources. - Amigao (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  There are several independent sources including Vice news, Middle East Monitor, Researchgate and 3CR Melbourne.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I see significant independent critical coverage on the page. e.ux 10:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Maaz Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 01:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as there would appear to be enough here to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 24 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.

Edgar Perez

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

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

Entirely promotional and fails to established WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, Peru, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 04:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. On looking, neither of his books passes WP:NBOOKS. All the articles with little soundbites from him are trivial coverage.~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment at his book's AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speed Traders:

  Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I would usually support a redirect to the author, Edgar Perez, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. However, the author, who was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Perez, likely is not notable, though it is difficult to searches for sources since he has a common name. I am basing this opinion on my searches for sources and a review of his website, https://www.mredgarperez.com/media/, which lists many interviews he's done but does not list any significant coverage in reliable sources about him.

  Cunard (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I think this wasn't entirely written by a human: "thorough discussion", for example, and the eclectic sourcing. Regardless, it's not meeting WP:BASIC, there is no profile independent of the subject giving significant coverage. ChrysGalley (talk)
• Delete - the subject hasn't done anything notable. Ping me if you can assert a claim of notability buying he's a keynote speaker. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete trivial and non-in depth coverage which is passing and non-reliable nor independent. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:18, 24 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.

Juan Camilo Quintero

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with most coverage appearing to be primary or unreliable sources, mostly from food and drink sites about his career as a chef. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Food and drink, Politics, Italy, Latin America, and Colombia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete:I assessed the sources, and they do not meet GNG:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://rutanmedellin.org/es/noticias/item/ruta-n-un-nuevo-director-para-mantener-el-rumbo-02092013	Written by RUTA, which the subject was the leader of		Routine coverage of appointment in RUTA	✘ No
http://www.minuto30.com/juan-camilo-quintero-es-el-nuevo-gerente-de-innovacion-y-emprendimiento-de-la-andi/442901/			More routine coverage of his appointment	✘ No
http://www.elcolombiano.com/opinion/columnistas/reinvencion-BG4080012				✘ No
http://www.elcolombiano.com/opinion/columnistas/defendiendo-nuestras-iniciativas-DD4115252				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• Comment: @Servite et contribuere: where are the sources about "his career as a chef"? I agree this article should be deleted, but I do not understand your rationale. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Somepinkdude OK. This is a question I get asked a lot. First, I will say brain operates very differently to most, so that might be behind the confusing rationales but anyways, I just didn't feel a need to at the time when nominating. So I figure this might qualify as WP:OR, and I didn't even think about it at first. I know WP:OR can be a confusing policy at times. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  For some at least. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - as per the source table. Ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: even with additional searches to support notability of the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete the source assessment proves this totally fails WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 24 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.

West Coast Aviation Services

West Coast Aviation Services (edit | talk | history | 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 a single source that counts towards WP:NCORP. Most of the article's current sources are routine coverage of business transactions; source 2 is essentially an interview with the founder, so it's not independent. Source 3 leads to an error page. I could not find better sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Source 3 is fine, it's Source 4 that leads to an error. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: All refs fail WP:SIGCOV; they are either "business does business things", or promotional puff pieces. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, particularly none of the sourcing is SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - do gets hits from Google news about this aviation service company, but have yet to see SIGCOV sources to support its notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Lorraine Crane and the failure of both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep / Improve: I have gone ahead and corrected the deadlink for Source 4. Source 2 also gives substantial information about business operations outside of interview snippets. I have also gone ahead and added two other sources I could find. The article has verifiable coverage spanning over many years. For a regional business, these regional and trade publications should be counted as significant coverage. I’d suggest keeping the article and continuing to improve upon it as there may be additional regional sources in databases not freely accessible online. There are likely sources there, as the business has been in operation for 38 years.Karkawa (talk) 18:07, 24 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.

Busiest airports by continent

Busiest airports by continent (edit | talk | history | 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 merely duplicates the statistics from the pages for the individual continents (e.g. Europe and Asia). These individual pages are a much better way to view this information as they show the historical progression of the busiest airport in the region. Furthermore, the list of lists links to all the continents and also to the respective pages for regions and countries. Also, the List of the busiest airports article shows the busiest airport in each continent and links to the individual contents pages. Finally, while outdatedness is not a reason for deletion, the fact that this page has not had new statistics added for 5 years (while individual continents' pages are up to date) shows that it is redundant and hardly used. Anguswiki (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Anguswiki (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of busiest airports which has the same info. As noted by the nomination, this seems to be an unnecessary WP:CFORK as the information is already included elsewhere. A blank+redirect is a straightforward alternative to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect Agree this duplication doesn't seem necessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of busiest airports as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of busiest airports. This is notable but redundant. Redirecting is a good WP:ATD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of busiest airports. Yearly info at continental level is no longer easy to find.Coyatoc (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of busiest airports to streamline available info and avoid redundancies.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of busiest airports since whenever possible I approve of a redirect such as this when there is a good target as the best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 24 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.

Kritanjoli Films

Kritanjoli Films (edit | talk | history | 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 as the sources are mentions or unreliable. Nothing that amounts to WP:CORPDEPTH. Attempted a redirect as an WP:ATD which was objected to by OP. CNMall41 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Manna (actor) as an alternative. Doesn't qualify for a standalone article since it fails in NCORP owing to failed WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:DEL#8. BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manna (actor) is agreeable. I tried searching on the film company and more hits are about the founder.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Instead of deleting or redirecting, its better to move sourced info to Manna (actor). — LvivLark (talk) 15:42, 24 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.

Indonesian archipelago

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

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

Content it covers is already covered in List of islands of Indonesia and Geography of Indonesia. There was previously a discussion on this at the start of the year but no one went forward with starting a deletion discussion. Please note that this page is not referring to the Malay Archipelago. DervotNum4 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm pinging the people who were involved in the discussion a year ago plus major contributors to the page @Cremastra @Emmaloiseingrid @Bayoka55 DervotNum4 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I'll start off by brining up the reasons that were brought up on the talk page and some of my further rational.

The main arguement was that this page doesn't differ in scope from List of islands of Indonesia and Geography of Indonesia. The text of the page is also written as if it's on the page for Indoneisia, lines like "Indonesia is famous for its biodiversity, unique animals and ecosystems that range from tropical rainforests to coral reefs, making it one of the most biodiverse countries in the world." The history section is just the history of Indonesia, page also uses several maps of the Indonesian Archipelago that are just maps of Indonesia. The page also treats the archipelago as ending halfway down the island of New Guinea, which isn't something archipelagoes do, but it is something that countries do. Other pages don't do this, there's no page for the Philippine archipelago, it's a redirect to List of islands of the Philippines. DervotNum4 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Islands. toweli (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Malay Archipelago with a hatnote for List of islands of Indonesia Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 01:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of islands of Indonesia or simply Indonesia, based on the page link analysis. Wildly redundant page and not a clearly distinct topic, I'm not sure what the point of the history and geography sections are when they are fairly similar to the respective sections of Indonesia and there are main articles for that info. I think Malay Archipelago could even be merged to Maritime Southeast Asia since that page twice says they are "largely synonymous", but that's not the same thing as just the Indonesian islands. Reywas92^Talk 01:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I was not aware of the page link analysis, support above. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of islands of Indonesia, The term "archipelago" is a geographic descriptor for groups of islands, so redirecting to List of islands of Indonesia is more appropriate. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of islands of Indonesia – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of islands of Indonesia per all the rest. This is the best redirect target and I always like that as the best WP:ATD instead of straight deletion. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:22, 24 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.