Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information < October 27, October 29 > ...
< October 27 October 29 >
Close

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ostuni Calcio 24

Ostuni Calcio 24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod: Semi-pro team, never reached above 4th tier. Coverage in sources seems to be local sports coverage and not anything that establishes it meeting GNG. CountryANDWestern (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Deepest Blue. ✗plicit 14:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Joel Edwards (singer)

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

I have done a WP:BEFORE and am really struggling to find reliable in-depth sources that are not focused on the subject's band (Deepest Blue), I believe in this case notability is not inherited, and it may be better to re-direct and merge the page content with Deepest Blue (which itself does have some issues with sourcing that should be resolved. sksatsuma 15:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Joel Edwards is both an individual artist and part of a group that has been signed to a major record label. How is this different than any other musician that has a page on Wikipedia? Quadmusic (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The key issue is that for a stand-alone article, notability should be demonstrated for the artist outside of another notable topic (eg Deepest Blue).
I have tried to find more sources to do this to avoid a deletion discussion, but currently this doesn't seem to be the case – See WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:NOTINHERITED. sksatsuma 13:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete does not satisfy WP:NSINGER. – Meena • 22:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Authoritarian socialism

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

Procedural nomination after editors tried to delete the article by blank and redirecting it due to OR and SYNTH Czarking0 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, China, and Russia. Czarking0 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Redirect to state socialism as they are entirely synonymous. I do not think that anyone here is arguing that this is a hoax, in which case google scholar hits would be sufficient evidence, but rather that this is a duplicate/unneeded fork of our article on state socialism (which is the big concept article that metallurgist describes). Also just cause metallurgist held an ideological viewpoint, doesn't make it notable. I could describe my ideology to be fully automated anarcho-posadisms with luxembourgish characteristics but that doesn't make that topic notable. User:Easternsaharaplease review this and this 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This article seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Policy aside, there seems to just be a lot of effort put into this page so I wouldn't suggest just deleting it outright as there are WP:ATDs available, such as editing the article. There is also no TP discussion on improvements that can be made in the article to remove some of the problems with it (looks like the last TP discussion post was in 2021 and it was unrelated). Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete Authoritarian socialism does not seem to be a thing. The majority of sources in this article don't even use the term. It can be a disambig page, and, of course, it should be kept if someone proves that its actually a term with meaning, like totalitarianism, communist state etc. Right now, however, its just authoritarianism with the term socialism added to it.
    TheUzbek (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    As nom I am not voting but at its face I assumed TheUzbek was wrong here. However, I did an independent google, scholar, JSOTR, and Foreign Policy magazine search. The term "authoritarian socialism" does sometimes appear as these are common words. However I don't think there is super good evidence that this is a standalone concept rather than just the use of the two concepts. The strongest result which I do see is this book by Lipow Authoritarian Socialism in America: Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist Movement. This book is a specific criticism of American literature and events which is not really what this article is about and this book does not in my opinion establish authoritarian socialism as a standalone concept. The fact that there are no direct hits on JSTOR or Foreign Policy magazine via WP:TWL make me really question this article. Czarking0 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Incidentally, I used to use this exact term to describe my erstwhile ideology that was somewhere on the spectrum of Stalinism and Chinese governing theory (see here maybe) to the point that I wanted to research and write on the concept, and I wondered for a moment if I had created this article and forgot about it. I no longer espouse those views, but seeing this gave me a chuckle. In any case, looking at google scholar, there are 2500 mentions. There are authoritarian streams of socialism (eg Stalinism, tankies, etc) that contrast greatly with democratic and libertarian socialism. This absolutely is a notable topic on that basis. ←Metallurgist (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Google scholar does not state that the term Authoritarian socialism has been used 2500 times Czarking0 (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    As you can see here, there are over 2,500 mentions of the term on Google Scholar. - Amigao (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as even a cursory look at Google Scholar will show plenty of notable academic works that use this term. That said, this article does need quite a bit of work. - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Only a cursory look at Google Scholar will show notable works that use this term. if you actually dig into the sources you see this is not widely representative as a stand alone concept. The term authoritarian state socialism at a minimum is more common. Even this is just the use of authoritarian and state socialism together. Czarking0 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep plenty notable and meets WP:GNG for a page by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    On what grounds? I could leave this comment on literally any AfD without looking at the sources or the page you are not making a policy based statement about this specific article. Czarking0 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Please see WP:BLUDGEON. I think we all get your position. - Amigao (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    It is not disruptive to respond to each of the unique policy based arguments for/against deletion. This is not a vote so it does not matter what my position is as a single editor but what the various policy based arguments about this specific article are. To say that "we all get your position" is reductive. First of all, what do you actually think my position is? I made this procedural nom and did not state in the nom that I think the article should be deleted. I am attempting to challenge the Keep votes to ensure that actually good policy based arguments are being made. My position is that this sort of discourse is good for the project. I think the editors here that discuss alternatives to deletion have made the best policy based arguments. No one is denying that quote searching any two commonly used terms on google scholar will return thousands of results. Here is a search for "Freud Marx" which is obviously not a real term yet still has thousands of results because these are common words in academic literature. My position cannot fairly be reduced to keep or delete and evolves as other editors make arguments that I see as good or bad based on policy and reason. I never would have thought of this Freud Marx search until I was helped by your "authoritarian socialism" search link. Czarking0 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on this and could be swayed either way. It would be more productive to focus the discussion on if this term is sufficiently distinct from state socialism and if any problems editors may have with this article could be resolved by editing and improving the page instead of deleting it. I have no doubt that the term "authoritarian socialism" is a useful term to contrast certain ideologies with more libertarian and democratic varieties of socialism, but how the term is used matters more than just whether or not it has been used in Google Scholar. If authoritarian socialism is a meaningful grouping of ideologies or a distinct ideology itself, the page should be kept. If authoritarian socialism is just a pejorative term, how possible is it to overhaul the article to focus it on the term? If it's just a synonym for state socialism, redirect.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITYAgnieszka653 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Refinery CMS

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

Almost completely self-sourced, so WP:SELFSOURCE concerns. All sources are from the product itself, so WP:RSPRIMARY applies. Thus, there are also WP:BIAS concerns, and it seems like WP:NPROD isn't satisfied. With all this, WP:NPRODUCT isn't satisfied. Maybe this is a notable software product, but that isn't established by the current content, which is just a bit of product marketing attached to a revision history. Most given references are to the product's GitHub project. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - No independent sources were found online, (as far as I could search). The article is cited only with primary sources, I do not see it meeting the standards of warranting an article. Kvinnen (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note. This article was created by Unixcharles after the previous nomination. Looks like a single-purpose account. The recreated version wasn't much different than the deleted version, aside from an attempt to add all these GitHub source. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, also has WP:SELFSOURCE problems as Nom mentioned. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted above, independent sourcing has not been found and most sourcing is user-generated from Github. Article seems intended to make software look more important than it is though it's not necessarily promotional in tone. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Abdorrasul Zarrin

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

There are no 700 confirmed kills attributed to this individual, nor are there any reliable sources confirming this claim. This is similar to Juba (sniper) appearing in List of snipers — he claimed 700 kills, but in fact had “only” 63, but unlike Abdorrasul Zarrin, Juba had multiple reliable sources coverage. As such, this article does not meet WP:GNG. In addition, the OP is globally locked. IdanST (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Iranian propaganda. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of comment above, does not appear to have in depth WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ylber Idrizi

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

Recreated again by the same WP:SPA following 2 very recent AfD deletions. In my own WP:BEFORE, I still can't find any evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS. There is still no indication that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN at this stage. Draft:Ylber Idrizi still exists. My rationale for deletion is no different to User:Fancy Refrigerator's on the previous AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No No No Link doesn't work ✘ No
No If he is the director of this festival then the source would not be classed as independent No No Not mentioned anywhere ✘ No
Yes Yes No 404 error ✘ No
No No No Not mentioned anywhere ✘ No
No No Wikipedia is not a reliable source No ✘ No
No Anyone can make a YouTube channel about themselves No No ✘ 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
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete, per rationale in previous AfDs. --Local hero talk 14:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Spiderone's assessment --Lenticel (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has already been brought to AFD before so a Soft deletion is unsuitable here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I'd even hazard to suggest a speedy delete under G4. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete but I do not think it need be speedy. Put it through the process and then Delete if deemed to fail WP:GNG as I believe it does. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

British Overseas School

British Overseas School (edit | talk | history | 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 does not meet WP:GNG; for an organisation that started in 1958, there are scarcely any usable sources online or in databases accessible through WP:TWL, even Newspaper Archive. The school's name only appears in listicles of "best schools in Karachi". -- Reconrabbit 17:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agree, I can't find sources either. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete no redirect, while I generally prefer a redirect as a good WP:ATD, this is just too generic. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Only one source on the page and I cannot find any others. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails per WP:SCH, no independent, reliable sources found to establish notability. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Praewwanich Ruangthong

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

Pageant contestant not demonstrated to have met notability requirements. They have zero national wins in the exactly two citations, which is a clear fail of GNG. I would have just draftified the article, but the creator recently un-draftified another one (Amy Viranya Berry), so I think the community needs to weigh in on the status. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a "cut-off" point for importance for these pageants? 3rd runner-up for a regional contest doesn't appear to be notable to me but I'm sure these subjects have been debated extensively over the years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

2005 Ram Mandir attack

2005 Ram Mandir attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article details a minor event which occurred two decades ago, and which has completely failed WP:LASTING. It resulted in no notable retrospectives, no policy analyses, no security reforms, no social or political shifts, no legal precedent, and in general no lasting consequences. Furthermore, the article has just a single source, entirely unsourced sections and significant issues with WP:V. For more than a decade, the article had another source, that being a WP:HOAX source which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article has had WP:V issues since its conception but has not been improved at all. The state of the article in 2006 and today is indistinguishable. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources cited by him suggests that the subject clearly satisfies the #2 criterion of WP:NEVENT, which mentions "or were very widely covered in diverse sources". Although it fails in the #1 criteria of WP:NEVENT owing to no proper WP:LASTING, this terror attack did play - a not very significant, but considerable role in the Ram Mandir Controversy over the past few years. Overall, seems just borderline enough for the article to save itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not simply WP:LASTING that the 2005 Ram Mandir attack fails. The incident also fails WP:GEOSCOPE, another inclusion criteria under WP:NEVENT, which states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." GEOSCOPE further adds, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria are not something to selectively choose, applying some criteria while ignoring others that the article does not meet. By definition, a criterion is something that should be fully satisfied by an article’s subject, something this specific case fails to do. We simply cannot say, "this article fails this criterion but should remain in the mainspace because it is WP:JUSTNOTABLE." — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. Has all of the problems mention in the multiple issues template. I also agree with the comments by EarthDude and the others commenting on issues with the article and deficiencies under other categories such as GEOSCOPe and NEVENT. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Edit: I am persuaded to step back from my comment about LASTING, by the comments and the apparent inclusion of similar events in the general article. I am still concerned about the other points made in the template. Nonetheless, I suppose this "weakens" my delete comment to some extent. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per TryKid's arguments. I am also seeing a misunderstanding of WP:NEVENT in the nom, (Personal attack removed). A terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime, especially not when it receives as long-term coverage as this one has. The attack is also regularly memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 (as apparent from TryKid's links), i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory, which means it certainly passes WP:LASTING as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Sad to see that two of the three arguing for keeping the article had to resort to making WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    I was noting from experience. Please do not remove or edit my comments unilaterally without seeking an explanation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    EarthDude (talk · contribs), it seems very inappropriate to remove UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs)'s comment, and when it was reverted, edit it with what looks like a WP:ASPERSION. Nothing in UnpetitproleX's comment read as a personal attack, and this seems like gaming the system. wound theology◈ 15:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - A minor attack that received some coverage when it happened but barely anything afterwards, recent news relating to legal matters of the suspects is routine and does not contribute to the notability of the event. There hasn't been sustained long term coverage and impact was short lived. Undoubtedly fails WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:LASTING. There is no long term coverage for this event in reliable sources, if WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources are excluded, I would expect coverage from the actual reliable sources if the article is supposed to be kept. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree that there was initial coverage, just like there is for 100s of other similar incidents. However, there is no recent significant coverage about the subject from independent sources as mentioned above. That establishes the case for deletion. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    The sources cited in the article show coverage spanning 2005 to 2019. That isn't just "initial". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two comments from non-ECP editors were removed (first, second) under the assertion that this article is covered by the restrictions on Indian military history articles. This seems pretty dubious even "broadly construed", but I'll leave it to noting the removals here. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    The removal of non-ECP comments by other editors is completely in line with WP:CT/IMH, which dictates that all Wikipedia content related to Indian military history, broadly construed, is under extended-confirmed restricted. This article, based upon a terrorist attack, is of course related to military history. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Terrorism in India where there is already a subsection. No reason we can't include this content there.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the span of years in the extensive coverage cited above, arguments based on WP:LASTING seem invalid. The coverage isn't restricted to just Indian press either. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    Quite surprising to see an administrator get confused between guidelines. WP:LASTING refers to whether the subject event in question led to anything major as a consequence. What you mean to refer to is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which has already been shown to be nothing more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of legal matters and not of the incident itself. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable event as clear from the scope of sourcing so far. Either way, as described above, a description at Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks already exists. There is no further need to provide any coverage. Wisher08 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect - As others have said, this topic is not notable now as it has failed to meet WP:LASTING. Redirecting/merging (whatever there is) to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks seems to be best course of action here. Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per TryKid and Anachronist: the international coverage cited above over the years since the event indicates WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly there was significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources of this at the time. This can be verified by looking at the results of a news search or by looking at the many news citations provided by TryKid above. But it is also clear that the attack had a lasting real-world impact - for example Newsweek 23 Jan 2024, as well as the sustained coverage of legal action and protests by relatives of victims shown by the news citations posted by TryKid above. I do not think that redirecting to Terrorism in India#2005 Ayodhya attacks is appropriate because the format of that article is to have a short uncited summary and a link to the main article on each attack; so unless you are going to restructure that article "merging" to that article would be result in the merged content being deleted as WP:UNDUE for the Terrorism in India article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not ready to close this now as "No consensus" but the arguments of participants has changed over the past two weeks. Right now, I don't see enough support for Keep or for Delete alone to close it on one of those options so maybe editors advocating one of those positions can get behind a reasonable ATD instead and we can gather a consensus here. I'm not making an argument for any outcome, my role as closer is simply to assess what might be the consensus coming out of the entire discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Per arguments made by Trykid. Also meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    That requirement has been met in this case, however, with coverage spanning years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    As has been stated time and time again, the event does not pass WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE coverage is not the same as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    2023, 2019 and Indian Express 2019 articles are routine updates about the case rather than the original event and two of them are unbylined. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable attack and notable once is notable always as long as WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    And thanks Liz for your always being even handed and neutral in your comments for your relists. You're great. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    No, if that was the case then most criminal incidents would merit an article. Subject specific notability guideline (WP:NEVENT) demands sustained coverage for an event to be notable. Zalaraz (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    As has been demonstrated already, the coverage has spanned many years. If that isn't "sustained", then what is? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    You are confusing WP:LASTING with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event led to absolutely nothing of major significance and is thus not notable. Furthermore, much of the coverage that has "spanned years" has been WP:ROUTINE. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Trykid. wound theology◈
Trykid made a substantial argument and none of the responses have held up against it in my opinion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy. EarthDude (talk · contribs), please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You have responded to nearly every single comment here, and much of it seems like WP:WIKILAWYERing at best. wound theology◈ 06:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes EarthDude, you have made half the entire comments to this page and added over one third of the text (); that's classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Suggest you step back from the discussion ASAP. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I have not made "half of the comments on this page". What you're referring to are not comments but edits, most of which involved fixing some typos in my comments, adding the discussion to deletion-sorting lists so others could participate, or removing non-ECP comments per WP:CT/IMH. Claiming that I’ve been bludgeoning when I’ve responded to only some of the comments, mostly to clarify misunderstood guidelines and policies, address source misrepresentations, or respond to personal attacks, is absurd. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
You have responded to over half of the comments labelled keep, and per the linked utility, added over 1/3rd of the text on this page. That is classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Please read WP:BLUDGEON, which states plainly: If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. You fit both of these criteria. wound theology◈ 11:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, had received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. If deletion is consensus, then content should be merged as suggested by others into a relevant article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Nota bene. I was content to give a simple WP:PERX (which is not actually against policy), but since there is substantial "discussion" going on above, including at least one case of an entire comment being removed for a percieved personal attack (which is flimsy at best), I'll make a beefy response as to why I voted Keep:
  • WP:NOTABLE. Terrorist attacks in which multiple people died, and had substantial coverage (as shown by Trykid), are inherently notable events.
  • WP:LASTING. I have seen no substantial argument as to why this attack did not have lasting effects, broadly construed. As UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) noted, in a comment that was intially removed entirely (!) by an opposing editor, [a] terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime and it has been memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 [...] i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory.
  • WP:PAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, and thus I'm partial to ignoring the very weak arguments invoking somewhat subjective interpretations of (e.g.) WP:GEOSCOPE.
In short, there's no solid reasoning for deleting the article. wound theology◈ 06:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a nationally significant terrorist attack, not a routine incident. Notable per WP:EVENT. Morekar (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep While admittedly the reuse, review, rehash era of media publications is in full swing, looking at the links above dopoint do indicate an event of significant and lasting impact. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Gour Naskar

Gour Naskar (edit | talk | history | 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 didn't find anything about him, even on databases like Soccerway. Svartner (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Svartner (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    A no-effort comment bordering on disruptive (over a dozen "Delete pernom" (sic) in short time). Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BASICSPORT as a non-notable footballer. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete — no indication of notability as a player. EmilyR34 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete not established the notability Pinakpani (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • DELETE. None of the sources have significant coverage of the subject. Times of India sometimes has poor fact-checking. The subject overall fails WP:GNG. Should not have an article. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails to meet WP:NSPORT. Morekar (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Milos Zivkovic (Canadian football)

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

This an article on someone who went undrafted in the 2009 CFL draft. I need say no more. All I found was this. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment. I found this. Probably could use more. NotJamestack (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I found an additional ref which I added to the article. Milos Zivkovic gets decent coverage (239 words) in a much longer article about BC's Simon Fraser University joining the American NCAA. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Papillion-La Vista Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Papillion Junior High

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

While the school was once a high school, it no longer is and has received no significant coverage contributing to the article. The article's two references are ones that I was immediately unable to access after clicking them. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Another no-effort comment that should and will be disregarded by the closing admin. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge selectively to Papillion, Nebraska. Like all middle and high schools, there are some history and sources, but not much coverage. A smerger is reasonable here. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Bearian, I reread the Papio article and there's already a section, I would say, with enough coverage for this since it is a middle school. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I can't tell what you said and I said are much different. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Papillion-La Vista Public Schools. While the school's building was formerly a high school itself, that does not demonstrate notability for the article's subject. WiinterU 01:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

David B. Pakman

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) this article requires citations to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." An examination of this article, as well as the corresponding COI discussion, would indicate that this does not meet that standard. Recommend deletion. Volcom95 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The subject meets the criteria of WP:Notability (people) through multiple, reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage.
Independent secondary sources include:
• TechCrunch – “CoinFund’s David Pakman on how the bear market built stronger crypto companies” (2023).
• Bloomberg – Interview/profile on CoinFund’s venture investments (2021).
• The Wall Street Journal – Coverage of Venrock’s investment strategy including Pakman’s role in Dollar Shave Club (2015).
• The Information – “CoinFund Managing Partner David Pakman on tokenized assets” (2024).
• Internet History Podcast – Full interview with Pakman on his career at Apple and eMusic (Brian McCullough, 2017).
• U.S. Congressional Record – Testimony by David Pakman regarding internet music licensing (112th Congress).
These references demonstrate substantial, independent, and reliable coverage of Pakman’s professional career and public activities, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
The article can continue to be improved with additional citations and formatting, but deletion is not warranted as the subject’s notability is well established. CLPRjjrko (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep – I think the article meets WP:Notability (people). There are several strong, independent and reliable sources that cover David B. Pakman and his work in venture capital and crypto investing.
Bloomberg ran a piece in 2018 (“Venture firm with Rockefeller roots turns to crypto startups”) that quotes Pakman and highlights his leadership at Venrock as it began backing blockchain projects.
Axios reported on his move from Venrock to CoinFund in “David Pakman leaves Venrock for CoinFund” (2021), which clearly shows his notability in the VC world.
Fortune has featured him more than once — in 2018 (“Crypto VC: Venrock & CoinFund”) and again in 2022 (“A crypto VC on why the space is ripe for insider rounds”) — both articles focus on Pakman’s perspective and investment approach in crypto.
These are well-known, independent business publications that provide significant coverage of Pakman himself, not just passing mentions. The subject is clearly notable in the venture and crypto sectors, and the article can be improved with more citations and formatting, but it doesn’t merit deletion. ~~~~ CLPRjjrko (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your input here. I noticed that your account was only recently created and is exclusively populated by edits to the article in question here. If you have a COI, I strongly urge you to disclose it at this time. If you are an employee of Cryptoland PR or a member of their management team, please let us know about any paid interest you may have in keeping this article in the Wikipedia mainspace. Volcom95 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep I believe he is notable for his role in founding apple music and he is cited as such. He also has coverage about his career in notable publications, WSJ, CBS News, and other coverage as subject matter expert. I added a number of sources and cut the puffery/PR after the comment on the talk page. Jumplike23 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and the person is notable enough that more sources than what are on the page almost certainly exist. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep does not appear to be the usual promo in this space and also meets WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep He is widely known for starting Apple music which meets WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Futurex

Futurex (edit | talk | history | 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 see nothing but press releases: not a notable outfit by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. jolielover♥talk 17:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only SIGCOV I could find was about a different company in Scotland with an almost identical name (FutureX).4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    I believe there is SIGCOV of this company, specifically with some of their partnerships with AWS (article here ) and Verifone (article here), and some coverage of their contributions to preparing for PQC as covered by CIO Inc..
    The page just needs to go under copy revamp, adding more than just their personal press releases, such as the links I added here. Fxsbenne (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Not seeing any sourcing in that group that would pass WP:ORGCRIT. AWS is a paid platform and lacks independence. The Security Info Watch piece on Verifone is based entirely on a press release and interview without any independent analysis or critique. The first CIO source is better but not sufficiently in-depth to indicate notability. The second CIO link is a generic webpage. 4meter4 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Also just for the record I am a a newbie to wiki editing! I do work for Futurex, and wanted to make some changes to bolster the page to make it compliant with the notability standards and to improve/update the information. Fxsbenne (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I went through and updated the whole page, adding new sections such as their awards received and contributions to cryptography with CryptoHub and VirtuCrypt, as well as participation in reputable tech conferences RSAC and GITEX. I also added more pages their partners have created referencing Futurex's involvement with them. Fxsbenne (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apologies for being a newbie to this process, first AfD contribution. This page has been updated by the company to include 35+ SIGCOV links from external sources. I work for the company and would very much appreciate, and like to keep this improved version as Wikipedia is commonly searched by our customers and cited by search engines and Ai tools when people are searching for our company. We have significantly revised the content to be current, tried to avoid any over-promotional language, and cited capabilities, rankings, reviews, and awards from 3rd party articles and independent analysts. Please let us know if there are any corrections or revisions needed in order to be able to keep the page. MKrutikov (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete Primarily relies on and unreliable sources and lacks significant coverage from independent publications. The awards mentioned appear to be non-notable or promotional awards. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete the sources added by @Fxsbenne are short mentions, press releases, press-driven coverage, links to standards, duplicates or near-duplicates, etc. This appears to be reference bombing with cites that don't count towards notability. If there is sufficient doubt to relist then I would encourage FXsbenne to give their WP:THREE top three cites that meet SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mubaarak

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

It may be a linguistic issue, but I couldn't find any sources to confirm the information in this article, to prove that it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG, or that it exists. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Somalia. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I searched in Arabic and could not verify this place even exists. May be a WP:HOAX.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @4meter4 and Boleyn: it's not a hoax, it exists and you can find it on Google Maps. Shebelle River crosses through it. Some shops in the town include Raandhis Electronic Burco and Daanyeere ELECTRONIC AND SHOPPING CENTER. The coordinates are 1.9180511601357741, 44.773278632152376. jolielover♥talk 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • It does seem to exist, showing up on OSM and on Google Maps, it looks like it might be populated in the low hundreds. If nothing verifiable can be found then I'd suggest a redirect per WP:SETTLETHRESH but it does meet WP:NPLACE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately due to Somalia having such poor coverage (no census since 1991), it appears difficult to find information on this locality. It's in this district map from June 2005, close to the right corner of the green region. The small black dot denotes "settlement", according to the legend. It's also in this map (page 17), with the label Mubaarak (B29-006). The map comes from UNDP Somalia.
I also found this report about a drone strike that took place in a town called Mubarak in the Lower Shabelle region, which is where this settlement is located.
There is very specific information in the article, but I'm not sure if it can be sourced right now. I think we should keep this article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Source. There's a 10 page piece titled Organisation of the irrigated agricultural economy amongst the small farmers of Mubaarak/Lower Shabelle region starting at page 153 in the 1986 book Somalia, Agriculture in the Winds of Change. It states Mubaarak settlement was founded in the year 1818 and places it on the lower course of the Shabelle River, at 1°55'N, 44°46'E and that the Mubaarak settlement scheme has 4120 inhabitants. The book is downloadable in pdf format. Rupples (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Okay thats a clear keep then. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Katzrockso and the source they found. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • keep Sourcing for Somalia is terrible and frankly I'm suspicious of maps until they are ratified against aerial photography, but in this case there is a large town at the coordinates given and the other documentation cinches the case. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Hernandez (entrepreneur)

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

Running a mayoral campaign in the 2025 New York City mayoral election. Fails WP:NPOL, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES, not notable since coverage is mostly from mayoral campaign.

Looking outside the campaign, sources are from press releases, or sources that do not appear to be reliable, such as MoneyInc or Renaissance Capital. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh some of these sources appear to be hallucinated. Maybe speedy Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete, Obviously fails WP:GNG. Not to mention it being entirely based on WP:PRIMARY sources. Per nom. HamadInternal (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep per other reasons given previously PLMandarynka (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep – The article has been substantially improved and now meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG standards. Independent, verifiable coverage exists from multiple reliable secondary sources, including Spectrum News NY1, the New York Post, Fox News, Fox 5 New York, and NewsNation, all of which discuss Hernandez’s background, policy platform, and independent campaign in the 2025 New York City mayoral election. These are independent media outlets providing significant coverage beyond trivial mentions.

Beyond campaign reporting, the subject is independently notable for his biotechnology and investment career. Reliable business and regulatory sources such as Reuters, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Nasdaq verify his founding and leadership of multiple public companies, including Blue Water Vaccines (NASDAQ: BWV) and Blue Water Acquisition Corp. III (NASDAQ: BLUWU). These filings and industry analyses demonstrate lasting notability as a corporate founder and public-company executive under WP:CORPDEPTH.

All prior press releases have been replaced with primary filings or mainstream coverage to ensure compliance with WP:RS and WP:V. Each source cited is publicly accessible and verifiable; no hallucinated or AI-generated citations are present. The article now contains over a dozen reliable references across both business and political contexts and is consistent with how comparable entrepreneur–politicians are treated.

Given significant independent coverage in national and local outlets, documented leadership of publicly traded companies, and sustained relevance as a New York City mayoral candidate, the subject clearly meets inclusion criteria for both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. — Brennantgorman (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of these were just replaced with official documents it seems, which really are not much better Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Not to mention that vote's intro and body has every LLM tell in the book (on top of that, the Post, Fox News and WNYW are all under the same ownership, and we'd generally be more for WPIX being sourced here than their sister national news channel, NewsNation). Nathannah • 📮 22:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Keep – Respectfully disagree with the above assessments. The current version of the article now relies on independent, secondary, and regulatory sources that go far beyond routine campaign coverage. The subject has received sustained coverage in independent national and local outlets, including New York Post, Spectrum News NY1, Fox News, and NewsNation, which profile his background, policy positions, and political platform in depth. This coverage extends beyond simple election announcements and constitutes significant, non-trivial attention per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

In addition to political coverage, Hernandez meets WP:CORPDEPTH through his business career. Reuters and official SEC filings confirm his founding and leadership of multiple publicly traded biotechnology companies (Blue Water Vaccines, NASDAQ: BWV; Blue Water Acquisition Corp. III, NASDAQ: BLUWU), which establishes independent notability outside of politics. These records are authoritative, verifiable, and directly from government and exchange filings, not promotional releases.

The use of SEC and Nasdaq filings is standard for verifying executive roles and IPOs on Wikipedia (see comparable corporate biography precedent under WP:PRIMARY usage). They are not promotional but factual confirmations of public-company leadership. These filings supplement—not replace—independent coverage and demonstrate real-world significance in two distinct fields (biotechnology and politics).

Given his dual notability as a public-company founder and independent mayoral candidate with extensive mainstream media coverage, the article now satisfies inclusion under WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:CORP. Deletion would contradict current inclusion standards for figures with verifiable corporate and civic impact. — Brennantgorman (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is once again a vote created by WP:LLM, clearly, and that the company he's associated with has a stock ticker symbol is completely unimportant here. Please use only your own words. Nathannah • 📮 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, my comment was written in my own words and reflects specific improvements I personally made to the article’s sourcing and structure. I am the contributor who replaced press releases with independently verifiable sources such as SEC filings, Nasdaq listings, and national media coverage.
To clarify, the purpose of referencing the stock ticker symbols (BWV and BLUWU) is to establish that the subject has verifiable, regulated corporate activity documented through reliable, third-party databases, which is relevant under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. These are standard references for confirming public-company leadership and are consistent with sourcing used across other corporate and biographical entries.
My intent here is only to ensure the article adheres to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV rather than to advocate. — Brennantgorman (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Brennantgorman: You are only allowed to vote once. I struck your second vote. Also please avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the process. You do not need to repeat yourself or comment after everyone who disagrees with you. Doing so won't win over the editors here. It will likely have the opposite effect and prejudice future participants in this discussion against your POV. We have a culture here at AFD, and this type of engagement raises red flags. Additionally, we are not stupid. We can tell when an editor has used an LLM because of sentence structure, language, tone, style, and obvious mistakes that are common to LLMs. Not to mention the citing of notability policies that don't even apply to biographies. If you had read WP:CORPDEPTH for example, you would know that policy page is specific to companies and does not apply to pages about people. It therefore has zero relevance to this discussion which is only concerned with notability policies for biography pages.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, 4meter4. Understood regarding the single-vote rule. I appreciate you striking the duplicate. I’ll refrain from multiple follow-up comments moving forward and will let the discussion proceed normally. To clarify, my intention was not to bludgeon or overwhelm the process, only to respond to specific questions raised about sourcing and notability. I take your feedback in good faith. As for the references to WP:CORPDEPTH, that was an honest misunderstanding. My intent was to point out the subject’s corporate leadership as part of establishing lasting significance, not to cite an inapplicable policy. I’ll be more precise in future AfDs. Thanks again for the reminder about best practices here. Brennantgorman (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - This page was created on 2025-10-13 explicitly for his mayoral campaign. Click on his campaign website in the navbox and it takes you directly to his soliciting for monetary donations. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Campaign website has been since removed from infobox. Brennantgorman (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The article is overly reliant on primary sources (campaign website/press releases), on sources that do not have significant vetting (alumni association puff piece), and various documents from regulators that are not about the subject of the article. At least one citation is a press release cited as a Yahoo Finance article which hides it from reviewers who don't have time to click 21 articles. The article mentions all of the times he has appeared in brief TV interviews which is trivial and an attempt to mask a lack of notability by throwing in information to lengthen the article. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are no sources to meet WP:GNG. WP:FOXNEWS and WP:DAILYCALLER are not considered reliable sources. This is a fringe candidate with no mainstream coverage. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Appears to obviously fail WP:GNG. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 16:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Jake Bond

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

I could not find WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to establish WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Raskuly (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Dave Boncek

Dave Boncek (edit | talk | history | 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 does not appear to be independent WP:SIGCOV about Boncek to establish WP:GNG. The closest I found was this, and other mentions of Boncek that I found appear routine and mostly about the 1985 MISL draft. Raskuly (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Mag2k. Raskuly (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep: The sources provided by WikiOriginal9 demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of the subject over a lengthy period of time, as such passing the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources provided by WikiOriginal-9 are easily enough. As an aside, the nominator has now voted keep which seems odd. Why not just withdraw the nomination? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Kraig Bonanken

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

Bonanken does not appear to have been active in the sport since the end of 2023 and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV to suggest that he meets WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Tmy News (online newspaper)

Tmy News (online newspaper) (edit | talk | history | 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 used cannot be used to establish any substance of WP:GNG. They're mostly not independent, or do not provide significant coverage. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash1890 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ken Dumbo

AfDs for this article:
Ken Dumbo (edit | talk | history | 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 fails the WP:GNG and the specific guideline for WP:BIO from what is see here. The subject is a Zambian comedian and radio presenter with only routine coverage in minor or entertainment-oriented outlets such as 247 Malawi News, Malawi24, and Zedscoop which are not reliable. The article consists largely of promotional material and an unsourced biography section, which i belive violates the WP:BLP. There is no evidence of national or international recognition beyond routine mentions or award announcements cause the current sourcing I think fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. In addition, this article was previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dumbo in September 2021, where consensus found the subject failed notability and sourcing standards. The present recreation repeats the same deficiencies and adds no new significant, independent, or reliable coverage. — Icem4k (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Linguolabial ejective stop

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

Completely non-notable. Only cites one source, which is an unreliable PhD thesis (see WP:THESIS) and if that source is disregarded, no reliable source supports its existence in disordered speech. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete, we categorically do not have individual pages for sounds that are only found in disordered speech; pages for sounds described in extIPA only exist if they are also attested in typical spoken language. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 and @Oklopfer can we just revert the move by that editor and draft it. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It's literally never going to be notable; I see no point in reverting the move (and reverting the move requires a page mover/admin also). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Please. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Oklopfer @PharyngealImplosive7
Also, I can probably easily revert it right now. Not saying I will right now though, but please. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
You are correct that we can move it back as there are no conflicts, but given that this deletion request has already been opened, it is better to default to the process than to override it. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete (or very weak redirect). The sound does not occur in any language (according to the article). Wikipedia does not host every single possible sound, only those which actually occur in languages.
Perhaps a case could be made to redirect to some relevant article, but I do not think that is viable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@BodhiHarp: The article will never meet notability guidelines, unless some language is actually found to have the sound, so putting in draftspace would still be useless. Wikipedia draftspace is not a place to indefinetely host content, and drafts must have a chance at actually becoming an article and meeting the corresponding guidelines. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Note to admin who closes this discussion: Please move this to a subpage of my user page. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Absolutely incoherent text. 15:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Mag2k (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Nope, it does not meet WP:G1. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm surprised nobody has actually mentioned yet the term "Linguolabial ejective" or "Linguolabial ejective stop" is never actually used in Mekonnen's thesis. I can't find any sources that use the phrase "Linguolabial ejective" in that word order. I am just going to outright say, this is a WP:HOAX.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    [pʼ] is called a bilabial ejective (stop). - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
That is a different if related topic. We don't create articles on a term nobody has written about directly and in detail. The one source used never uses the term "Linguolabial ejective" so it fails to verify the content in this article. The citations are false.4meter4 (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I also oppose a merge. The one source used doesn't even have the term "Linguolabial ejective" anywhere in it. The citations are false. We shouldn't be merging unverifiable content.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 23:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Christmas in Vienna (film)

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

Article is cited to only to a database by the Croatian Film Association; an amateur group. The website is of uncertain reliability. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'm not sure that would have made a difference in my decision as I have never heard of this particular award. Not every award is significant. I'm not sure that a regional film festival award (Pula Film Festival) is all that notable (although it might be). 4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. The Pula FF is a national and international film festival that exists for more than 70 years....Its awards represent the highest recognition for Yugoslav and then Croatian films and some of the most significant in Eastern Europe. See The BFI Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema, p. 73. e.ux 14:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eva UX, and improvements made to the article. Dege31 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Eva UX has improved the article sufficiently to demonstrate a WP:GNG pass.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eva UX. Mag2k (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

List of semiconductor industry occupations

List of semiconductor industry occupations (edit | talk | history | 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 clear why we would start lists of occupations per industry, or why we wouldn't then list the 274 (!) occupations from the one source. Most of these occupations would be found in many other manufacturing environments, there doesn't seem to be value in repeating nearly similar lists of jobs across many such pages. Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete pernom, not clear why this list is needed. Mag2k (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and do the same with List of petroleum industry occupations. I suppose semiconductor industry or Semiconductor device fabrication could mention some occupations but there's no reason for a standalone article, particularly one that's merely bullet points with no context and so poorly sourced. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Helping people find opertunity and work is one of the most noble goals of education, and I view Wikipedia as an education source. Wikideas1 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete this list as navigationally unnecessary, and otherwise uninformative. But don't set a precedent and apply this willy-nilly to other lists. For example, List of film and television occupations is heading in the right direction, potentially filling a genuine need (not everyone knows the difference between the producer and director), and aligning with plenty of possible sources describing roles in film as a set. For me, the dividing line of usefulness is when the list of roles starts to be more specific to the industry. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, List of film and television occupations could (perhaps should?) be retitled Glossary of film and television occupations, as it explains sector-specific roles. Fram (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah maybe it would be better to make a Category:Semiconductor occupations and just link the main ones to that. Wikideas1 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Scott Ellis Watson

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

While it is verifiable that this young actor played the part of the young John Davidson (activist) in the 2025 film I Swear (film), it would appear to me that an article about Watson fails any number of tests for notability including but not limited to WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and so on. I note that this BBC News article about the premiere of I Swear includes the text "... with the cast of I Swear - Shirley Henderson, Robert Aramayo, Maxine Peake, Peter Mullan and Scott Ellis Watson"... that's for the BBC to sort out, not Wikipedia. As always, please prove me wrong about this. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete - This actor has had one role as noted by his own representing agency. No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Peter,
    Thanks for your note and for raising those points about notability. I’ve added a few additional references and context that may help clarify the situation.
    Scott Ellis Watson has been longlisted for a 2025 BIFA Award in the Breakthrough Performance category (BIFA site), which suggests some independent industry recognition.
    In addition, I Swear, directed by Kirk Jones, has been acquired by Sony Pictures Classics for the U.S. and several international territories. The film premiered at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival, where it received positive reviews and currently holds a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Following a successful UK release, it is set for release in the U.S. and Australia early next year (Flicks.com.au listing).
    Given the film’s growing profile and Watson’s recognition via the BIFA longlist, there may be a developing case for notability under WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO, particularly if more significant, independent secondary coverage appears around the international releases. I’ll continue to monitor for additional reliable sources as they become available.
    Thanks again for taking the time to review and discuss — much appreciated. Dumgoyne (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON Mag2k (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi, appreciate your input. I agree it may still be somewhat early in terms of long-term notability, but given that I Swear has been acquired by Sony Pictures Classics for international distribution following its Toronto International Film Festival premiere, and that Scott Ellis Watson has already been longlisted for a 2025 BIFA Breakthrough Performance Award, there’s a reasonable possibility of further significant coverage emerging as the film rolls out internationally.
    I’d suggest keeping the article under review for now or considering a redirect/merge to I Swear (film) rather than outright deletion, pending the availability of more secondary sources once the U.S. and other territories releases take place. Dumgoyne (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

ICOM Tele A/S

ICOM Tele A/S (edit | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Denmark. toweli (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete pernom, I also did not find any references. Maybe there are some in Danish, I will be happy to change my mind. Mag2k (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Morekar (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawing nom. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Novodmytrivka

Novodmytrivka (edit | talk | history | 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 has no sources whatsoever. Speedy delete. 11WB (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Edward Leeke

Edward Leeke (edit | talk | history | 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 relies entirely on one source that doesn't even mention them. One of the rare times I will opt for a much needed speedy delete. 11WB (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Self mentoring

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

Inappropriate tone, reads like a personal essay, orphan, topic seems reasonable as an article, but the article currently inappropriate for Wikipedia —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Lal Mohan Hansda

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

Only 3 professional appearances. The present sources are matches reports or football databases. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Mohamed Amroune (born 1989)

Mohamed Amroune (born 1989) (edit | talk | history | 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 didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about him. Even on fr.wiki are only databases sources. Svartner (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Striking out disruptive vote - Mag2k left several "Delete pernom" (sic) in mere minutes. Geschichte (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of significant news coverage. Shinadamina (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Morekar (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

M31 Movement

M31 Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not even sure what this page is about. It uses {{Infobox military conflict}} but seems to be more about a person? A search for "M31 Movement" on google gave me nothing but watch parts. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • delete Doesn't appear to be any RS coverage. Intothatdarkness 13:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Bora Uchi

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

Does not meet GNG and SNG WP:NFO Uncle Bash007 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hartke Systems

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

Manufacturer of amplifiers. Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Page is promotional, undersourced (sourced to the company's own distributor, in fact) and BEFORE shows little else out there. The people who use the amp do not confer notability upon its manufacturer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nominator. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It sounds promotional and mostly uses primary or self-published sources. No independent or reliable coverage found to show notability. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

John Rex Omolleh

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL: a county councillor for whom I could only find routine coverage and passing mentions in a search. Single-purpose article creator has been submitting AI slop about this man since July, and there's still a version in draft, so off to AFD it goes. This attempt was created in main space as Rex omolleh for some reason. No response yet to queries about paid editing at article creator's user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete - I second everything stated in the nomination. Appears that the article's creator has a COI - possibly they know this person or they're being paid for it. Aesurias (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Subject LACKS significant independent coverage I did research but got none some has 404 errors (Existing sources are tangential and do not provide in-depth reporting on his career or achievements) so its fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 05:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • delete: pernom and previous comments. Mag2k (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Striking out disruptive vote - Mag2k left several "Delete pernom" (sic) in mere minutes. Geschichte (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ma belle, la série

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

Lacks all notability, no reliable sources about this very short youtube series (3 episodes of 3 minutes each). Fram (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, few mentions in credible outlets are incidental and focus primarily on the creators rather than to the series. Has only three YouTube episodes and NO substantial media reception. Also the subject LACKS the independent significance required for inclusion. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pernom. Mag2k (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Striking out disruptive vote - Mag2k left several "Delete pernom" (sic) in mere minutes. Geschichte (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: No substantial coverage. The references in the article don't even mention the series. I was not able to find any reference to the subject online, outside of database entries. -- Reconrabbit 19:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Consensus has emerged + absence of valid deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) Geschichte (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Robypolarbear


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

Main claim to fame seems to be their youtube channel, but no channel is linked to from the article. WP:TNT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Significant independent coverages clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Robypolarbear is a nationally recognized YouTuber and author with books from a major publisher (Fabbri/Rizzoli). So notability is well established just some need routine cleanup needed. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 05:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Their YouTube channel has been linked in infobox ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 05:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meeting WP:GNG and independent coverage. Like Thilio said, its more like the article needs work done than it failing guidelines. x2step (lets talk 💌) 06:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • keep There are enough notable sources, including Vanity Fair Italia and others. Mag2k (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Benümb / Pig Destroyer

Benümb / Pig Destroyer (edit | talk | history | 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; no notability aside from one Exclaim! article about the album. No obvious WP:ATD since it's a collaboration between two bands. UnregisteredBiohazard talk to me 03:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment Maybe Pig Destroyer discography since that band has a majority of the album, is the one that has a chronology box and a discography page that includes this album? Katzrockso (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: A redirect would be unhelpful to readers in this situation per WP:XY:

    Redirects…that could equally point to multiple targets are commonly deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for. In these cases, search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision.

    Left guide (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Striking "delete" !vote in light of sources presented below. I can't vouch for their reliability, but want to allow others a chance to review, and don't want to stand in the way of consensus. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • weak keep per WP:SPINOFF, as there is nowhere to put the information without duplicating it, with this article serving as a good reference to the album from the other bands on the split itself. I would generally say this should be merged however there is nowhere for this to go. Debatably weakly notable per the non exhaustive small list of sources i found, unless I'm missing something. With any inherited notability from the two bands, I'd say it's good enough for mainspace, with work. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM or redirect to Pig Destroyer discography. We shouldn't keep something just because it's hard to choose a redirect target. The sources aren't there to justify a stand alone page.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources boil down to CMJ magazine, really, and that's not as in depth as you'll need. No evidence of a chart position, no sigcov so delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Li Haiying

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

Paid for spam for non notable person. Lacks coverage to independent reliable sources. Current sources are not good enough. 1, Interview, lacks independence. 2, "Platform statement: The views expressed in this article only represent the author himself. Sohu.com is an information publishing platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services." 3, "Notice: The content above (including the pictures and videos if any) is uploaded and posted by a user of NetEase Hao, which is a social media platform and only provides information storage services." A search found nothing better. (What is she even meant to be notable for?) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

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

    Sources

    1. "《瓦舍之素舞遥》播出过半 优质国风中剧传递宋韵文化" ["Women Wrestling" Reaches Midpoint of Broadcast: High-Quality Chinese Costume Drama Showcases Song Dynasty Culture]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2022-05-05. Retrieved 2025-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

      The article notes: "李海鹰在2010年创立天海传媒之后，专注营销行业十数年，在剧综营销、品牌营销领域，斩获无数，成为了《赘婿》、《都挺好》、《隐秘的角落》、《我的前半生》、《白鹿原》、《那年花开月正圆》、《芈月传》《创造营2021》、《心动的信号》、《令人心动的offer》等近年诸多爆款剧综的“幕后推手”。即使在娱乐营销领域诸多光环加身，李海鹰始终保持要不断突破自己的心。两年多时间里不断尝试短视频和微短剧制作，2021年又开始尝试中剧制作，《瓦舍之素舞遥》正是她在中剧赛道上向市场递交的第一份答卷，第一季上线之际，《瓦舍》系列第二季也在开发中，..."

      From Google Translate: "After founding Tianhai Media in 2010, Li Haiying has dedicated over a decade to the marketing industry, achieving numerous successes in drama and variety show marketing and brand marketing. She has been the driving force behind many recent hits, including "The Son-in-Law," "All Is Well," "The Hidden Corner," "The First Half of My Life," "White Deer Plain," "Nothing Gold Can Stay," "The Legend of Miyue," "Creation Camp 2021," "Signal of Love," and "A Heart-Stirring Offer." Despite garnering numerous accolades in the entertainment marketing field, Li Haiying remains committed to continuously pushing boundaries. For over two years, she has been experimenting with short videos and micro-dramas, and in 2021, she began working on Chinese dramas. "Washing House: The Dance of the Plains" is her first attempt at Chinese drama production. With the release of the first season, the second season of the "Washing House" series is also in development. ..."

    2. Zhang, Jiatong 张佳桐 (2024-08-30). "李海鹰：天海传媒的领军人物" [Li Haiying: The Driving Force Behind Tianhai Media]. 企业家日报 [Entrepeneur Daily] (in Chinese). Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences [zh]. OCLC 947818258. Archived from the original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved 2025-10-17.

      The article notes: "她有着近20年传媒营销领域的丰富工作经验，是行业中的佼佼者；她一路过关斩将，从众多精英人才中脱颖而出，一举拿下了“改变中国娱乐营销历史的特别贡献人物大奖”“成长力品牌人物” “年度影响力领军人物”等多项荣誉；她顺应时代趋势，紧跟市场发展动态，带领公司成为中国娱乐传媒领域的知名运营商，她就是北京天海传承文化传媒有限公司（简称“天海传媒”）董事长——李海鹰。... 李海鹰对于传媒营销的理解，渗透在企业核心业务的方方面面，例如在影视运营方面，李海鹰带领团队与正午阳光、柠萌影业、腾讯视频等国内顶尖片方及播放平台的深度合作，打造出多部口碑与收视率双丰收的爆款影视综艺剧集，如《隐秘的角落》《十日游戏》《繁花》《知否知否应是绿肥红瘦》《都挺好》《长安十二时辰》，《演员请就位》，为内容娱乐运营行业的创新发展树立了新的标杆。"

      From Google Translate: "With nearly 20 years of extensive experience in media marketing, she is a leader in the industry. She has consistently distinguished herself from a field of elite talent, winning numerous honors, including the "Special Contribution Award for Changing the History of Chinese Entertainment Marketing," "Growth Brand Figure," and "Influential Leader of the Year." She adapts to current trends and closely monitors market developments, leading her company to become a renowned operator in China's entertainment media sector. She is Li Haiying, Chairman of Beijing Tianhai Chuancheng Culture Media Co., Ltd. ("Tianhai Media"). ... Li Haiying's understanding of media marketing permeates every aspect of the company's core business. For example, in the field of film and television operations, Li Haiying led his team to deepen cooperation with top domestic film producers and broadcasting platforms such as Noon Sunshine, Lemon Studios, and Tencent Video, creating many popular film and television variety shows with both good reputation and high ratings, such as "The Hidden Corner", "Ten Day Game", "Flower", "The Story of Minglan", "All Is Well", "The Longest Day in Chang'an", and "Actors Please Take Your Place", setting a new benchmark for the innovative development of the content and entertainment operations industry."

    3. "台偶剧的成功回归，告诉我们营销和婚姻一样" [The Comeback of Taiwanese Idol Dramas Reminds Us: Marketing Is a Lot Like Marriage]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). 2018-09-14. Archived from the original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved 2025-10-17.

      The article notes: "在新媒体端也是表现不俗，微博话题累积量达7.7亿，剧中不少关于婚恋的现实话题被大众热议。而这些话题的选择和提炼则来源于该剧背后的营销人——伯乐天海创始人兼CEO李海鹰。 ... 不仅是台偶剧《动物系恋人啊》，品质大剧《白鹿原》、古装大剧《芈月传》《那年花开月正圆》、话题大剧《我的前半生》《北京女子图鉴》等各类型国剧在营销层面的成功，也印证了李海鹰和她的团队伯乐天海正在通过紧锣密鼓的成长来提升业务水平，用行动来证明营销人四大能力的重要性，也注定将在营销这条道路上携手走的更远。"

      From Google Translate: "The series also performed well on new media platforms, with a cumulative Weibo reach of 770 million. Many of the show's realistic themes about love and marriage sparked heated public discussion. The selection and refinement of these topics were the work of the show's marketing mastermind, Li Haiying, founder and CEO of Bole Tianhai. ... The success of not only the Taiwanese idol drama "Animal Lovers", but also the quality drama "White Deer Plain", the costume drama "The Legend of Miyue" and "Nothing Gold Can Stay", the topical drama "The First Half of My Life" and "Beijing Women's Guide" and other types of Chinese dramas in terms of marketing, also proves that Li Haiying and her team Bole Tianhai are improving their business level through intensive growth, using actions to prove the importance of the four major abilities of marketers, and are destined to go further together on the road of marketing."

    4. Wei, Xinyue 魏昕悦 (2018-06-08). "看得见的女子图鉴，看不见的推手江湖" [A Visible Catalogue of Women, an Invisible Arena of Power Players]. Jiemian News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved 2025-10-17.

      The article notes: "在电视剧营销行业，由于甲方强势地位，临时替换乙方、尾款延期的纠纷屡见不鲜。李海鹰也正因为某一个甲方拖延应付款，不得用法律手段维护利益。她告诉小饭桌记者，在签订一个电视剧营销项目合同时，作为乙方的营销公司会根据甲方的营销需求，作出一份报价明细，并对这份报价进行细致沟通，双方无异议时，才会签订合作合同。"

      From Google Translate: "In the TV drama marketing industry, disputes involving the temporary replacement of the second party and delayed final payments are common due to the dominant position of the first party. Li Haiying, for example, was unable to pursue legal action to protect her rights because of a delay in payment by the first party. She told the Xiaofanzhuo reporter that when signing a TV drama marketing contract, the second party's marketing company will prepare a detailed quotation based on the first party's marketing needs and carefully discuss the quotation. Only when both parties agree on the agreement will the contract be signed."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

    These are not at all compelling to me, if anything they read like puff pieces much like the article itself. Aesurias (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom Aesurias (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Keep per Sources found and analysed by Cunard which prove notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment from the Google translations the sources found by Cunard all look like paid pieces or industry churnalism, so I remain unconvinced about the subject’s notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
      • I agree, hard to really tell from translations though. "are improving their business level through intensive growth, using actions to prove the importance of the four major abilities of marketers, and are destined to go further together on the road of marketing." LLM? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
        • I consider Beijing Youth Daily, the Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences [zh] publication Entrepeneur Daily, Guangming Daily, and Jiemian News to be reputable newspapers. The articles are very positive but I see no indication that these newspapers would publish undisclosed paid pieces.

          ChatGPT, which "accelerated the pace of AI boom", was released on 30 November 2022. I think that quote is a low-quality machine translation of the 2018 Guangming Daily article from Google Translate rather than LLM text since 2018 predates the widespread use of LLMs. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

          • Good point on the date, not likely to be LLM. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete I can't find any sources in English that would be good secondary sources to bolster the credibilitry of this page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
      • What does English have to do with anything? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
    Agnieszka653, there is no requirement here that sources need to be in English or any other language. It makes it easier for editors to review them if they are in English but it's not a deciding factor in whether or not an article is well-sourced. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was speedy delete via G5. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Bash Luks

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

    Latest bit of hoaxy spam for this individual. Claims he "won the Best Rising Star award in 2024 at the Ugandan Academy of Film and Television Arts (UAFTA) Awards." But they don't appear to exist. Outside of the two articles used as references there is no mentions of them and the "Bash Luks crowned ..." article reads like pure fawning PR. And look at that badly photoshopped image of him with the award. and the award itself is taken from an AI image generator. (Did they forget to make up a best film winner? Christmas Together won a lot, just like at the Uganda Film Festival , no UAFTA listed there.) Best Actor Same with the Music and Film Stars Awards. This page has lots of supposedly new articles. "Singer Bash Luks talks passion, purpose, and possibility", 28 June 2025 by Esther Nantambi. That seems familiar to me. Oh yes, by the renowned Michael Wandati (See RSN and last afd), 2 October 2023. Just republishing fake articles with new dates to make them look new. The Red Pepper article that is from 2 June 2025? "News" from years before, Lot Fire Records established in 2020 . "Bash Luks is Set to Take the Ugandan Music Scene by Storm" says "In the year 2025, the talented Ugandan artist and activist Bash Luks kicks off with his debut track “Masannyalaze,” setting the stage for his promising career in the music industry." Except that was supposedly released in 2024, . And that was his latest, not debut. "Artist Bash Luks Survives Near-Fatal Accident with Severe Injuries" . Oh My, look at those horrid injuries. This is one big hoax astroturfing non reliable sites with fake articles full of over the top praise. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Edited after below comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

    List of largest towns in Sweden 1903

    List of largest towns in Sweden 1903 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NLIST. No indication of importance. A list for the largest towns (already arbitrary) in the year 1903 is not encyclopedic. jolielover♥talk 04:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    • Delete I tend to agree, this does seem a bit more like trivia than relevant information. Maybe post the information within each town's wikipage as a citation if its truly necessary to somebody. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. What's so special about 1903? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete. I was going to nominate it as soon as I saw the article title appear in Newpages. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete This is an incredibly sloppy page with zero sources to demonstrate notability. I am shocked this page has survived this long. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
      Not to be pedantic but it was created 2 days ago so not very long lol. I didn't nom for SD since I didn't believe it met the criteria. jolielover♥talk 18:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
      I swear this place is getting filled with LLM garbage just to create articles for whatever reason people want to create junka rticles. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete Oddly specific. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete - Fails WP:NLIST. Havent seen a similar list until now. Orientls (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was redirect to 2023 Huwara shooting. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

    April 2023 Nablus incursion

    April 2023 Nablus incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is WP:REDUNDANT content of 2023 Huwara shooting, where this incursion is already covered as a related event of the shooting. RS entirely cover the incursion as an arrest operation in direct response to the shoorting. Redirect to the shooting page. Longhornsg (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      Redirect to 2023 Huwara shooting User:Easternsaharaplease review this and this 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete Not notable per nom. There are a large number of PIA articles like this that are created every time any little incident happens, which could be mentioned in any number of other articles. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) jolielover♥talk 04:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Operation Begonia

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

    Not notable, and poorly sourced (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Newton recently deleted for similar reasons). The only mentions I can find are in passing, plus things like (indiscriminate lists of every WWII mission) which isn't enough to establish that this was a notable event. Renerpho (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Withdrawn by nominator Renerpho (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    I am also nominating the following related pages for essentially the same reason:
    Operation Bristle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Cold Comfort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Canuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Defoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Foxrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Keystone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Noah (commando raid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Operation Roundabout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Procedural keep all. I am finding sources on many of these that demonstrate WP:GNG, but not all. It is going to be a nightmare having a centralized discussion in a bundled nomination since these are all separate events that deserve there own separate consideration. They are not the same event and are only loosely connected as they are all Special Air Service operations. The nominator should withdraw and nominate each article separately so we can do this in a procedurally responsible way.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      I'm doing so, if that's easier. There are sources, yes, but I don't think they demonstrate notability. Anyway, I'll nominate again tomorrow (separately). Renerpho (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Italy, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was merge to Typhoon Rai. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

    Meteorological history of Typhoon Rai

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

    This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Typhoon Rai. The Meteorological history section at Typhoon Rai#Meteorological history already comprehensively covers this topic (in fact it is almost the same size if one removes the lead section from the spun out article). Some of the other facts in this article also are reported in other sections of the Typhoon Rai article. I'm not really seeing the benefit to having a separate page on this topic when much of the content is a repeat of the other page. The very little that isn't covered in the main article could be merged as an WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Oppose: The entire first paragraph of the Typhoon Rai met history section is composed of dead links, which does not confirm if the paragraph is actually true. The second paragraph is better discussed in the met history article. The third and fourth paragraphs are the same length as the met history article, and the additional analysis section adds relevant information that the met history section can't provide. Many parts of the met history section are unsourced. This category 5 storm, which lasted nine days and had a major rapid intensification deserves to merit its own met history article. If you are willing to hold this discussion, I can add more journal analysis sources, an ibtracs source, an interactive ibtracs source, and much more sources for the expansion of this article. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge: After another user commenting, I would want this to be merged since this can add more relevant information to the host article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Pointing out weaknesses in the content of the parent article, does not justify a WP:SPINOUT. The fact that you chose to create a new and redundant page rather than improve the existing one is the issue here. Editorially it makes more sense to keep this all within a single article. Your article improvements can be moved to the parent article where they should have been made in the first place. Hence why a merge is appropriate here. There isn't a valid reason to have a separate page. I also note that much of the material in the new article is built from WP:PRIMARY source weather data. I question whether the interpretation of that date isn't leading to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. This is an unneeded fork; while I respect the amount of time the author has put into the page, we can't host articles sourced nearly entirely to the Japan Meteorological Agency's daily weather reports. There's only been one author, so if the writer wishes to selectively merge a limited amount of content to the main article, or take their article offsite, they are welcome to, and we don't need to preserve page history. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge effectively an unneeded fork of Typhoon Rai.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorchapu (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge, agreed that this article is basically an unneeded fork of the main Rai article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge, as an unneeded fork. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge, this is an unneeded fork of the Typhoon Rai article as a WP:ATD. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Merge with Typhoon Rai: Unneeded fork Scoria (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

    The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no extant support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

    Pilot (Jericho)

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

    Fails GNG, only bit of coverage I found was this review in IGN. A possible ATD is List of Jericho episodes Olliefant (she/her) 00:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

    Would you mind linking to a few of these? I'd like to analyze them further. Most of the newspapers.com hits I got were just air date listings Olliefant (she/her) 05:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    @4meter4: I haven't tracked down the others, but would you please point to the ones which you'd say are the best? I'd be willing to withdraw my nomination if so Olliefant (she/her) 14:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Olliefant: This was only a sampling of papers. I would think the number of critical reviews alone show depth/notability. There is also wide critical reaction. It got skewered in the New York Daily News for example. Regardless, I would just start with the papers known for great film/TV criticism. Maureen Ryan's piece in the Chicago Tribune (which oddly didn't show up in searches, but is there in section 2 page 10 on September 20, 2006) and Matthew Gilbert's piece in The Boston Globe (Wed, Sep 20, 2006 ·Pages D1, D7) are good places to start. Different writers also have a different take on the episode. Both Tim Goodman in San Francisco Chronicle and Rob Salem in The Toronto Star for example position their pieces as a competition with Kidnapped whose pilot aired at the same time on a competitive network. Inevitably comparisons between the two shows became central to their reviews. There's a lot that could be written because the reviewers had different insights and POVs. Diane Werts for example in Newsday felt it unbelievable that nobody in a small Kansas town was praying or invoking the name of God when witnessing a nuclear attack. Even though much of the coverage is plot synopsis in that piece there is some real commentary and criticism happening in some of the paragraphs which is typical. Collectively you could probably find roughly 100 different reviews by different writers in newspapers.com The volume of coverage is clearly WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Withdraw I'd like to formally withdraw this nomination in light of the above sources identified by 4meter4. Olliefant (she/her) 16:22, 28 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.

    Related Articles

    Timelines

    Top Qs

    Fact Checks