Wikipedia

User:Sun Creator/AFD

< User:Sun Creator
(Redirected from User:SunCreator/AFD)


User:SunCreator User_Talk:SunCreator User:SunCreator/To_Do User:SunCreator/Info User:SunCreator/AFD User:SunCreator/ControlPanel User:SunCreator/More
User page Talk Page To Do List INFO AFD Control Panel More
Wikipedia guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Categorization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other
Search
Conduct policies
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also
Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories
Checkuser pages
Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold
Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through:
WP:RFCU/C/P
Common decisions
and arguments
Deletion (XfD)
Arbitration (Arbcom)
Proposals and policy
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL WP:NWP:CLSWP:LISTWP:RS

< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache

Winnie-the-Screwed

edit
Winnie-the-Screwed (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 seems to be no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this commercial after 2022. It got some coverage at first but does not seem to have had any lasting impact years later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Eskandar Shora

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. A redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Boxing may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Hussainiwala

edit
Battle of Hussainiwala (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)

An article about a battle at an Indian village in 1971, that is lacking any WP:SIGCOV in third-party, reliable, secondary sources, despite there being a plethora books focusing on the parent Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The article currently only cites the scarce works of the Pakistani junior commanders, who fought the battle at the time and wrote memoirs and articles in the Pakistani fora about it, and these are neither reliable nor suffice for establishing the noteworthiness of the subject for a standalone existence here. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Zeeshan Ali (musician)

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

non-notable musician - i'm actually fairly sure i've either participated or afd'd this myself in the past - this is entirely vanity spam and nonsense. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A Future for the Michel

edit
A Future for the Michel (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. Didn't find any significant coverage. No obvious WP:ATD-R target since it's a collaboration between two artists. Mika1h (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Blue MAGA

edit
Blue MAGA (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, my original concern being Not convinced on the notability of this phrase. I've never even heard of it until just now (and I follow politics at least somewhat closely) and overall seems to be a vandal magnet. Contested by Vanamonde93 with the rationale Coverage is marginal but clearly exists: whether this deserves a standalone article, or a merger, or outright deletion is better decided with more scrutiny. Therefore sending the page here for said additional scrutiny. My original concerns still remain, and given that the page is also appearing to be a magnet for disruption, I do not believe it merits its own page. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment Even if this article were merged into Democratic Party (like Vote blue no matter who is), I think it would be a vandalism magnet. Maybe it could go on the Presidency of Joe Biden page, since the concept is mostly about a Biden cult of personality and a fervor to defend his then-ongoing legacy? I think as a concept it could be fleshed out, but I could not find a wealth of sources using the term. I know Cenk Uyghur uses it a lot, but he is not reliable to say the least. Catboy69 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ways of Meaning

edit
Ways of Meaning (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 the WP notability criteria for albums. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

edit
AfDs for this article:
A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn (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 the WP guidelines for album notability Tiakat333 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Seems obviously notable, at least four reviews from reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC: Allmusic, Beats Per Minute, Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork Media. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Shahzeb Tejani

edit
Shahzeb Tejani (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. The draft is full of song release announcements yet there is nothing that has charted, no albums under major record labels, not touring, etc. For GNG, I find a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA such as this from Forbes India clearly marked as "branded content." CNMall41 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of API simulation tools

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

This list article contains entirely original research with an unclear or arbitrary inclusion criteria. The article has a long history of included external links to different software providers, with few sources that could be considered reliable. Long history of promotional and possible SEO jacking on this article. Unclear inclusion material makes it difficult to update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials by SPA accounts.

Declined Prod by single edit IP user. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    ----
    Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?
    Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I do not see the problems you document in this article. Could you explain where do you see these problems in the article? There is no original research as references are provided or can be made available. There is no advertising. This is not a directory but a comparison. And this is not a mirror or a repository of links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.203.95 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I proposed this because Wikipedia articles are not guides, or a repository of indiscriminate information collected by original research without reliable sources. This page is an example of both of these things. The collection of external links on this page, that are not independent of the subjects (see WP:NOTLINK), cannot be used to verify the claims made within. A main pillar of this encyclopedia is that articles must be verifiable and do not contain independent research.
There is a goal to edit the article to improvement, but because of the above, and the lack of clear inclusion criteria as to what tools make sense to have in this comparison, in my view it does not appear that it be edited to significance.
Nayyn (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I have updated the content. Now, there are no external links to any of the websites I added. I also have one question: I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well?
Additionally, I have updated the sections that I had added earlier. I look forward to your guidance and feedback. QAExplorer (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any problem in the content, I noticed that some other tools have links, including their pricing pages. I am a bit unclear why these were not mentioned—should we remove them as well? 182.48.237.44 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

All That Is Solid Melts into Air

edit
All That Is Solid Melts into Air (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)

Relies heavily on primary sources and is almost entirely a plot summary, WP:NOTPLOT. The remaining sources do not establish notability. Also, does not seem to meet WP:BKCRIT. Metallurgist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Stoewer V 5

edit
Stoewer V 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that I could not find anything online about. Could be redirected to Stoewer#Passenger car models. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yang Liu (immunologist)

edit
Yang Liu (immunologist) (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)

Page with a very large number of sources that fail verification, or are irrelevant. Of the five references on his career [1-5] only [2] is valid, the rest not. If I remove all the unverified material not much is left. I also cannot find enough via GS or Google to verify independently as his name is too common. As a failure of WP:V I think it needs a delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

edit
Tanzeem Ul Firdous (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)

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • 1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
  • 2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
  • 3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
  • 4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
  • 5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.
This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Marshall Berman bibliography

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

This article is almost entirely made up of primary sources, and what remains doesnt seem to establish notability. Fails WP:LISTN and no significant coverage of his works outside of him. It also seems to mislead that there are more articles based on the books than there are, by using the "iarchive" wikilink. Looks like only one All That Is Solid Melts into Air, which seems AFD worthy as well. I think at least some of this can be selectively merged into Marshall Berman. I would have proded, but past bibliography AFDs have been contested. Metallurgist (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sunny Kumar Singh

edit
Sunny Kumar Singh (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 appear to meet WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Sunny Kumar Singh is a senior IAS officer, currently serving as District Magistrate of New Delhi, a very important administrative post in India’s capital. He has also served as Delhi’s Excise Commissioner during a period of high public and political scrutiny. His receipt of the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration (2023) and the Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal (2022) further demonstrates national recognition of his work. Coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, and Times of India provides the required significant discussion required under the General Notability Guidelines. This combination of high-profile roles, national awards, and sufficient press coverage makes him clearly notable as a public official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennavo (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Which of those sources discusses Singh in any depth? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I checked the sources for the awards, and they weren't awarded to him personally but to the district of Changlang. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    While the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration is technically given in the name of a district, it is awarded at the same time to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, who is in charge of the administration. This is why the Government of India records it on the officer’s official record sheet, rather than just at the district level. The Arunachal Pradesh State Gold Medal works similarly, acknowledging both the district administration and the officer leading it. Therefore, the awards go to Mr. Singh as the head of the district administration. Multiple reliable sources have reported this information. I can provide government references and archived copies of the award citations, if needed, to explain the nature of the conferment. Archivelens (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Wikipedia user @Yennavo’s view that Mr. Singh’s role as District Magistrate of New Delhi is important due to the administrative and political weight of this position. His time as Excise Commissioner occurred during a time of intense public attention and received coverage from several national media outlets.
    As mentioned earlier, the awards are formally given to the district, but they are also logged in the officer’s service profile by the Government of India. This shows that they acknowledge the officer’s leadership as well as the district’s administration.
    These key roles, national and state level awards, and ongoing coverage in trustworthy independent sources meet the criteria under WP:GNG for significant coverage and under WP:NPOL for public officials. Archivelens (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    I'll ask you the same question as I asked Yennavo: which of the sources provides substantial coverage about Singh (as opposed to just mentioning him or quoting him)? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the question. The following sources provide substantial coverage of Singh.
    [Source 1] : full length article discussing Singh’s career, contributions, and background.
    [Source 2]: specifies multiple features focusing on his work and impact.
    Other sources such as [3] [4] [5] [6] mention him and are included for additional context. Archivelens (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    They're both pretty promotional and I doubt they'd qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for raising this. From what I can see, the Times of India piece and the Hindu article both go beyond just a passing mention. They include biographical details and career milestones that count as real coverage rather than just quotes. The Hindu article in particular gives more local context to his work. I’ve also added a couple of other sources that expand on his role. It would be great if other editors could also take a look and share their thoughts, so we can make sure the article is built on solid references. Archivelens (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Delhi. jolielover♥talk 09:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: I've just realised that this article was likely written by ChatGPT (see the tracking code at the end of the URL in reference 7 here). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only one good source, which isn’t enough for WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: In India, hundreds of people become IAS officers, and after that a few news reports are published about them, which is routine coverage by media organizations. This does not establish notability of the subject. In the present article as well, the sources are nothing more than routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Multiple independent reliable sources, including The Hindu and Times of India, provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. Archivelens (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)— Archivelens (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
    Archivelens, please link the Times of India source here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    The Times of India article does mention him, but only briefly as part of a larger bureaucratic reshuffle. This isn’t unusual though, indian media rarely goes deep into the actual work of IAS officers and tends to focus more on the drama and noise around politicians instead. While that single reference alone may not be strong enough to establish notability, it does show that he was significant enough to be included in coverage by one of India’s leading national newspapers. When this is read alongside more detailed reporting, such as in The Hindu and other sources that highlight his responsibilities and role, the subject’s importance becomes much clearer. The TOI piece works best as a supporting citation that adds weight to the overall picture of his prominence. Archivelens (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    I see only one line - "Jha has been replaced by 2018-batch IAS officer Sunny Kumar." This is not WP:SIGCOV, so stop wasting everyone’s time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Individual is posted as District Magistrate of National Capital (New Delhi) - Where all major establishments - The President's enclave, PM Residence, Parliament, Supreme Court are present. People outside of India might not consider this notable, however, the post holds enormous significance - much greater than entire wikipedia organisation - I believe. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC) — Yashvardhan7776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: This is clearly not a case of a minor figure. The person holds a senior position of authority that directly affects public life, and that alone makes the role notable. On top of that, there is already coverage in respected national publications. These aren’t just brief mentions but full articles that discuss responsibilities and decisions. Given the combination of reliable sourcing and the importance of the position, it’s clear this subject deserves to stay. Leaden Ghoul (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Leaden Ghoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Leaden Ghoul (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Archivelens (talk · contribs). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG with reliable, independent sources covering his administrative work and policy contributions beyond routine announcements. Both digital and regular newspaper/media mentions.Cartilager (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC) — Cartilager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    As I've asked other contributors here, Cartilager, could you identify the independent sources that provide significant coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Here's what I can find. 123. I find this officer to be important in the Indian administrative context. Talking about significant coverage, I can see how there is not that much information online, so I think you are right to question his page. Cartilager (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: The Indian Express is the only piece of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage I can see. The Hindu is close, but it's mostly not about him, it's about the work of his district that quotes him incidentally to his official role. The rest is not close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Even that first source is mostly just quotes from him, as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

edit
Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (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 did a simple Google search on this person and only found a few fan-promoted websites. The article cites nine references: sources 1 and 7 are unreliable, user-generated fandom sites; 8 and 9 are death notices about someone else, with no direct relevance; and 5 and 6 are not references at all. The only primary source (Ahmad Noori) is used twice, but it is also unverifiable. No secondary sources are present to demonstrate the significance of this person as a religious figure per Wikipedia guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.
Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Baqi. I would trust Anwaar Ulama-e-Ahle Sunnat and also that Tazkira-e-Qari Muslehuddin seems academic resource as a whole about the subject. Also that there seems an impact of the subject beyond religious scholarship. We have always had the challenges of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, and I such I believe we can have this article. Even though it needs a good revamp but AfD is not cleanup. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    Additionally, I believe this academic thesis (MPhil) makes me shift to keep :) Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since one of the votes to keep is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Bracebridge West Aerodrome

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

Non-notable airport, no independent sources found to establish notability, only routine directory/listing entries. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Società Sportiva Palestra Itália

edit
Società Sportiva Palestra Itália (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)

SS Palestra Itália was the former name of the current Cruzeiro EC, not a separate club [7]. A similar situation occurred with SE Palmeiras, which changed its name due to Brazilian law during World War II [8]. Fails as a WP:SPINOFF. Svartner (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

GR8 Tech

edit
AfDs for this article:
GR8 Tech (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)

AFD recently closed by a blocked editor (who owns a series of accounts that were used for Keep discussions). AlanRider78 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AlanRider78 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This plainly meets WP:GNG / WP:NCORP via significant, independent, non‐routine coverage that goes well beyond trade press. The subject (the B2B tech arm formerly known as Parimatch Tech, now GR8 Tech) has been the focus of many media, with a here for instance Forbes Ukraine with an in-depth analysis of its scale, client mix, rebrand, headcount (~1,500), and revenue shock after Ukrainian sanctions on its parent company; that article alone satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and is neither trivial nor routine. [9] Forbes. Coverage is not limited to industry trades: The Economic Times reported the suspension of operations, sanctions and an alleged illegal activity [10]. Here is the detailed editorial Vector media article dedicated to Gr8 Tech and all perturbagtions with indudstrial analysis [11]. Here is another good coverage from the tech media talking about closing, sanctions, activity in CIS.. [12]. Here is a big read from editorial Forbes team about Gr8 Tech on how they managed to rebrand and survive in recent years [13]. More and more are available under Parimatch Tech+Gr8 Tech online search [14], [15], [16]. Jungle archer (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sarah Walker (music broadcaster)

edit
Sarah Walker (music broadcaster) (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)

Notability not established despite a notability tag having been put in place three months ago. Jw93d59 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Music, Radio, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 15:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This article was almost deleted through PROD. Why did you remove the tag at the last minute and bring it to WP:AFD? It's just unusual behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep difficult to find independent sources as very common name and works for the BBC, but I think she has received enough third party coverage for her work to pass WP:GNG [17][18]
  • Leaning towards Delete. There are very few sources outside promotional bits from her employer, the BBC, discussing her. The sources in the above comment are [19] not actually about Walker and barely discuss her and [20] a semi-promotional blog from the BSO where she seems to have/had a position. Other than that the best I can find is an editorial from The Guardian [21] and an interview in a BBC magazine [22]. There isn't really a target for a merge either as her Radio 3 show doesn't have an article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

EML Vapper

edit
EML Vapper (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 was looking for sources and just found some random ship listing databases and fan pages, none of which have any significant depth or coverage. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sussex Merlins

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

Non notable defunct team. --woodensuperman 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Daily Mehran

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

Non-notable subject. I could not find reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject and have a reputation of fact-checking ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Phil Morris (health activist)

edit
Phil Morris (health activist) (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 carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP of a health activist, and added a reference to some local news coverage. I cannot find significant coverage, however, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep -- According to WP:ANYBIO, an Order of the British Empire should be enough to establish notability. There is a reliable source indicating that he is indeed and MBE -- this article is poorly written, and stinks of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTION, but it satisfies the notability guideline at this point. Slightly off topic but there needs to be dialogue on the notability of MBE's as there are a ton of them. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I understood it was CBE or KBE upwards that would be likely to confer automatic notability. Found a couple of relevant discussions: 2018; 2016; 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yup, CBE or above. MBE is certainly not high enough. Far too many of them are awarded every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

TX2

edit
TX2 (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 draft. This article does not demonstrate this band meets the criteria of WP:NBAND with no charting songs and the 3 sources being 1 primary sources, 1 PR source and 1 non functional sources. Other sources found have been from colleg papers or other SEO type listings. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

hate to be an avid user of whataboutism/otherstuffexists, but they don't NEED to have charted songs to have a page. there are plenty of other criteria that can allow an artist page to exist. especially considering the amount of other artist pages who's subjects have never had charting songs. Haaayzey (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@Haaayzey, so which criteria do you think they meet? I didn't say they had to have a charted song, only it's a quick avenue to determine notability. I then evaluated the sources in the article at the time and the ones I could find in my WP:BEFORE search. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Has had several EPs/works published through a major record label, currently one of the most popular/notable pop-punk bands of Colorado, has been placed in rotation of a major radio station (Octane (Sirius XM)). Haaayzey (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Nithish Sahadev

edit
Nithish Sahadev (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 subject is a director with only one released feature film and no significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources demonstrating lasting notability. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per nom. Only one film as the main director, without any major repercussions. Svartner (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets Wp:Director as director of at least one notable film, that received independent coverage. - E. Ux 18:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep/Draftify per WP:TOOEARLY. He has only directed one notable short film and one feature film, let his other 2 upcoming films release first. DareshMohan (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge one way or the other. It used to be common practice to merge the film into the director's article, but nowadays it's the other way. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Evyatar David

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

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:ONEEVENT and the likelihood that continued coverage is unlikely once David is released. Patient Zerotalk 23:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: He's one of the group that got kidnapped, he's not much different than any other person in the group... Why is he more notable than any of the other hostages? We literally have nothing about this person, no backstory, not even much of a description. The article consist of when and where he was born, and famous people reacting to his kidnapping. Getting kidnapped is not notable, I'm not sure what else he's known for. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Oaktree b, I’m thinking of withdrawing this AfD nomination. Do you still agree with your position, and if not, would you be willing to strike your !vote? Thanks, Patient Zerotalk 23:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing notability, a merge to the article perhaps, but not enough to withdraw it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think he's notable in the context of the video, showing him emaciated and being forced to dig his own grave. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gaza war hostage crisis#Adults. Even though this kidnapping has become notable, including likely continued coverage, at present length I do not view this article as a justified SPINOFF. Knowing the dynamics: the article will be expanded and I will need to change to keep, yet redirect is my current best verdict. gidonb (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. As predicted, I would need to change my opinion soon enough, and this was the case. The kidnapping is notable by the GNG and EVENT. Given the broad media interest and by similar cases, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is extremely likely. 1E, while an important policy, does not apply. The article is now long enough to stand on its own and merging into the parents would create UNDUE. SPINOFF is a very important and often neglected guideline. We create crazy fragmentation by not adhering to it enough. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    I now find myself agreeing with this, Gidonb. I am thinking of withdrawing the nomination. Patient Zerotalk 23:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for considering, User:Patient Zero. Maybe also give it a bit extra time at the next nomination. While this article started premature, so do a lot of other articles. Warnings are a better remedy if something is missing. This man has become an icon, as have many others during this bloody war. In hope of better times! 01:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
No worries at all. Yes, I completely agree with you there! I note we now have an article on Emily Damari - I mention her because the photo of the gesture she made with her injured hand became an iconic symbol too, and I followed all the news surrounding both her kidnapping and release. I realise now upon reflection that I was too quick to nominate this article. Also hoping for better times; I know of many people personally who this has deeply affected. Patient Zerotalk 02:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep - As I relayed at the deletion discussion for Omer Shem Tov, I am skeptical that WP:ONE EVENT should be applied to experiences that have lasted 600+ days, which is not typically the case with most events that guideline likely contemplated. Nor is it appropriate to delete the article on the speculation that coverage will cease -- let time play out, and then see what happens. (Nor, unfortunately, can it be presumed, as in the nomination, that this hostage will be released.) The article is expanding by the day, and that is entirely in keeping with regular wiki procedures -- indeed, it is the reason there is a stub-class, and then a start-class, and so-forth. Coining (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - per sources. Per continued coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep yes it is one event, but this particular individual and the surrounding coverage have been extensive. Also it is not entirely "one event" as now the ongoing struggles of this person have been additionally well documented and reported on by reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:NOPAGE; every paragraph in this article would fit just as well in a broader article on the hostage crisis. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – This article falls under WP:ONEEVENT. The subject has not demonstrated WP:LASTING significance, with minimal activity (only one edit in the past four days). Coverage appears to be limited and primarily sourced from a billboard display at Times Square, New York and a select few politicans commenting (Marcon, Mertz, and Lammey). The current sourcing and framing suggest an attempt to promote a specific narrative, potentially diverting attention from a broader issue such as the Gaza Strip famine. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • comment: What makes David more notable than the other Israeli prisoners seems to be the videos Hamas released of him. But I don’t know if that makes him notable enough to warrant his own article. Rainsage (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of the NOPAGE argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article is about an event, not a biography. Therefore, WP:ONEVENT and WP:BLP1E are irrelevant here. The key question before us is one of readability per WP:NOPAGE: would the reader be better served by this standalone article, or would they benefit from a broader context within another article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep He has received sustained coverage with the release of the video in the context of the allegations of famine and starvation in Gaza. The video received quite a lot of press, so this is not ONEEVENT. Metallurgist (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Trimension

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete I have not found sources describing this software independently in detail. Seems to be defunct. Difficult to find articles due to other companies using the name trimension. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 shootings of Tremonton police officers

edit
2025 shootings of Tremonton police officers (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)

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Detailed comments for the nominator, XYZ1233212
@XYZ1233212, you've nominated a number of current events articles for deletion, getting considerable pushback and feedback. Recently, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. Please re-read your instructions for nominating articles for deletion at WP:AFD. In particular, see the section titled "Before nominating: checks and alternatives":
    • Part A. "Read and understand these policies and guidelines:"
    • Part B. "Carry out these checks:"
      • Item 6. "Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."
        • Had you done this, you'd have discovered that in most cases, there were articles with existing mentions of these events that you could've redirected the articles to without bothering yourself and and the rest of us with AfDs.
        • In the few cases where there wasn't an existing mention in another article, you could have added one.
      • Item 7. "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles."
    • Part C. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted:"
      • Item 4. "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. Shortcut WP:CONRED. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page."
        • In most cases, the title was either a valid search term or else close enough to it for Google to find and follow a redirect to its target.
These detailed instructions are derived from our deletion policy. On Wikipedia, a "policy" means "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". Including you. And me, too.
See the section Alternatives to deletion
    • The Merging subsection says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."
    • The Incubation subsection says "Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process.". It gives other details including the comment "Incubation must not be used as a 'backdoor to deletion'." Editors forget about articles, so "draftification" is not as desirable as other alternatives because drafts get automatically deleted after 6 months of activity.

I hate calling you out on this but I've left comments pointing to these policies on previous AfDs as well as on your talk page at User talk:XYZ1233212#Redirects for current events; these have had no impact to date.

As always, thanks again for your concern for our content. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)

A. B., AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss a WP:BLAR. If XYZ1233212 performed a BLAR on each of these articles instead of starting an AfD discussion, I guarantee you they would be accused of backdoor deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025. It is definitely due here, while but it's not so clear cut whether the whole subsection at Tremonton, Utah. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that this article should be given a chance for a standalone article. The shooting itself was high profile in nature, and from the looks of it, it appears that the unlawful killing of police officers in Utah was lesser in comparison with quite a number of states in general. Also, there was clear emotional impact left on the public and the local community especially. According to the mayor mentioned in the article, this was Utah's first case of double murder of police officers in more than a century. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Comment, just to add on, I note that the death penalty was not frequently sought for murder cases in Utah, plus reference to the article about the upcoming execution of Ralph Menzies [23], there were only 11 people condemned to death row and executions in Utah were also extremely rare. Just today, the prosecution confirmed that the death penalty will be requested in that case. [24], [25], [26]. I thought that the nature of the case and circumstances themselves could warrant it a chance to exist in Wikipedia. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    If this is the case, then this case will get persistent coverage. Readers will also be Googling it over the next 1-3 years and it would be helpful to have something reliable on Wikipedia (as opposed to their relying on social media or hallucinatory AI).
    I’m busy now but leaning toward keep. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Awful crime, Northern UT has very little violent crime. Albanianrapper (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - While on a national scale these crimes may seem routine, in Utah and Neighboring states, this rarely happens. The effect of the community and state is profound. Thus, people will be researching this case and the court trials heavily throughout the following months and years. Having a Wikipedia page would help people to find the full story quickly. ‪Tagloph79‬ (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)— Tagloph79‬ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Changed from "redirect". See my 14:30, 21 August 2025 comment. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Per A. B.. I will also comment that this nominator seems to keep nominating similar pages like this for deletion, the vast majority have been kept, merged or redirected. I don't think it's right they should be allowed to keep doing this as it feels like they are making basless Afd nominations without fully studying each article. I will add that not all of them are baseless, such as this one: (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Crown Heights nightclub shooting), but most are. Inexpiable (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States#2025 per WP:ATD. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. As a recent event this topic is not able to show WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DIVERSE coverage and it is therefore WP:TOOSOON to have an article. The sourcing is entirely WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage and cannot count towards WP:GNG. Note to closer, the keep votes are entirely WP:ILIKEIT opinions and are not policy based. Please weigh the strength of the arguments in your close.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the WP:ITSIMPORTANT-type Keep votes, I see no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene

edit
1,5-Diisocyanonaphthalene (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)

Extremely narrow topic. This compounds is mentioned by 15 articles & patents according to Chemical Abstracts Service. With the exception of an old review article (that covers many compounds), the citing articles have been very lightly cited. In the Chemistry Project, typically, a notable compound would be mentioned by hundreds or more likely thousands of articles. As described in the article, the compound displays no distinctive properties. Again, for non-chemists, one should remember that millions of chemical compounds are known. Finally, the article is written under the cloud of WP:COI. The authors of this narrow article are the only ones publishing on it. COI is indicated by the referencing and the excruciating details provided by the originating editor. Within most projects, we discourage COI. Smokefoot (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chemistry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources are either a database (not SIGCOV) or primary articles, and anyway those primary articles are all from the same group, raising COI concerns. Not a notable compound as evidenced from (lack of) coverage in secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep (or Draftify). Per WP:GNG, impact/citation counts aren’t required; what matters is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. DIN has peer-reviewed coverage of (i) selective π–π complexation with arenes enabling BTX discrimination (Sci Rep 2025), and (ii) its controlled hydrolysis to ICNF with distinctive photophysics (IJMS 2023). These are verifiable, non-trivial discussions of properties not routine for the parent class. That said, I support trimming undue experimental detail per WP:NOTJOURNAL and adding more independent secondary sources. COI concerns can be handled by disclosure and edit requests on talk per WP:COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicsek (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. WP:COI editing is concerning but it has no relevance to notability. The publications are in independent reliable journals, and the topic is covered directly and in detail in multiple sources. There are enough sources to meet our notability guidelines. We generally interpret three quality sources as sufficient to meet our standards for inclusion, so our threshold for content inclusion appears to be met. I also note that there are other sources such as this in the National Library of Medicine. Not seeing a valid reason to not cover this.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with 4meter4, and I add: If you can write (and source to independent scientific journals) a couple hundred words about a subject, then it's not the kind of doomed WP:PERMASTUB that we need to be worried about. I'd keep this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per 4meter4's sources and WP:NEXIST argument. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ulises Humala

edit
Ulises Humala (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unsuccessful election candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and have to show some other grounds of preexisting notability besides their candidacy per se -- but the main notability claim here is an unsuccessful candidacy, and otherwise the article has far more to say about his political opinions than about him achieving anything that would count toward NPOL.
Further, even the sourcing here is mostly more about other members of his family than about him, and the only one that's about him in any meaningful way is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (thus fine for verification of facts, but not counting for anything toward establishing passage of WP:GNG.) Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation

edit
List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation (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 scope of this list is vague and does not appear to meet WP:NLIST as a standalone list. It has been tagged as possibly including WP:OR since 2016. Further confusing the scope of this list, the introduction spends more time detailing what is not included, rather than what is included; for example, classification by birth place or multiple citizenship. There are no independent reliable third party sources cited, rather it usees only statistical databases and unsourced footnotes. Without a defined scope this seems like original research and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, compared to the better defined List of association football players capped by two senior national teams. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:BEFORE, certain sports such as association football have multiple reliable sources available discussion why playing for more than one nation is important, but I cannot say the same for all sports. If any section of this could be salvaged, perhaps splitting off into a separate well-defined lists by sport would alleviate WP:PEIS problems. Flibirigit (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree the list in its current state is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, I know this a topic of discussion for Olympic athletes in RS, and possibly in other areas of athletics. The current list doesn't seem to make a distinction within a particular area of athletics. It's possible some of this content would be able to be covered within a more focused list(s). It seems like this article could benefit with some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports where editors might have a better idea about potential splitting of the list into something that would comply with WP:NLIST. I kind of wish this hadn't been taken to AFD because I feel like its a more complex editorial issue than something we can effectively handle at AFD. Maybe a draftify might be appropriate if editors involved in sports want to work on retooling it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment probably a good idea to split by sports where there are lots of them and then link to the separate articles on the main page e.g. for association football where the list is long and covered in the separate page. And add prose to all the sections too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Probably any table of more than about 10-15 people is worthy of its own article, and then table doesn't need to be here- instead prose summary (a line to a paragraph) can be added here with pertinent information. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy

edit
List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy (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)

Draftification because of no sourcing reverted without explanation; currently minimal sourcing verifies only a tiny part of the list. Suggest re-draftifying until the list adequately meets the core content policy WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Engineering, Transportation, Lists, and Brazil. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Keep - I created a separate page to 'List of historical ships of the Brazilian Navy' bcoz it helps to make the page more visible and readable, in current situation it is a section and gets suppressed under other major sections, where it has little to no sources provided to support. please note this section has been present since a long time but no sources were present, (it was just a section). creation of a separate page will allow for addition of more sources and provide better validity and visibility to a significant part of brazil navy chronology
    Bonadart (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify per the "Incubation" section of our deletion policy. This article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NLIST yet. Bonadart I really like what you've done so far and where you're going; I look forward to seeing this as a bona fide article. Before then each item in the list either needs a blue link (i.e., its own reliably sourced article) or it needs to cite a reliable reference. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Bonadart, pt:Marinha do Brasil, the Portuguese Wikipedia article for the Brazilian Navy is very good and heavily referenced. It's a featured article and a potential source of refs. Google Translate can be your friend there. You might also contact the naval attache at the Brazilian embassy in your country - they might point you to some useful resources. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Bonadart, I just found a list of historical ships on the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Lista de navios descomissionados da Marinha do Brasil. I hope this helps. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    thanks for all the help, but my point is i didnt create this page out of thin air, it was already there in list of active ships of brazilian navy, as a section but without any source for the past several years, no one ever bothered to add any source (dont believe me, you can chk the section is still here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Brazilian_Navy_ships). i created the separate page bcoz this is an important page that delves in list of ships of brazil navy since past 3 centuries, as such deserves a own space. whoever created this page in the first place, should have added source, anyways will try and look into the source you provided to help the page flourish. but kindly understand drafting it will literally orphan the section in the link provided. Bonadart (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and proposal fails WP:DRAFTREASON and WP:DRAFTNO. Nobody is making a serious claim here that the topic doesn't meet WP:NLIST because we all know based on the sources extant in the article on the Brazilian Navy that the sources exist to support this list. Per WP:NEXIST we don't need to judge this list based on the sources currently in it. I see no reason that improvements can't continue in the normal way in article space. We have set rules as to when we can use a move to draft here at AFD and none of them apply in this context.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    thanks for the keep vote, the list was lying in the page for active ships as a section without any sources being added for several years. since creation of new pge some new sources have been added, in page and here in discusion as well, hopefully now more sources will added to add weight to page which deserves own space. Bonadart (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the two Keeps bring up no P&G-based arguments, but we don't yet have quorum to move the page out of mainspace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification

edit
AfDs for this article:
Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification (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 last discussion ended in a no consensus and WP:TRAINWRECK. New arguments that have appeared are that there isn't any significant in depth secondary coverage of this topic or scope. Logoshimpo (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)


Here is the previous discussion that nominator is referring to. Moritoriko (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep as a topic, but the article needs to be greatly expanded. The topic of a comparison between DDC and LCC is very common in the field of library science. A quick search through TWL got me this paper that compares teaching both systems, this paper (abstract only) that compares both systems in the context of African literature, another article comparing them in the context of movies, this paper (abstract only) compares them from a technical context that I am not equipped to understand fully, another very old article (first page only) about classification systems, a treatment of speech in three catalogue systems (first page only), and finally a doctoral thesis about the preference between the systems. I think there is a great amount that can be added to this article so the page itself is a keep. All articles listed here can be found in full through TWL. Moritoriko (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources found by Moritoriko above look promising at a first glance, and they might be able to be used to write an article about a comparison between DDC and LOC (I'm not 100% convinced that such an article is needed instead of putting this information on the main pages themselves, but that's a separate issue, and I'm probably fairly ambivalent about it overall). But, the article that was nominated isn't that article. Despite the name, this is merely a conversion from DDC number to LOC number, and nothing else. So if you want to write an article about an actual comparison, I'd say go right ahead, but in that case, this one should still be deleted first to make way for the new one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    The reason why this article should exist, separate from smaller sections on their respective pages, is because they are the two largest systems in use in the US (and maybe the world?) and they are often compared as you can see in most of the sources. Delete votes should be reserved for when the article subject cannot be reasonably turned into an article, despite what the current content is. Delete per TNT is for when even the history of the page is so bad that it should be wiped from the site and that is not the case here, I hope you would agree. Moritoriko (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Again, I'm pretty ambivalent on whether to make your proposal a separate article or include it at the main pages; either way is probably fine. However, this article, as it stands, should still be deleted, because the topic of the article, as it stands (and always has stood), isn't notable. That the title appears to represent a notable topic is irrelevant here, because the current article is mis-titled. If you want to go step-by-step here, what should really happen is that this article should be renamed to something like "Table of conversions of Dewey Decimal numbers to Library of Congress numbers" (or whatever), then it should get deleted, and anyone would be free to write a proper comparison article in the mean time. But that's just extra hassle, and you probably wouldn't be bothering to advocate keeping in in that case. TNT absolutely does apply, because there's nothing salvageable here, and what you're proposing is essentially completely unrelated. Let's just delete what's here, and then a new article can be written instead (either at the exact same name, or a slightly different one, or content can be added to the main articles, or whatever). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Your recommendation goes against the guideline to make a determination based on an article's potential, rather than its current status. If the topic is worth bringing back at a later date, then it should be retained until it can be improved. @Moritoriko just found the tip of potential sources; this topic covers a main principle of librarianship and is covered in many books and scholarly articles. In addition, this information is taught to many college freshmen as part of their orientation to the campus library. Rublamb (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per WP:HEY. I expanded the lede, added sources, and converted the list of sources into inline citations. There are now numerous reliable sources that discuss the comparison of the two classification systems, meeting the notability requirement for a stand-alone list article. (the main sources for the table are listed in the paragraph before the table). I am confident there are more sources in professional journals and books, meaning this article can continue to be improved. 01:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Rublamb (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: This topic is notable and meets WP:N and I see many secondary sources. It needs cleanup and as suggested it can be improved. Asteramellus (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Draftify per WP:ATD and WP:NOTESSAY. Currently this article reads like an essay. The statements being made in wiki voice appear to be subjective opinions which need in text attribution. However, this is a surmountable problem that can be solved through editing. It appears the sourcing in this area passes WP:SIGCOV so there isn't a notability reason to delete this. I think the best thing to do is send this to draft and require it to go through WP:AFC where work can be done to solve the issue of essay type writing through editing. In its current state it isn't ready for main space.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
    For this AfD, I expanded the article's lede using reliable secondary sources. This was needed to help establish the subject's notability and to provide context for the list that follows. Yes, the text compares the two cataloging systems; however, that is the purpose of this article. The statements that you are interpreting as "opinion" are factual representations of numerous sources and have citations. As there are no quotes and all text has a citation, attribution is not needed. Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
That may be, but they still require in-text attribution (ie who is saying it/making the claim) otherwise it reads like an essay. There are many large libraries that don't use LOC classification so the assertion is not necessarily widely accepted. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like you are analyzing the article based on your personal experiences, rather than the sources. Regardless, the text says DDC and LC are the most commonly used cataloging systems and makes no claims about all libraries. It says that LC works better for larger libraries, not that all large or academic libraries use it. In fact, it specifically says LC's use is mostly limited to the US and Canada, which leaves a ton of colleges and universities out that using a different system. The reason attribution is not needed is that these are accepted facts. LC was designed to solve cataloging problems in large and highly specialized collections. For example, every book in a university physics library would have the same call number in DDC, while LC has a range on alpha-numeric call numbers for the same subject, making it easier to find materials. Users who want to learn more can simply follow the link to the articles on these two systems. Rublamb (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
LLC isn't widely used outside of North America and we are a global encyclopedia. Hence the need for attribution and source discussing this outside of American and Canadian publications.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I would like to see a source for that fact because I have found sources showing its use outside of North America.[27][28] It should be noted that even if these two classification systems were only used in Washington DC the amount of research and commentary on the comparison between the two systems is enough for there to be an article on this topic. Moritoriko (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
That's literally what our article currently says in the opening paragraph with a citation.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion after Rublamb's expansion / improvement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Trupeer

edit
Trupeer (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)

None of the cited sources pass WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Most of the cited sources come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Compare and Recycle

edit
Compare and Recycle (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)

None of the cited sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Change (Lana Del Rey song)

edit
Change (Lana Del Rey song) (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:NSONG. No notability outside of album reviews. The article is also poorly sourced, mostly relying on Facebook and Instagram links. Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures

edit
Time-dependent neutronics and temperatures (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)

Two sentence page on a computer code with no obvious notability, fails WP:NSOFT. Notability was tagged in 2012; PROD, PROD2 Aug 12-13 2025, at that time the page had no sources. Notability was contested with the claim "Further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar", and PROD/PROD2 removed. Contestor added one source that is not specific to the topic -- it describes a code comparison, not the code. That source is cited 2 times. The current article is advertising/promo for the code and the authors, and would be better included as a sentence in Neutron transport#Computational methods. If major WP:HEY is done to show that this code has major uses in ongoing reactor design I would retract the nomination. I do not see sufficient coverage on Google Scholar to merit retaining it. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment the page Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport lists 33 computer codes, 2 of which (MCNP & Serpent (software)) have pages with 17 and 5 sources respectively. This code is only mentioned in the "See Also".Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment So far, I haven't had much luck finding sources that talk about this software as a thing, rather than mentioning how they used it for a particular problem. I don't think that's enough to merit an article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - everyone knows that we have never published original research such as this. There are many other places, but not us. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - responding to Ldm1954's comments:
First, my "further easy-to-read articles are available using Google Scholar" comment was meant to be humorous; a quick look at the neutron transport equation shows neutron flux calculations are mathematically vexatious which is why multiple computer codes have been developed. At least they sure were vexatious to me many years ago.
I don't know if this code is used much now for reactor design; high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are not a hot research area now compared to other reactor types. There's just one HGTR design, the Xe-100, among the several dozen new reactor designs under development. All the papers that use this code were published a while ago when computers were slower; I'd hope HGTR engineers are using something newer nowadays. That said, our rules don't require this code be in wide use now to be notable; if something was once notable, it still is now.
The paper I cited[29] is relevant; it compares this code to a newer code. This and other papers[30][31][32][33] demonstrate this was a widely used program.
I don't have a dog in this fight; I just look at the article, the AfD and the information that's out there and check them against our rules.
All this said, I concede not in the same league technically as Ldm1954 (Laurence D. Marks) so I may be wrong about this one. It took a lot of work to understand neutron transport years ago and I've forgotten the details since. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@A. B., as a quick clarification, this page was tagged for both notability and no sources since at least 2013. You removed the notability tag on August 13 2025, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply here. Checking the 4 sources you provided, on Google Scholar their citation numbers are 8, 5, 5, 8. Sorry, but those numbers are not strong indicators that the scientific community has considered this code to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Addendum: to be fully WP:NPOV, a Google Scholar search on TINTE code does find a few better cited papers, including this one with 95 cites. However, that is not a big number. It can be compared to MCNP where the main paper has 3697 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was prevously PROD'd so a Soft deletion is not possible and we need to hear from more editors. I'm also not sure if A.B. is arguing for a Keep but they know Wikipedia as much as anyone so I assume they would have stated this fact if it was their stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, thanks for the compliment about my wiki-savvy; if only I was still as nuclear engineering savvy, I'd be more helpful. My comment was not a keep but rather a clarifying response to Ldm1954's remarks about my PROD removal. I've since found a book on high temperature gas reactors that uses TINTE and I'm going to study it. For now, I'm inclined to say TINTE qualifies as notable but from an editorial standpoint, we may be better served putting it in the list at Neutron transport#Computer codes used in neutron transport, then redirecting it there. I like redirects and lists since they help densify our content for easier maintenance without giving up much content. I realize this is still not an answer for you but it's where I'm at now.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note, as Ldm1954 pointed out, that the Neutron transport page only mentions TINTE in its See also section, potentially making a merge-less redirect problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
@OwenX, that is not a problem. We would remove the See Also and add TINTE to the existing list of codes with a ref. I am OK with a merge+redirect. I think A. B. may be OK with that from his comments, and perhaps Bearian? Ldm1954 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    • A merge and redirect is appropriate for original content. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Alliantgroup

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the cited sources are routine WP:CORPTRIV, blogs, or PR. Gheus (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Heidrick & Struggles

edit
Heidrick & Struggles (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)

Coverage is mostly about its co-founder, John E. Struggles [34], who is likely notable but the company he co-founded is not yet notable. Also, the company is continously hiring UPEs to add marketing content (User:Igorsdom, User:Tristancr) so it is difficult for a volunteer project to maintain such an article. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Fiskville, Indiana

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

This appears to be a neighborhood on the north side of Crawfordsville which may have been built separately and then annexed. The only source that appeared to have much info on it didn't allow me to see enough to fully understand it. There was a school here which apparently came first, but again I can't tell that for sure. Anyway, this is not looking like it was a separate town that was engulfed. Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete due to insignificance and lack of reliable sources. Both texts, 1 and 2, briefly mention Fiskville's school and its annexation, but it's just not enough for a standalone article. Fiskville can possibly be mentioned in the Crawfordsville or Montgomery articles instead. — Staniulis ✿ 01:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Crawfordsville, Indiana per 4meter4. I definitely should have considered WP:ATD. However, I do not believe there is enough content or available sources that would allow this article to be kept in its current state. — Listalk 16:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The Walkerton Independent https://newspapers.library.in.gov/?a=d&d=WLKI19100408.1.3&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- Volume 35, Number 43, Walkerton, St. Joseph County, 8 April 1910, says "The incorporated towns of Englewood, Fiskville, Highland and Longview, suburbs to this city, were made a part of Crawfordsville when the ..." So that means that Fiskville was once a properly incorporated town, which is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not impressed by the new source, which states the area was annexed into Crawfordsville and literally nothing else. Incorporation is not enough for notability; the rule is that "populated, legally-recognized places are presumed notable". We still have to have something to say about the place; just saying it was incorporated and sat at X ___location is little more than clutter. I've been wrong about these deletions before so if more sources are found ping me. (If kept, the first of the two sentences needs to be rewritten to remove "unincorporated community"...if it's entirely within an incorporated city, that pretty much is the definition of "neighborhood", isn't it?) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain, and update the content per the source. Or redirect to Crawfordsville, Indiana and add to that article information on the annexation of the town into Crawfordsville per WP:ATD. At the very least this shows it is a possible search term and a straight deletion isn't appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain, but a merge into Crawfordsville wouldnt be terrible. Metallurgist (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yubo Ruan

edit
AfDs for this article:
Yubo Ruan (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 reopening this AfD due to the concern of undisclosed paid editing. Most of the previous participants were later found to be part of one sockfarm involved in UPE so this warrant another review. I think the coverage is weak and is based on routine events. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Turleys, Indiana

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

Searching is masked by, of all things, an obsolete apple variety, but the only legitimate hit I found was in a shipping directory, as it is a spot on the railroad. Mangoe (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete Not even a post office? Metallurgist (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

IViz Security

edit
IViz Security (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)

Contains unreferenced/promotional content Schtiapht (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yakuza (vehicle company)

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

No reliable independent sources cited Schtiapht (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ashoka the Hero

edit
Ashoka the Hero (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)

Animated film with no claim to notability - BEFORE brings up routine listings and announcements but no discussion or profesional reviews. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Horner (director)

edit
Christopher Horner (director) (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:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

CDBurnerXP

edit
AfDs for this article:
CDBurnerXP (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 for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Pajeet

edit
Pajeet (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)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([36], [37], [38], [39]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([40], [41]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, and India. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri (あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri (あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [52]/[53] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [54], [55] but ultimately restored again by you [56] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.
    Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference) There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri (あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.
    Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Judgement Records

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

Non-notable record label, does meet WP:MUSIC/companies, unreferenced since 2004. Also potentially written as WP:PROMOTION Coldupnorth (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Opendisc

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ryan Borgwardt

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

A brief disappearance, albeit an elaborately staged one, but it is WP:BLP1E essentially. The verdict from the court case is pretty telling as to its notability, just a day of jail for each day he disappeared. – robertsky (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

QuickPlay

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Performance FileSystem

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Narpat Singh Rajpurohit

edit
Narpat Singh Rajpurohit (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)

Falls under WP:BIO1E. Notable for a single event of making the Guinness World Record for completing over 30,000 kilometers by cycle in a single country. – DreamRimmer ■ 07:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

FK Šaca

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article only contains own website as a source. Czech article linked through Wikidata doesn't confer notability. Team seems to be defunct and only lists age groups up to under-19 at [57]. C679 07:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sarvesh Singh

edit
Sarvesh Singh (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 WP:GNG; sourcing insufficient and non-independent. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi EmilyR34, Thank you for reviewing this article and sharing your concerns. I understand the importance of ensuring that biographies meet WP:GNG and are supported by independent, reliable sources. With that in mind, I’d like to point out some of the coverage that, in my view, establishes notability for the subject:
  • Keep – Respectfully disagree with the concern about insufficient sourcing. Multiple independent, reliable sources provide significant coverage:
    • The Tribune (24 April 2025) ran a feature profile on Marichi Ventures and Singh’s leadership philosophy, which goes beyond a passing mention.
    • The Economic Times (27 June 2024) covered his recognition at the ET Excellence Awards, establishing notability at a national level.
    • Express Pharma (5 June 2019) listed him as a featured speaker at a DIA India conference, showing industry recognition.
Together, these demonstrate WP:GNG is satisfied. Additional coverage from FTCCI and Kalkine Media further supports verifiability. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • The Tribune coverage is very thin and tells us very little about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
  • Economic Times clearly says the article is "advertorial" and is not independent.
  • Express Pharma is a short mention of the subject that does not meet the definition of significant coverage.
— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Please disclose in this discussion whether you have a conflict of interest, in accordance with the guidelines for Articles for Deletion. In addition, your reply has elements that suggest that you may be using a Large Language Model to generate your comments. If that is the case, you are strongly discouraged from continuing. See the essay WP:LLMTALK and the policy WP:AITALK. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
thank you for your feedback pacific depths, do you have any suggestions for me, i don't want this page to be deleted, i do acknowledge the fact that some of the existing sources are advertorial or limited in depth, i am currently searching for strong independent coverage such as national newspaper or business magazines to strengthen the article. can a redirect to Marichi Ventures be a better alternative if such coverage cannot be demonstrated, I'm open to any suggestions. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
hello pacific depths, I’ve been able to add stronger references from independent institutions, like PHUSE (the world’s largest healthcare data science non-profit) published Singh’s reflections on his work as Asia-Pacific Director, and the Indian Institute of Population Sciences reported in detail on a pre-placement talk he delivered as Novartis Head of Strategy & Operations and PHUSE board member. I understand that not every source will count as “significant coverage,” but I believe these additions show recognition by independent and credible bodies, not just company PR. I also want to be transparent:- I do have a connection here, but I’m trying to stick to verifiable, reliable sources so the article stands or falls on policy grounds, not promotion. If this is still not enough for a standalone page, then, I’m open to a redirect to Marichi Ventures, so the information is preserved in context. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree that this does not meet WP:GNG. The sources mentioned are of low quality. For example, the Economic Times article is actually marked as 'advertorial'; The Tribune feature reads like the information was provided by Marichi Ventures; and although I cannot read the Kalkine Media piece, its headline matches the Abluva Inc press release exactly, so it is most likely to be a reprint of that, rather than genuine reporting. Mark Gould (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback Mark Goud. I do agree that the article published in the Economic Times is advertorial in nature and not so independent, and i also with your apprehension that the article in the Tribune could sound promotional, and that the reprinting of the press release is most likely to be that of Kalkine Media. Still, some independent coverage is worth mentioning: e.g., that in June 2019, Singh was listed by "Express Pharma" as a featured speaker at the DIA India conference, and appears in the Leadership Development Program faculty of FTCCI. Although I know that these probably are not sufficient to meet the full requirements of WP:GNG, I am still searching more of them. AbhiTron143977 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    hello mark, i've been able to add stronger references from independent institutions like PHUSE and Indian Institute of population Sciences reported in detail. please check the article and please tell me if its enough, if not, i'm open to any suggestions AbhiTron143977 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, Abhiram. However, the additional sources still don't persuade me that Singh is notable beyond being exceptionally good at his job. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that he meets any of the three criteria in WP:ANYBIO. Mark Gould (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, lacks significant independent coverage, largely promotional. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Holiday Pacific and Southern Tower

edit
Holiday Pacific and Southern Tower (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, while probably proddable, is intimately related to the Citicasters tower, so it belongs here with it. It also is even more cryptic than the Citicasters one. You'll learn more about this tower from my description here than you will from reading this article. It was built in 1979 for WTSP, which is the logical place for any information about it. Fybush indicates it was indeed dismantled, which makes sense, because WTSP moved sites upon the digital TV transition. (Also, ASR records agree on it being dismantled.) This article helps nobody. It is poorly named after an obscure license subsidiary of then-Gannett, now-Tegna (one that has been replaced with Tegna East Coast Broadcasting); provides no indication of the use of this tower; and has no standalone notability. Our readers are better served finding tower information in WTSP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Focus (Slovenian political party)

edit
Focus (Slovenian political party) (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 does not currently meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and it is too new to demonstrate sustained notability - The9Man Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Granted, the sources, while can be argued to be reliable, independent and secondary, are Slovenian-based (even if in English). It also gets covered in China-CEE ([65]), but together with other new Slovenian parties (and I am not sure about the nature of the source). And the party's results in opinion polls are not impressive. This is why my keep is "weak", but I think the party passes the notability threshold, even if barely. Impru20talk 20:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or probably draftify as TOOSOON. The only SIGCOV I actually see is from its founding January, and I've searched Slovenian sources. The April English source is clearly a mere mention. I don't think this is ripe yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 06:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In My Opinion

edit
In My Opinion (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 currently only has one citation that being a non-independent WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to the album's record label Armada Music. [66]

I searched Google News to see if there were any WP:INDEPENDENT, reliable sources that have significant coverage on the album (Note that Google Books and Scholar brought up nothing when I searched for this album). And all I found were a few sources, all of which mention the album in passing while the main focus is on Nilsen himself: [67] [68] [69] [70][71]

With the complete lack of WP:Independent reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV, article fails WP:NMG and does not warrant an article, so it should be deleted or redirected to Nilsen's page instead. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Norway. Cacophonic peace (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ørjan Nilsen: Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM criteria. Nil🥝 06:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    The term is a bit ambiguous Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    Tbh, I'm surprised that it doesn't have a disam like (album), or that there's not a more notable subject with this name. In any case, {{R from album}} seems like a sensible AtD unless something else pops up. Nil🥝 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Citicasters Tower Holiday

edit
Citicasters Tower Holiday (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 radio tower in Florida is dreadfully non-notable. The search term is extremely unlikely to result in hits, even though in my experience it's not unheard of that old station owners' names live on as tower shorthand. The only source I can find on this tower is Scott Fybush here (it was the WXTB tower), and while usually reliable, a short mention does not contribute to notability. A search in FCC antenna registrations for this mast indicates the tower was dismantled in 2013. Its replacement is ASR 1246632. Article was deprodded in 2019 but more on procedural grounds. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Morningside Records

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment I found a Politiken article about the record label's closure: Indie-pladeselskab lukker og slukker. toweli (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete- No SIGCOV hits so far in my searches as well, did also find something about the subject' s closing to note.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nothing is coming up in English. The Politiken article is solid. Sources for this will definitely be in Danish, and may, like the Politiken article, be behind paywalls.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Lemis

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

Non notable due to lack of significant independent sources. Rht bd (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Fails WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or Draftify – so far no SIGCOV in my searches so far, did check in to its other language available, unsure if any of these are SIGCOV as not as familiar in that language's local news, however based on a 1st impressions seems to stil not be enough to suggest notability, to be fair the brief websearch does have a lot of hits on the subject, so not opposed to drafitify as possible ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep several notable news articles (1, 2, 3, 4, ) justify the notability. --Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    Article 2, 3, and 4 contain the same information of publishing of a new music on Youtube, full of puffery and qoutation of the artist indicating these are paid news or press releases. The Thikana news contains different story but still promoting the subject. Clearly, none of these are independent of the subject, hence unreliable and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. Rht bd (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral. She does get coverage in Bangladeshi mainstream press, such as this interview in The Daily Star. I get the impression she is a well known singer in Bangladesh but the sourcing is almost all interviews or puffery. This is a reflection of the state of media in this part of the world. It can be very difficult to locate independent coverage; even on well known people. There's enough here for me to give pause. I cannot say for certain she isn't notable. I also cannot say she definitively meets GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Smithfield Hog Production Division

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

While Smithfield is undeniably notable but its production unit may not meet the criteria of independent significance and this alone may not establish notability. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

International Stele Always Remember

edit
International Stele Always Remember (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 doesn't seem to have encyclopedic merit, and the article itself is very thin: no artist, no discussion, and no proof of notability Ba.Ki (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Mary Clemens de Lisle

edit
Mary Clemens de Lisle (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 any significant coverage nor any coverage of her as an architect either. I can't review the book source but it is only one source and assuming that the article accurately represents her coverage then it falls below SIGCOV. It almost feels like an A7 given we have an article on an architect that fails to mention any architectural wok. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In a month's time (20th September), there's an edit-a-thon being planned for NZ Women in Architecture, and one of the targeted articles for improvement is this one.
It's probably best to withdraw this AFD until after the edit-a-thon takes place, in case anything of value is uncovered then? Nil🥝 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is any plan to improve the page at the event (it mentions the article as an example of an existing article but says 'Our focus will be on enriching and creating pages related to Merle Greenwood, Dorothy Wills, Mary Dorothy Edwards, Mary Hay, Marjorie Penty and Nancy Northcroft.'), but if I am willing to delay/withdraw the AfD if someone does plan on taking a look at in within the near future. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I am also not yet able to review the book, and I am unlikely to get to it before the end of next month. However, I have included what I could find from online secondary sources, and I am happy to continue searching and contributing. I have been able to find more about her work as an artist; unfortunately, it is probably not enough for SIGCOV yet. I note that she is now listed on the edit-a-thon page as Mary Clemens de Lisle (I think she was also listed under Mary Hay, her birth name), so I would second the Nil's suggestion of delaying until after that event, if possible. Ewhite31 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Gerren O'Neill

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

This article fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of independent, reliable sources. One source is a press release from his employer and another is a brief, unbylined regurgitated version of the press release in a local Irish paper. The other two sources are WP:USERGENERATED posts on DailyKos ([72], [73]). And none of the sources remotely address the article's claims that O'Neill is a United Nations Human Rights Inspector and Economic Action Officer. Even if being a diplomat were inherently notable (it's not), there's no independent verification here or elsewhere search that O'Neill is a diplomat, and the organization he purports to represent is a federation of nine unrecognized self-proclaimed US indigenous groups. I found no qualifying coverage of O'Neill or this federation in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Mark Gould (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Vampirina: Teenage Vampire

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

This is an upcoming television series, and so is too soon for an article, and does not satisfy television notability. Nothing in this article describes the third-party significant coverage that is needed to establish general notability. This article was already draftified once, in 2024, so that another unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Draftification may be a valid close of this AFD, but there should be no subsequent move to article space until the series is broadcast and is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator claims that the subject lacks the requisite third-party significant coverage, and that aspect has not been meaningfully addressed by other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 Austin Target shooting

edit
2025 Austin Target shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. A news story, not a subject of sustained secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2025 in Texas#August. I disagree with A. B.'s proposed redirection and believe that the section dedicated to the shooting in the Target article should be deleted as well. This isn't an instance where a ___location has its own dedicated article, this is an incident that happened at a single Target store among many stores. The El Paso shooting for instance, is mentioned in the Walmart article because the shooting changed company policy. Raskuly (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per WP:Crime the circumstances of this crime are unusual - suspect claiming to be Jesus and found naked clutching a bible. One of the victim's was transgender so this case is getting discussion in the LGBTQ community and there is criticism of the police for deadnaming & misgendering the victim. I think it is simply too soon to delete the page and perhaps we should wait to see whether on going coverage continues. I believe the unusual circumstances of this shooting make it stand out from other crimes. Inexpiable (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons put forward by @Inexpiable. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per Raskuly Metallurgist (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Verlag Inspiration Un Limited

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

Can find no sigcov, only citations to books they published. What brief coverage does exist is about 1 book they published, "50 Theses on the Expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe 1944-1948", which should have an article because it was a big controversy, but not them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
My impression is that the article first of all needs an update. The publishing house has changed its legal form in 2022: It is no longer a "Limited" under English law but a "Unternehmergesellschaft (UB)" under German law, as can be seen on the company's website and also in German Wikipedia. Furthermore, this enterprise has published several further books; if also a new title in English should be checked, but obviously several books on linguistics with direct references to the history of the English language, including West Germanic. As to notability / relevance, some further research might be helpful. As far as I can see, several scientific/linguistic books of this publishing house have received reviews in renowned scientific journals. I can check this soon and suggest to keep this article until this is cleared.--DownUnder36 (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@DownUnder36 That their books are notable has no relevance: the guideline is WP:NCORP, which requires multiple sources about them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Orwellian

edit
AfDs for this article:
Orwellian (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 word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
soft keep nothing wrong with it per se Oreocooke (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing as per above. This is really just an elaborated dict def, and while the word is tossed around quite a lot I don't see the need to spin this out into a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Honestly surprised this is as small as it is. Definitely notable as it has sustained usage for decades. Certainly needs expansion. Metallurgist (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Octavius Ryland

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with 1 hit. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Fred Carter (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Theodore Richards (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

James Lloyd (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

William Jones (Australian convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. A common name so many namesakes come up in searches. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

John Hubbard (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. The 1 cited source is not indepth. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Safa Public School

edit
Safa Public 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)

No referencing. Very little info and no signs of notability. Fails to satisfy WP:N, WP:NHS, WP:GNG as well as WP:CITE. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to past failed PROD attempt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Jakarta Annotations

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

The article is supported by 3 primary sources, all of which are documentation pages published by Jakarta EE. I didn't find reliable coverage on Google Scholar or Google News, though I did find several passing mentions. The article may also fail WP:NOT, as in, Wikipedia is not software documentation. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Nee Bandinaipoyya

edit
Nee Bandinaipoyya (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)

Clearly non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM. It seems like it might have been self-released on Amazon Prime Video rather than through any reputable distribution company. Article was initially draftified but the creator moved it back to mainspace. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly not meets to WP:NFILM and delete per nom.--Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  08:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

James Humphrey (convict)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Mark Gould (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Lowly Worm

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

A character in the Busytown series. Previously kept in 2010, but the character has little sourcing, with all I could find largely being either mentions in a work analyzing Busytown and giving background summary, mentions in biographies or guidebooks, or mentions of the phrase "lowly worm". The two sentences of actual coverage can easily be put into the Busytown article, while the mention of the recall does not seem particularly relevant to Lowly Worm himself and moreso to a wider series-wide event. I do not see any reason this article needs to be kept separate when it can easily be covered alongside Busytown with greater benefit to the reader, in line with WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Aristophilides of Taras

edit
Aristophilides of Taras (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)

Poorly sourced article. OBVIOUSLY AI-GENERATED. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article already includes references. See this Google Books search. See this search "the only possible West Greek king properly so titled is Aristophilides of Taras." For an online version of Herodotus, visit https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm and search for Aristophilides. Also, a king or an elected rulker of a country is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Eastmain that article reads AI generated to me. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Royalty and nobility, Greece, and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as the ruler of a city state discussed by Herodotus he is notable. I agree the article should be tagged for more footnotes.Mccapra (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
    @Mccapra that article reads AI generated to me. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this AI-generated? Specifically, the Legacy section is what drew my attention, it has that sentence-structure. Curbon7 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. I implore the "keepers" to follow up on Curbon's question, and to examine the sources as to rule out AI hallucination. That being said, the passage "Robert Drews has shown that in Geometric and Archaic Greece the title basileus could denote leaders with limited or magistrate-like powers rather than sovereign monarchs, and this interpretation may also apply to Aristophilides' position at Taras.[4] Under this view, Aristophilides' actions do not necessarily imply monarchy, but rather supreme executive power within the polis" also looks very much like WP:OR - taking a fact from Drews and making an "interpretation"/"view" regarding Aristophilides. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sun_Creator/AFD&oldid=689776293"