Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcuts WP:AFD/TWP:AFD/T WP:AFDTODAYWP:AFDTODAY

1 September 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 31	September 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

You're the One (Shane MacGowan and Máire Brennan song)

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

Fails WP:NSINGLE. No obvious WP:ATD-R target since it's a collaboration by two artists. The film article, Circle of Friends (1995 film), doesn't mention the soundtrack or the song either. Mika1h (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Ireland. Mika1h (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Bane

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

I'm going through The Sarah Jane Adventures serials right now to figure out the sourcing on them, and this serial is something I wanted to discuss more thoroughly given it's currently a GA (Albeit a very old one- 2008 is ancient in GA terms). From a search, even back to the time period when it was airing, I cannot find a single review on the topic. Beyond that, there's some decent analysis in [1] this book, but that's about all. Any other mentions of the serial are merely discussing the character of Sarah Jane Smith and mentioning her role and how she's characterized in this, and are not actually reviews or analysis of the serial itself. The current article only has viewing figures, and no reviews whatsoever, and a good chunk of it is unsourced. I do not believe there's enough to support a whole article here given the bulk of this article is plot summary and what little real world info that exists is minimal. I'd suggest a redirect to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials as an AtD, since there is a valid place for this redirect to point for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures – The article on “Invasion of the Bane” may not meet WP:NTV for a standalone page. Episodes lacking independent notability should be covered in series or season articles. Merging preserves viewership and character introductions while addressing notability concerns.

Editor1769 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 British cabinet reshuffle

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

Unless something more significant happens, which doesn't appear to be the case as it stands, this is not a notable enough change for a dedicated article HIGHFIELDS (TALK) 16:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Unregistered Biohazard! 17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancing Old Boys F.C.

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

As would be expected for an amateur sports club for former pupils of a school, there is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Apart from the club's own X account, the references are such things as lists of matches, lists of clubs in which this one is included, and reports of individual matches. My searches for better sources merely turned up more of the same. JBW (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JBW (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: played in the FA Cup in the 1880s, notable for that alone. And three of its players gained England caps while at the club so more notable at the time than (say) Hull City are now. References on the article include Athletic News, football annuals, national newspapers, and an England football database. So plenty of contemporary and current references. Not sure how that can be described as "no" evidence. Wikipedia includes history, notability is not dictated by current status. In Vitrio (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klarity Health

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage here does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT; a mix of relatively routine start-up/business announcements, press releases, and WP:FORBESCON. I searched g-news, g-scholar, newspapers.com, and PressReader- was not able to turn up anything else that looks in-depth. Founder doesn't appear to be notable so I don't see a good redirect/merge target. Zzz plant (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, and California. Zzz plant (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nominator, maybe speedy delete G4 which an admin can confirm. Agent 007 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins–Raiders rivalry

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The sources don't sufficiently establish that this is a notable rivalry. Doing a Google search, I found these sources [2], [3]. However, source 1 is from a post-2019 SI article, which per WP:RSPSI, I'm not sure about its reliability, and source 2 is a CBS article that only briefly mentions the "Sea of Hands." The rest of the sources I found are mainly WP:ROUTINE. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, California, Florida, and Nevada. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Map of the Stars

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. After my BEFORE searches, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about the album. Only mentions I could find were

Bandcamp (primary).
Discogs.
A year end list mention at "The Silent Ballet" One list mention of one song in a unreliable (?) outlet isn't WP:SIGCOV.

I couldn't find any further coverage for the album, even in nicher ambient focused publications, so it fails GNG & NALBUM. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Louisiana. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Richter

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

I'm unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources that would demonstrate either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR is met, just endless websites advertising the subject as a keynote speaker. The article seems to be a 17-year-old piece of spam. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked the first 10 references and they are either garbage or sub-par. First one links to Sam Richters personal page, and just the ___domain. Second is an affiliate article, the author even acknowledges that himself (quote: "Disclosure: I wrote the foreward." [in Sam Richter's book]). Third is a 404 page. I found it in Web Archive and it's a promo piece originating from "Fortune Small Business". Fourth, leads to an archived reference which has no mention of Sam Richter or any of his work. Nothing at all. Fifth is used to mislead and misrepresent the facts, – the statement supported by reference #5 implies that the book won some award, but the book, in fact, did not. And so on... Delete. Gab on vacation (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Sheldon

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

I see no WP:SIGCOV in the refs, so this fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCREATIVE#4: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)." Sheldon directed and wrote for notable films in his career such as The Lone Trail, Phantom Thunderbolt and numerous other films, and there could be WP:SIGCOV out there still. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a clear and obvious WP:DIRECTOR and WP:CREATIVE pass..... - E.—UX 15:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

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

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find only mentions and short quotes. I also note that this is the only article created by Qrivas who has all of 39 edits but seems quite comfortable with Wikipedia policies like "(so not WP:BIO1E)". This has all of the qualities of a WP:PAID. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bay (disambiguation)

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

None of the geographical locations are mentioned in their target articles Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything for the others, but updated entry for the bay near Darwin Harbour in Australia. If that is the only one with content on Wiki, might be done with a hatnote rather than a dab. older ≠ wiser 12:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added two refs relating to Frances Bay for Darwin Harbour. As for the BC bay, it is more like "just a place name". Possibly there is better prospects for a mention if the target is changed to Francis Point Provincial Park but I have nothing concrete at this point. The North Lake that the Minnesota Frances Bay is part of (between Canada and the US) I can find nothing about, and I thus cannot oppose its removal. CapnZapp (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can use hat notes in this case rather than have a disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FK Karpaty Limbach

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence this football team has played higher than the fourth tier of Slovak football, the lack of significant coverage is therefore expected. C 679 14:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Slovakia. C 679 14:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Baya

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

Fails WP:GNG. Scoria (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found some sources which establish legitimacy of this inactive volcano.

1. Google scholar link (mentions the volcano in passing in the title.

2. Tourist guide website

3. Another reference

I'm not sure how much of a help these links could be, but providing them anyway. Kvinnen (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Butung

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

Fails WP:GNG. Scoria (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Binaca

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

Fails WP:GNG. Scoria (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Scoria (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Mørk Røstvik

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

As Klbrain said in his prod nomination, "Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, given that an 'associate professor' is the highest academic title to date. With 11 publications to date, and an H-index of 4, doesn't as yet reach the notability criteria; WP:TOOSOON". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:AUTHOR criteria 3. Lijil (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie (musician)

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Only 4 sources which are all non-RS per WP:NYPOST, WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, WP:USERGENERATED. Insufficient online mentions, no evidence of notability. Forkintheroad5 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Forkintheroad5 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Ok we have these below,
* Beyond the Stage, November 9, 2021 - Interviews, Get To Know: ROSIE - Paulina Levitan
Ones to Watch, 26 October, 2021 - Rosie Takes Us Through Her Heart-Rending Debut EP '20mg of Happiness,' Track By Track
Guitar Girl Magazine, October 23, 2021 - Music News, ROSIE RELEASES DEBUT EP ’20MG OF HAPPINESS’
Pulse Music Magazine, 27 Oct, 2021 - ROSIE Delivers Shot of Serotonin to the Masses on Debut EP, ’20mg of Happiness’ - Matthew Patania
Melodic Magazine, March 4, 2022 - ROSIE explores the concept of starting over on sweeping “Next Life” By: Christine Sloman
Beyond the Stage, March 6, 2023 - ROSIE: Embracing the Light and the Darkness
Business Insider, Nov 17, 2021 - CULTURE, A 21-year-old former college student was ready to give up on her dreams until a viral TikTok launched her career and helped her snag a record deal By Connor Perrett

Sony Music Canada, June 27, 2023 - Press Release, SINGER-SONGWRITER ROSIE RELEASES 5 SONGS ‘FOR HEALING’ EP
Pop Passion Music Blog, Jun 1, 2023 - Review: "Potential" - ROSIE Written By Andy Mockbee
abc7ny.com aka WABC-TV, Friday, July 7, 2023 - Singer/songwriter Rosie uses her music to help others
Pop Passion Music Blog, Nov 8, 2024 - Review: "Break A Promise" - ROSIE and Caleb Hearn Written By Alexa Leung
Melodic Magazine, February 23, 2024 - Caleb Hearn and ROSIE tap into the beauty of unconditional support on “Little Bit Better” By: Christine Sloman
New York Post, June 22, 2023 - MUSIC, Celine Dion found her voice again thanks to this TikTok sensation By Chuck Arnold
That Eric Alper, May 9, 2025 - Music, ROSIE Reclaims the Night With Empowering New Single “Mr. Blue Jeans”
Sweety High, jun 23, 2023 - ROSIE On Recognizing Her Rising Stardom Her Vulnerable New EP, 5 Songs For Healing - je'kayla crawford
Melodic Magazine, June 24, 2022 - ROSIE questions her worth with “Something I Hate” By: Christine Sloman
Sony Music Canada, April 18, 2023 - PFRESS RELEASE, ROSIE RELEASES EMPOWERING BREAKUP ANTHEM
The reason why this came up for deletion is that the article is not set up and written properly. If anyone wants to improve it, here are refs to choose from.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Justice Bedi

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

Seems to be a promotional article for yet another Forex influencer with not a single secondary source that would be reliable and independent. The cited sources are either promotional articles in local press, press releases, or primary sources. Searching for the subject brings up only more of the similar sources. I propose to delete this article as it fails WP:BIO. Vgbyp (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Latest changes to article to address AfD criticisms have left it with two sentences and two unimpressive sources. Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article appears to be written by ChatGPT, as indicated in many of the sources’ URL parameters.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Jeraxmoira
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
globenewswire	Press release	GlobeNewswire		✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1312750/ghanaian-elvis-justice-bedi-wins-best-african-fore.html			But the coverage is only promotional	? Unknown
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Meet-the-CEO-of-serendipity-Trading-Academy-who-makes-19-000-pips-gains-weekly-from-trading-1127237	Press Release			✘ No
[4] and [5]		Blog		✘ No
https://www.ghanaiantimes.com/lander?oref=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F			Dead source	? Unknown
https://www.classfmonline.com/business/Elvis-Justice-Meet-Learn-Ghana-edition-starts-January-2-29640	Press release		~	✘ No
https://tradingnut.com/elvis-justice-bedi/	Ad			✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Introducing-the-highly-awaited-forex-trading-and-cryptocurrency-summit-A-collaboration-between-KNUST-SRC-and-Dr-Elvis-Justice-Bedi-1810373?gallery=1&utm_source=chatgpt.com	Press release			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Per analysis above, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (BLP) – I acknowledge the article relied on press releases/aggregators and contained promotional material. There is some independent coverage in mainstream Ghanaian outlets (e.g., MyJoyOnline; CitiNewsroom) but it’s event-focused and not yet sufficient for wp:GNG. I’ve removed promotional claims (including the unverified award) and trimmed to what high-quality sources support. Per WP:ATD, draftifying would allow time to build out independent coverage while respecting wp:BLP.Sweetabena (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equiti Group

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

Nearly all of the references are WP:CORPTRIV, WP:PRIMARY (court rulings, interviews), or non-WP:RS. The only source that passes all four notability criteria is The Telegraph article. Searching for more of the same-level coverage didn't yield any results. Since multiple such sources are required to establish the subject's notability, I propose to delete this article as non-notable. Vgbyp (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, Technology, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 09:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smokers are not selfish

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

Lots of press releases, student-written articles, unbylined pieces distributed by the Om Foundation and other news desks, along with content from unreliable websites. The same sources are being added to Dr. Om Foundation, Om Murti Anil, Tobacco use in Nepal and List of initiatives by Om Murti Anil by three editors. Fails GNG as the sources are either unreliable or not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pes-caprae

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

Specific epithets are by definition WP:partial title matches, and do not warrant a disambiguation page as none of the species are known by the term alone. There is no entry that might serve as a redirect target in either List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names or Wiktionary. Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Disambiguations. Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and then redirect. More helpful to the reader than just deleting. (I've added Prunicolor but don't feel inclined to do the rest). PamD 10:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a disambig isn't just useless, it's downright bad, because it masks Wikipedia's actual search system. If I search for "acetosella", which has no disambig, the search system instantly provides me with links to three articles on species with this specific epithet, in three different genera. If ever someone names a fourth species and Wikipedia gets an article on it, the search system will find it, automatic update! By having a disambig, we mask the search system, and rely on someone to maintain the disambig. We shouldn't have articles for specific epithets except in special circumstances where there is something to write about the epithet itself, such as Officinalis, which is more than a disambig. Elemimele (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... for this reason, I disagree with PamD about the redirect (which would also foul up the search system), but agree about adding to list of Latin and Greek words. I admit that any sane person would use Google rather than Wikipedia to do the search, so Maybe I'm making a fuss about nothing. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in the list include a link to do a full search (including the other-gendered versions of the epithet where relevant), so redirecting to that list is helpful. PamD 10:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Oooh, interesting; there doesn't seem to be a full search link for pes-caprae on my browser? All I have is the standard empty search-box at the top, and if I type Pes-caprae in this search box, it brings me to the disambig page (i.e. where I am already) rather than showing me general search results. Am I missing something? Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're viewing with browser, you can scroll down to the bottom of the dropdown menu which has the dab page as first choice, and below "Pescara jazz" is a "all pages containg..." link. But in mobile view you miss out on that as with so much else! PamD 13:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1968 assassination

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

Overbroad, not useful as a disamb. No article would ever be titled something this vague. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Disambiguations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly vague and useless disambig, and US-centric to boot with a sum total of two entries, neither of which has "1968" in the title. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretrei

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

Specific epithets are by definition WP:partial title matches, and do not warrant a disambiguation page as none of the species are known by the term alone. There is no entry that might serve as a redirect target in either List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names or Wiktionary. Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Disambiguations. Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and then redirect. More helpful to the reader than just deleting. (I've added Prunicolor but don't feel inclined to do the rest). PamD 10:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jean-Gabriel Prêtre after whom the species are named. (OK, I fell down a rabbit-hole of research...) PamD 10:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prunicolor

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

Specific epithets are by definition WP:partial title matches, and do not warrant a disambiguation page as none of species are known by the term alone. There is no entry that might serve as a redirect target in either List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names or Wiktionary. Paul_012 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Disambiguations. Paul_012 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, now that there is an entry there (I've just added it). I suggest it would be more helpful to the reader to add entries to that list before suggesting dab pages like this for deletion. PamD 10:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the list article's inclusion criteria, so I didn't add them myself. Now that there's an entry, I would support redirecting accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see discussion for Pes-caprae; I personally think that a disambig is unsafe because it overrides the result of a search but will return an incomplete set of links (if the disambig page hasn't been adequately maintained). But PamD tells me that the disambig result actually includes the possibility of viewing the search results instead - I just can't find this option - so I may change my !vote if I find it! Elemimele (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hong Kong post offices

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

WP:NOTPRICE explicitly says that lists of offices or locations are not permitted on Wikipedia. PROD was removed because of a secondary source discussing the grouping being added to the article, but it doesn't alleviate NOTPRICE. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Hong Kong. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My only concern is that this is only the tip of the listings of such buildings. Please see Category:Government buildings by country, as well as Category:Postal systems by country. Wikipedia is full of such categories. Either delete all of such listings on Wikipedia, or leave them all as is. — Maile (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I randomly looked through around 1/3 of the countries under Category:Post office buildings by country. The articles using this category are about individual post office locations. There three of these articles for Hong Kong. I could not find other list articles for other countries. However, there are list articles for the USPS by state. @Let'srun, I understand your point regarding WP:OSE but there is relevance when considering if a nonprofit governmental agency and with a building that is frequently a community landmark falls under WP:NOTPRICE. A key may be that WP: NOTPRICE says "Listings to be avoided include...". It does not say these are forbidden. That is because sometimes this content is informational and encyclopedic, rather than promotional. For example, articles regularly include a list of all locations of a multi-campus university and schools and churches are sometimes listed in articles about cities or counties. Rublamb (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post offices are generally a place where business is conducted, and while I get what you are saying I don't think the government association matters. As it stands, this list is only in service of "conducting the business of the topic of the article", and is promotional in nature. If this list is deleted, I would likely nominate those USPS articles next, but don't wish to overwhelm AfD and want to see what kind of consensus is found here first. I also don't those examples you listed as being relevant here. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Hong Kong post offices" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources

Ji, Ping; Chen, Kejia (2007). "The Vehicle Routing Problem: The Case of the Hong Kong Postal Service". Transportation Planning and Technology. Vol. 30, no. 2–3. Taylor & Francis. pp. 167–182. doi:10.1080/03081060701390841.

The article notes: "There are 35 post offices located in different districts in the Hong Kong Island including the GPO, as shown in Figure 1. Their names are listed in Table 1."

The article notes: "In the last decade alone, the number of post offices has increased from 107 in 1989 to 129 by August 1999. Of them, 35 are located on Hong Kong Island, 41 in Kowloon, and 53 in the New Territories and the outlying islands."

Table 1. Post offices in Hong Kong Island
Aberdeen (ABD)
Hing Fat Street (HFS)
Sai Ying Pun (SYP)
Ap Lei Chau (ALC)
Hing Man Street (HMS)
Shau Kei Wan (SWN)
Causeway Bay (CWB)
Kennedy Town (KTN)
Sheung Wan (SHW)
Chai Wan (CHW)
King's Road (KNG)
Siu Sai Wan (SSW)
Cloud View Road (CLV)
Lei Tung (LTG)
Stanley (STY)
General Post Office (GPO)
Morrison Hill (MHL)
Tai Koo Shing (TKS)
Gloucester Road (GLR)
North Point (NPT)
Tsat Tsz Mui (TTM)
Happy Valley (HAV)
Peak (PEK)
Wah Fu (WFU)
Harbour Building (HAR)
Perkins Road (PKR)
Wan Chai (WCH)
Harcourt Road (HCR)
Pok Fu Lam (PFL)
Wong Chuk Hang (WKH)
Heng Fa Chueng (HFC)
Queen's Road (QRD)
Wyndham Street (WYN)
Hennessy Road (HEN)
Repulse Bay (RPB)

Chow, Ka-kin 周家建; Cheung, Shun-kwong 張順光 (2015). 坐困愁城：日佔香港的大眾生活 [Trapped in a City of Sorrow: Everyday Life in Japanese-Occupied Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 978-962-04-3775-5. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Google Books.

The book notes:

隨著郵政服務恢復運作，個別郵政局陸續重開，繼續為市民提供服務。最早恢復服務的是香港中央郵政局和九龍中央郵政局，其他郵政局亦陸續投入服務。各區郵政局重開日期，詳見下表。

郵政局名稱重開日期

香港中央郵局 1942年1月22日

九龍中央郵局 1942年1月22日

灣仔郵政局 1942年2月14日

上環郵政局 1942年2月14日

油蔴地郵政局 1942年2月14日

深水埗郵政局 1942年2月14日

九龍城郵政局 1942年2月14日

西營盤郵政局 1942年3月26日

元朗郵政局 1942年3月26日

大埔郵政局 1942年3月26日

赤柱郵政局 1942年5月1日

九龍塘郵政局 1942年11月15日
上述多間郵政局，以九龍城郵政局的服務時間最短，主要是受啟德機場擴建工程影響，由於該郵政局位於擴建地段，因此在1942年11月14日關閉，取而代之的是新設立的九龍塘郵政局

From Google Translate:

As postal services resumed, individual post offices gradually reopened and continued to provide services to the public. The Hong Kong Central Post Office and Kowloon Central Post Office were the first to resume services, with other post offices gradually returning to service. The reopening dates of post offices in various districts are detailed in the table below.

Post Office Reopening Date

Hong Kong Central Post Office 22 January 1942

Kowloon Central Post Office 22 January 1942

Wan Chai Post Office 14 February 1942

Sheung Wan Post Office 14 February 1942

Yau Ma Tei Post Office 14 February 1942

Sham Shui Po Post Office 14 February 1942

Kowloon City Post Office 14 February 1942

Sai Ying Pun Post Office 26 March 1942

Yuan Long Post Office 26 March 1942

Tai Po Post Office 26 March 1942

Stanley Post Office 1 May 1942

Kowloon Tong Post Office 15 November 1942
Of the post offices listed above, Kowloon City Post Office had the shortest service hours, primarily due to the Kai Tak Airport expansion project. As it was located on the expansion site, it closed on 14 November 1942, and was replaced by the newly established Kowloon Tong Post Office.

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

Cunard (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTPRICE says:
A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and ___location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.
This list is not being used as "a resource for conducting business". It is being used to document Hong Kong's post offices which have been discussed as a group by academic sources (Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists). The list does not include "product pricing or availability information". The list includes encyclopedic information about each post office such as its English and Chinese name, its ___location, its year of establishment, its year of closing, and a photo. The list is not being used as "a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products". Cunard (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hongkong Post. Majority of these list entries are merely sourced from Hongkong post to prove they exist, which itself violates WP:NOTDIR. There are a few references that would be ideal on the parent article, to use for the small number of list entries that are indeed notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to a redirect as suggested. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Hongkong Post as a source because I believe that is better than having no sources. As there are already enough secondary sources to prove notability for a stand-alone list article, it is not really a factor and can be improved later by someone who reads Chinese. However, I would maintain that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because this list goes beyond being a directory, because it includes dates, photographs, and historical details. Rublamb (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had to really think about this one as it crosses over numerous policies and guidelines. I could say keep under WP:HEY but think more information is required.

WP:SAL: I reviewed the sources that would translate to English and also added other sources, including one of the secondary sources suggested above. (see WP:HEY) @Cunard is correct. There are reliable secondary sources that discuss the post offices of Hong Kong as a group. That is what is needed for a stand-alone list article to meet notability. Also, I am confident that other sources exist to improve this article, but I was not able to fully access them because the source were in Chinese.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically applies to simple lists, such as a list of phone numbers, that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Although this article includes addresses, it also includes contextual information that is not directory in nature, such as date of establishment and closure, photographs of the buildings, and historical details about the post offices. Although it would benefit from more information and sources, this is an encyclopedic list rather than a directory entry.
WP:NOTPRICE: This is the issue that gave me the most pause, and I totally see why @Let'srun called for this AfD. The indent of this policy is to prohibit business self-promotion via Wikipedia, specifically stating, "Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article " WP:NOTPRICE suggests this can be achieved by avoiding the inclusion "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions". Note that this list is items to be "avoided", not items that can never be included. That is because context matters. This article is not promotional in a way that matches the intent of WP:NOTPRICE; there is no discussion of services or products. The only issue could be "store locations". But given that this article includes defunct locations, it is difficult say its intent is to conduct business. As discussed above, a list of businesses is allowed in Wikipedia, provided the intent and content is encyclopedic. If this article was a simple list that just included ___location name, address, hours of operation, and phone number, it would violate WP:NOTPRICE. But since it lacks the "conducting business" content and also includes historic details that are encyclopedic and non-promotional, it does not fail based on WP:NOTPRICE. Rublamb (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cunard's typical disruptive wall-of-text is completely insufficient to demonstrate notability. While the general topic of the postal system in Hong Kong might very well be notable, a directory-like listing of the ___location of each one most certainly is not, and its existence flies in the face of WP:NOT. Most of the entries here are unsourced, further violating WP:NOR. One of the few exceptions, picked at random, that is sourced contains the oh-so-encyclopedic content of " This post office closed during World War II, reopening on 14 February 1942. It moved to a new building in 1986. ". Wow. Let me say that again. WOW. It closed briefly during WWII, and it later moved locations in the '80s. The few other entries with commentary are pretty much the same level. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia's standards. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As part of my review of this AfD, I went through and found sources for each entry, unless noted as citation needed. As per MOS for lists, the citation is included in the text above the table, rather than being repeated over and over again. Regardless of whether or not you find the added info useful, dates of operation and the notes column are not directory information and show a direction of expansion for this article. Rublamb (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary, but it's not even all that relevant. The problem is that this is a directory of post office locations and essentially nothing more. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minuscule amount of encyclopedic information that might actually be here (like singling out the oldest post office) can go in a history section of the main article about the HK postal system. The notability of the system itself, along with its history, does not justify a list like this. And there are no sources that justify the existence of this list. This is WP:COMMONSENSE territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are two scholarly articles that discuss post offices in Hong Kong as a group. That is what is so crazy about this one, it meets notability for a stand-alone list. Rublamb (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of these are not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NLIST says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable". Since the grouping has, as noted above by @Cunard and reiterated by @Rublamb, been the subject of multiple independent scholarly discussions, it meets this requirement. No individual notability needs to be shown for each post office unless it has a standalone article. Oblivy (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list is much more than a simple directory. It contains referenced historical information about many of the post offices in Hong Kong, thus contributing value to the history of postal services in Hong Kong. Individual post offices have historically played an important role in the local society. Most of them do not individually deserve an article, but this collective article is a very good way to collect such information in one place. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments to keep have no basis in policy. The postal system in Hong Kong is notable, obviously. And an article about its history, including the role of specific post offices, is likely viable. But none of the provided sources suggest that the grouping of all post offices is notable over and above the postal service itself. The sources are about the system, not the list: NLIST is not met. The similarity to other categories isn't a reason to keep: quite apart from that being an argument to avoid, we specifically use categories to group notable topics for which lists are not viable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views seem evenly split, albeit not all carrying the same P&G weight. Please focus your arguments on whether the list meets WP:STANDALONE, which has clearer criteria than the sweeping WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified by Cunard do indeed demonstrate that the post offices of Hong Kong have been discussed in WP:SIGCOV in way that is not trivial or reflective of a directory. As such it meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. Note that this would not be true of post offices in every city, and this list isn't a precedent for similar lists in other locales. The sourcing would need to be there to justify other lists of this type.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOPAGE I am usually err on the side of including things, but the interpretations of WP:NLIST offered above are simply not logically tenable. Two independent, reliable sources could list the phone numbers of every pharmacy in New York City. Does that mean we then need to create a wikipedia page called List of pharmacy phone numbers in New York City? No, because there is no encyclopedic value in that beyond turning Wikipedia into a directory. The same answer applies with regards to post offices. WP:NOPAGE is also instructive in this regard - when a subject passed WP:SIGCOV, that means it clears the minimum bar of notability to be covered on the Wikipedia. How exactly that coverage occurs - whether by way of its own article, of a fully included list, or as a summarized mention within another article - remains up to the community to decide. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 22:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the delete votes seriously engage with the wording of WP:NOTDIRECTORY It has six categories - 1 simple lists without contextual information, 2 loosely associated topics, 3 non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, 4 genealogies, 5 program guides and 6 business directories. This article is clearly not 2, 3, 4, or 5. It has information on specific locations, like historical moves, beyond a simple list. It's not 6 as its function is not to help people find post offices, and it includes branches which were closed.
I have addressed in my vote above why this satisfies WP:NLIST.
The WP:LISTORG requirement within WP:STANDALONE for organizations is similar to NLIST, which is that individual notability does not need to be shown for each component of the list. Oblivy (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only responding to this comment because of your supposition that I have "not seriously engaged" on account of failing to reference the six NOTDIRECTORY categories. With respect, you need to scroll further up the WP:NOT page where it clearly states that the examples under each section are not exhaustive.

In no way shape or form has an editor "failed to seriously engage" with WP:NOTDIRECTORY if they don't make explicit reference to one of the six example categories, because per WP:NOT, they are very explicitly just that: non-exhaustive examples. A !delete vote which more broadly states that the article is not in keeping with the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a perfectly valid !vote.
And in case I wasn't clear, I completely disagree with your propositions about categories #1 and #6:
- At best, a slim minority of the articles have substantive "notes" listed about when the post office was founded. The vast majority are a simple listing of their ___location and founding date, with a brief note.
- The inclusion of a handful of closed offices does not transform what is otherwise a business directory into something else, in the same way that the Yellow Pages doesn't become a history textbook as soon as one or two of the phone numbers become outdated. "Its function is not to help people find post offices" is also completely subjective statement of opinion - maybe I say that is what the article's function is. That type of statement without elaboration does not critically engage with the policy.
There are reasonable, arguable positions to keep or delete - far from "unserious engagement". All of the !votes have seriously engaged. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful to say nobody had engaged with the wording of NOTDIRECTORY, which in the case of an organization includes the six categories. Sorry if you feel I'm mischaracterizing your argument, but IMHO "Per [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]]" is just namechecking the policy without applying it. If you disagree I'm OK with that but I stand by my comment. Oblivy (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. ClubTitibooFn (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, passes NLIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the criteria of WP:STANDALONE, i.e., the list topic ... has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. In addition, Hongkong Post has a link to the article. On average, 182 people view this list every month, so it seems to be of value to quite a few readers.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for me the question is whether the information is indiscriminate per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And for me the way to tell if it is would be to apply the same rules to a different example. For example, mainland china has tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of post offices. Would a theoretical page containing all those be "discriminate", in the sense of the opposite of indiscriminate, information? Do we really want these kinds of lists for every country in the world that has post offices, given that it is highly likely that almost every country has had their post offices discussed as a group? I say no. We don't need lists of post offices, or McDonalds locations or churches dedicated to a saint or locations or benches with a view. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Each article should be evaluated independently, not based on what other articles already exist or might follow. Rublamb (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honey packet

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

This article is written in a promotional tone that resembles marketing rather than neutral encyclopedic content, in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and promotional content (WP:ADVERT, WP:PROMO) policies. The language appears to promote the product, and may reflect undisclosed paid editing (WP:PAID). The article lacks a neutral and critical perspective necessary for verifiability and encyclopedic quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio102wiki (talk • contribs)

The page was originally created by a paid editor on behalf of a manufacurer and did push a particular product. However, all mention of the manufacturer has been removed to make this focus on the category of products. I strongly disagree with the statement that it "lacks a neutral and critical perspective". It is most certainly critical, whatever else one may say. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are news about the seizure of the product by France. [6]. The best source I can find is this USA Today article; There is also this Daily Dot article. I'm neutral about this as I don't know if the sources in the article is good enough and if WP:MEDRS also applies to notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 7 is the only RS, the rest are non-RS. I don't see much except for the Forbes piece we could use, I only pull up things about actual honey. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 is a WP:FORBESCON Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, it's still a delete Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:TNT. What a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a bit of a disaster-zone, definitely WP:SPAM Nayyn (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems fine, I can find a handful sources on this pseudoscientific supplement (more often under the alternate name "honey pack"). A warning from the Belizean government,^[1] television news coverage in Arizona,^[2] and a warning from the US government that some of these products secretly contain actual pharmaceuticals^[3]^[4] leading to discussion in trade publications for pharmacists^[5] and emergency medicine physicians.^[6] I don't see anything to support the above claims of spam or promotional language, especially after Bilby's cleanup a week preceding the AfD nomination. In fact, the article is highly critical of the topic and treats it as I would expect any article on a junk health supplement. I am suspect of the nomination itself, which feels LLM-written to me. It came days after the article cleanup, and the AfD notice was first placed by Marie20123 but the nomination statement was written later by Emilio102wiki. Marie20123 was then shortly thereafter blocked for undisclosed paid editing. I'm not sure what exactly is going on here but the deletion rationale doesn't line up with the state of the article or indicate any WP:BEFORE. It might need some copyediting but I don't see a proper rationale for deletion. If this doesn't meet WP:LASTING it might be worth merging into honey or another article on junk supplement trends, but I don't really see the specific issues raised so far in the nomination. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lopez, Paul (2025-06-02). "Strong warnings against use of 'honey pack'". News 5 Live. Greater Belize Media. Archived from the original on 2025-08-15 – via Facebook.
^ "Troubling 'honey packet' trend gaining ground among college students". KPHO. 2024-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-12-08 – via YouTube.
^ Lanese, Nicoletta (2022-07-12). "Honey marketed for 'sexual enhancement' could be dangerous, FDA warns". Archived from the original on 2022-07-12.
^ "X Rated Honey For Men contains hidden drug ingredient" (Press release). Food and Drug Administration. 2021-07-09. Archived from the original on 2025-07-12.
^ "Hidden active ingredients found in honey-based products". US Pharmacist. 2022-08-17. Archived from the original on 2022-08-25.
^ Hagahmed, Mohamed (2025-02-07). "The hidden dangers of honey packets: A guide for prehospital clinicians". Journal of Emergency Medical Services. Archived from the original on 2025-02-19.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The detailed analysis from Dan_Leonard warrant a closer look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No scientific basis or encyclopedic relevance. Svartner (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have the spam concerns been dealt with? Is the topic notable if covered neutrally?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pseudoscience? Yes. Not notable? No. Coverage in mainstream media and an article in Journal of Emergency Medical Services indicates WP:SIGCOV is met.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I would have to agree to the observations and findings of Dan Leonard and 4meter4, article is fair and neutral in tone. And citations pointed out does have SIGCOV albeit mostly critical about the product.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

007 working hour system

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

Having trouble finding reliable sources that cover this 007 concept in depth. The sources in the article are a Wired article with a passing mention, and a podcast with a passing mention in the podcast summary. Additional googling (to try to figure out what this 007 concept really means, since it's physically impossible for someone to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week) left me confused and without a good understanding of this concept, suggesting this concept isn't really covered by reliable sources in enough detail. Appears to fail the WP:SIGCOV part of WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have said before on the 007 talk. It likely means the company has a 24/7 work schedule and not the people. It could mean the worker lives next to his computer and takes breaks as needed for sleeping so technically never off the clock. It depends on what their definition of rotational work force means not ours. I believe quoting the sources are sufficient and adding our commentary to explain the insanity/illogic of the concept is not my job to start over thinking it. If you think about it, how many other business paradigms articles covered by WP are essentially smoke and mirrors from businesses covering up something else? The sources are Wired magazine and NPR are not fly by night organizations and they thought it was important to include in their work so it should be be mentioned in WP. Septagram (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rotational work force" is a bit vague. I don't know what that means without further explanation, and the sources I went looking for to explain this didn't really fully explain this. But anyway, that can be discussed on the article talk page if the article is kept. The fundamental problem from a Wikipedia deletion guideline perspective is that this topic probably doesn't pass WP:GNG's "significant coverage" bullet. Significant coverage in my opinion is about 3 meaty paragraphs of detail about the concept, in about 3 reliable sources. Some other editors might have lower standards such as 2 and 2, but no matter what, we need more than just passing mentions of one or two sentences, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added lots of references and definitions so you should be happier now. Septagram (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support mentioning the 007 working hour system on Wikipedia. But there probably is insufficient coverage to support a standalone article as the sources I found largely provide passing mentions of the subject. The 007 working hour system has been called "an exaggeration" (Cheuk 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCheuk2021 (help)), "a joke" (Dai & Tao 2019 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaiTao2019 (help)), and a way for "mocking the system" (Mukherjee 2025 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMukherjee2025 (help)). The 007 working hour system usually is discussed alongside the 996 working hour system. Possible merge targets are 996 working hour system and Labor relations in China. Here are sources I found about the subject:
1. English-language sources:
  1. Pak, Jennifer (2025-08-14). "Work weeks are getting more intense for AI startups. As the AI arms race heats up, the U.S. and China are leaning into longer work weeks. Marketplace's Jennifer Pak takes us behind the scenes of China's '007' work schedule". Marketplace. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    This is a 26-minute video. The article notes: "The new tech trend is the “007” workweek, which does not look like the lifestyle of an international Playboy spy at all. It entails working midnight to midnight, seven days a week — no martinis involved. Marketplace’s China correspondent Jennifer Pak gave us a behind-the-scenes look at the “007” work schedule."
  2. Dai, Sarah; Tao, Li (2019-01-29). "China's work ethic stretches beyond '996' as tech companies feel the impact of slowdown". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-04. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "For Ding, the Shenzhen tech worker, it may not be that bad after all. “Though I feel mentally and physically tired all the time, we are paid better than most others in the industry, so we don’t deserve to complain about longer working hours,” he says. He may have spoken too soon. A joke circulating on Chinese social media refers to a new work ethic – “007”, that is “00.00am to 00.00pm”, seven days a week."
  3. Su, Xiaobo (2024). Unhomely Life: Modernity, Mobilities and the Making of Home in China. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-394-17630-4. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The grinding 9-9-6 work culture is widely used in some of China's most prestigious IT corporations. To borrow the words of Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba (one of China's largest IT corporations), this culture represents a fortune bestowed on those who work hard and earn high salaries. The condition in some corporations is even worse, due to a new work ethic coded as 007, which means working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week, and resting only on rota-tions. Both work cultures overtly defy the Labor Law enacted in 1995."
  4. "China's youth are rebelling against long hours". The Economist. 2024-05-16. Archived from the original on 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "Attitudes began to slowly change in 2019 after Jack Ma, a co-founder of Alibaba, celebrated the “blessing” of what he called the “996” work week—working from 9am to 9pm, six days a week. That set off a wave of online griping. Before long workers began to speak of “007” shifts—24 hours a day, seven days a week."
  5. Master, Farah; Yu, Sophie (2025-04-08). "In China, whispers of change as some companies tell staff to work less". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2025-07-24. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "Recent years have even seen the emergence of a new term "007", referring to being either at work or on call all day every day."
  6. Mukherjee, Vasudha (2025-06-04). "No more 70-hour work weeks? China clamps down on 996 overtime culture". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "Workers began mocking the system with phrases like “007”—working all day, every day."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Cheuk, Pak-on 卓柏安 (2021-05-31). "996、886、715、007｜內地瘋傳4組數字　工作制背後加班加到入ICU" [996, 886, 715, 007: Four Viral Work Schedules in Mainland China. Overtime So Extreme It Sends Workers to the ICU]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes "至於最後的007實在太過誇張，相信並非真實存生的工時制度，現實上亦都無法實現。007更多是指向一些工作幾乎需要全天候待命，甚至是極度熱愛工作及銷售經紀類工作從業員對自己工作狀態的形容，007亦形容一些十分「困身」、壓力大、需要長時間跟進的工作。"
    From Google Translate: "As for the final 007, it's an exaggeration. It's believed to not be a real-world working schedule and is unrealistic. 007 more often refers to jobs that require near-round-the-clock availability, even for those who are extremely passionate about their work, such as sales agents. 007 also describes jobs that are extremely demanding, stressful, and require long hours of follow-up."
  2. Ke, Jinding 柯金定, ed. (2019-04-16). "007公司是什么梗 007工作制具体规定是什么" [What's the Deal with '007 Companies'? What Are the Specific Rules of the 007 Work System?]. Minnan Net (in Chinese). Fujian Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "007公司是什么梗一种比996更狠的弹性工作制。从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。俗称24小时"
    From Google Translate: "What is the 007 company? A more flexible working system than 996. From midnight to midnight, 7 days a week without rest. Commonly known as 24 hours."
  3. Miss Lychee 荔枝小姐 (2021-01-20). Wu, Ling-chen 吳玲臻; Lin, Hsin-ping 林欣蘋 (eds.). "23 歲女孩過勞致死、「007」工時成常態——中國互聯網產業「用命換錢」的血汗紀實" [23-Year-Old Woman Dies from Overwork, 007 Becomes the Norm. How China's Tech Industry Turns Human Lives into Profit]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-07-22. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "我與還在互聯網打拚的朋友求證，對方表示 007 的狀況確實已經相當普遍，有人平均下班時間是半夜 2-3 點，早上 10 點前要抵達公司，而且週末跟國定假日幾乎都沒得休息。"
    From Google Translate: "I checked with a friend who's still working in the internet industry, and he said the "007" situation is indeed quite common. Some people leave work at an average of 2-3 a.m., arrive at the office by 10 a.m., and barely get any time off on weekends or national holidays."
  4. Liu, Yuanju 刘远举 (2021-09-02). Zhu, Xuesen 朱学森 (ed.). "新京智库："996、007"时代要结束了背后有这些原因" [Beijing News Think Tank: The Era of '996' and '007' Is Coming to an End. Here's Why]. Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Sina Corporation.
    The article notes: "近日，人社部和最高法联合发布超时加班劳动人事争议典型案例，为企业“划红线”，这意味着明确“996”和“007”工作制度是违法的。... 而所谓“007”，则是指从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。"
    From Google Translate: "Recently, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People's Court jointly released typical cases of labor and personnel disputes involving excessive overtime work, drawing a red line for companies. This means that the "996" and "007" work systems are illegal. ... The so-called "007" refers to working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week without a break."
  5. "科企行3組數字制「007」最苛刻" [Tech Companies Adopt Three Work Schedules: '007' Is the Harshest]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2024-11-11. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
    The article notes: "更苛刻數字則有「007」，所指是凌晨零時起上班至翌日零時下班，每周工作7天，即全天候工作，24小時候命，確保員工每天每秒都在工作；這與大家聽慣聽熟的「247」相同。"
    From Google Translate: "Even more demanding is the "007" work schedule, which means starting at midnight and finishing at midnight the following day, seven days a week. This means working around the clock, ensuring employees are working every second of every day. This is similar to the familiar "247" work schedule."
  6. "996和007是违法不是奋斗，过度加班是对员工的盘剥" [996 and 007 Are Illegal, Not Hard Work. Excessive Overtime Is Exploitation of Employees]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). 2021-03-12. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Phoenix Television.
    The editorial notes: "不管是996，还是007，都是违法行为。对违法行为纵情美化，不是糊涂，就是别有用心。"
    From Google Translate: "Whether it's 996 or 007, both are illegal. Unbridled glorification of illegal behavior is either foolish or has ulterior motives."
Cunard (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources say 007 came about due to Work From Home (WFH) during the Covid pandemic. Others mention people living at the office 24/7. A few do use the term in a humorous way, but mostly it is serious and becoming more common as the work force becomes more competitive. Septagram (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are references to it as a joke, which seems to be the best explanation. It strains credulity to believe a 168 work week is "becoming more common". It's not only illegal but probably physically and mentally impossible to accomplish (consider debates on errors by long-rotation MD residents) on anything but a short-term basis. Stories like Oriental Daily strain the sometimes-narrow credibility ODN has. Based on what @Cunard has found this AfD probably ends with keep, but the article if kept needs to express greater incredulity at any suggestion this is a genuine, common practice. Oblivy (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 996 working hour system. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE if inclusion in a larger article would provide useful additional context then it can be included there rather than in a stub. This would resolve the greater incredulity needed issue and we can revive the article if (somehow) this becomes a thing that is having a real world impact rather than what appears to be absurd hyperbole about employer expectations Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources that say 007 came about due to Work from Home (WFH) during the Covid pandemic and people living at the office 24/7? I think people are fixating on mostly the humorous aspects. Labor unions point to types of 007 as a possible loophole for employers to drive an oil tanker through. I think it need an article. Septagram (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lack of serious inquiry and evidence from press outlets claiming an actual 168 hour work week. Do you believe that people are really at the workplace for 168 hours? The article won't even say for sure. Context is important, and the 996 article will provide it in a way that this article never can. Oblivy (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might be better covered in an article on Labor practices in China. The issue here is the term is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Another possible way to cover this would be in a subsection in an article on the 1995 Labor Law referenced in the sources above. Criticisms of the law, or flouting of the law could be a reasonable part of that article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- upon reviewing a bit of the sources presented here in defense of this articles notability, it is clear for me that this has its distinct definitions enough for me to be distinct from the 996 working hour system , admittedly both articles does indeed have a strong similar theme of labor law "violations", so if this article may need to be improved more in terms of content, then I suggest draftifying it till it has enough substance to be standalone. I am hesitant to have it merged. as per reasons I have already mentioned above. Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 996 working hour system. Almost all of the article's citations and articles I found via google search were also about the 996 system. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khai Malik

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

Notability is not inherited (WP:INVALIDBIO). This article is for a five-year-old child of celebrities. Most of the article discusses the lengths the parents have taken to keep the child's life private. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will improve on the article. Okeywhatever48 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in any way, parents have explicitly called for her privacy, gossip/rumour mill. I feel like it should be speedy deleted due to how inappropriate this page is, but ig it doesn't meet any SD criteria. jolielover♥talk 09:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: intrusive to have an article on a very young child, no notability except her parentage. Agree that a speedy or snow deletion would be helpful. PamD 10:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that this is a clear case of INVALIDBIO. It is not possible to improve this article because this is a crystal clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Nnev66 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NINI, and just being kind of gross. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Plumer

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

Woefully unreferenced and undetailed biography on a likely unnotable figure -Samoht27 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, United States of America, California, and North America. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lincoln Plumer: but could pass WP:NACTRESS as prolific (over 200 roles on ImDb), can be veriifed through Gbooks. Afi lists 15 of them, some being probably significant. - E.—UX 08:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Calhoun

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

Cut and pasted from Draft:Joe Calhoun. The user could have just submitted the draft for review! Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this appears to be a contesting of a draftification, as Draft:Joe Calhoun also started at this mainspace title before being moved to draftspace for insufficient sourcing. (I have no opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right I put the draft tabs back in and submitted it for review this time. Sorry about that, I hope it works this time. R2025kt (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. I created this page in my own words because I want to touch on his legacy and how notable, accurate and precise Joe Calhoun had been to the Susquehanna Valley as the most trusted forecaster because of his legacy and why I created this Wikipedia page. I'm just saying so please don't delete this page. R2025kt (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul L. Williams (author)

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

Article does not meet notability standards as per WP:AUTHOR. CountryLad (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CountryLad (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep almost every book he has published is notable and several rs call out his works as especially significant for both good and bad reasons (namely, blasphemy and disputes over terrorists, repeatedly accused of being racist/sensationalist) [7] among others, he was an FBI consultant for which he received some coverage, and was he involved in a bizarre dispute over his publisher that made news in multiple countries and appears in several RS books, so WP:NAUTHOR pass. A few of his books are also widely cited (>100) which gives him a claim to WP:NACADEMIC [8] and [9] 1. The reviews of his books and news coverage of him also give enough coverage of him to pass GNG. He also has a profile in the Contemporary Authors series (encyclopedia.com link) which provides coverage and lists more reviews of his work.PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is seven years old and the subject has an 18-item bibliography. Keep as per WP:AUTHOR. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long family murder–suicide

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

Well written, but just one of many familicides that happen across the nation every year, nor is it even the deadliest one. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the incident is that the mother was the perpetrator, as it is usually a male, but I do not believe this allows it to meet the notability criteria. WP:NOTNEWS Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine news events, regardless of how tragic or widely reported at the time, are usually not notable. Raskuly (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, United States of America, and New Hampshire. Raskuly (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. Per WP:N/CA there must be WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing that extends beyond the immediate news cycle after event. That requires time and distance. It's clearly WP:TOOSOON for those types of sources to exist.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I realize the associated image should also be deleted if the result is deletion, but I'm unsure whether or not I should begin the nomination process yet. Raskuly (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although tragic events of the sort unfortunately happen across the country every year, I believe what particularly stands out about this familicide is not only that it was perpetrated by the mother, but the fact that it took place in a small town in one of the safest states in America, where you least expect an incident like this. As the murder only occurred a week ago, we cannot be too sure that it will fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The diversity of sources isn't much of an issue either, as I've gathered reports from multiple outlets including local newspapers and national news websites. There could be more updates ahead and given the situation it seems quite possible that the significance of this event is lasting. FromNH (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as all events here-the article subject, the writing of the article and its nomination-all happened very recently. I'd like to allow for more discussion but, for editors who are arguing to Keep this article, you should base your opinions in Wikipedia policies, not on specific irrelevant details like the ___location of where this crime happened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 4meter4; it's simply too soon for notablity-proving sources to appear. I can't see anything that makes me think this tradgedy is very likely to have lasting impact; however, if it does (quite possible due to the fact that I believe most famicides are perpetrated by men), then we can always re-create the article. On a similar note, and this is with a nod to the spirit of WP:BLP/WP:BDP, I don't think it's fair to the family and friends of the deceased, or Wikipedia editors, to have to babysit the article until those high-quality, non-breaking news sources are written, as it could easily take 5 to 10 years. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Raskuly, just as an FYI, orphaned non-free files (non-free files that are no longer in an article) get automatically deleted by a bot after a small grace period, or (if the AfD does close as delete) you can manually tag it for speedy deletion under WP:F5. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, makes sense! I'm not nearly as familiar with Wikimedia, but I should've realized that before I made that comment. 😅 Raskuly (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hey, no worries! 🩷 We don't know something until we learn it, right? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 09:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazia Akhter Juthi

AfDs for this article:

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

Both sources don't have significant coverage of Nazia. Mostly about her awards, not about herself. ~~Could find nothing online about this. The second paragraph for the "Career" section is fake because National Sports Awards does not include her.~~ ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, She indeed won the National Sports Awards in 2012, the page shows the award from India. however, as a Bangladeshi, she won the National Sports Awards (Bangladesh). I have corrected the link in the main article. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afifa Afrin ok, silly me. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO. Received the National Sports Awards by the Bangladesh government.4meter4 (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 even if the sources don't have significant coverage of her? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not required for this WP:SNG. The whole point of SNGs is to provide an alternative pathway other than WP:SIGCOV to meet notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @4meter4: the problem is that it is mostly about her awards. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 20:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem if it's her primary claim to notability. Open a print encyclopedia and you will find short entries on some individuals. It's ok to have stubs. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.~~
~~Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Global consensus is very clear that sportspeople articles require IRS SIGCOV citations, regardless of achievement. None has been identified in the last 8 years, and we do not have any expectation that the award conferred GNG coverage (indeed most of the past winners do not have pages). At best this could be draftified to look for Bangladeshi sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat, you can't relist your own nomination. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay sorry but thank you for the information. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point one of WP:ANYBIO. There is no policy saying sportspeople are excluded from anybio.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vinegarymass911. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, won National Sports Awards (Bangladesh). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. The nomination was in order, but Vinegarymass911 did an excellent job of adding sources. Bearian (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, can you expand on which of the sources actually provides IRS SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening per WP:REOPEN, and striking out the improper relisting. Once a valid Delete !vote has been entered, a deletion discussion may no longer be closed as withdrawn by the nominator. I appreciate the improvements done to the article, and concensus is trending towards Keep, but participation isn't at the point where this can be WP:SNOW-closed after only four days. To allow for the full seven days of discussion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this may be closed anytime after 2 September 2025 18:45 (UTC). Owen× ☎ 11:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listing to get this on a newer log and give it the full active 7 days in light of the hiatus from improper closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femina George

AfDs for this article:

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

She only has brief acting career in Malayalam cinema, mainly Minnal Murali (2021), and a few minor roles. Tere is limited in-depth independent coverage demonstrating lasting notability. Fails GNG and ENT. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTRESS with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions+ a third that received an award nomination. Short careers too can be notable. - E.—UX 08:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5: created by a sockpuppet in violation of their block. No siginificant contributions by other editors (while byte size there are, these were primarily filling in blank-URL references, as far as I can determine; virtually no contributions of content are by other editors, making this valid for G5). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Sen (independence activist)

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

Having lots of archive.org and Trove references that may not actually verify the information (probably AI-generated) looks suspicious, and indeed, they probably do not establish that this person meets WP:NBIO. Also, the creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. GTrang (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, Bangladesh, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ahmad Shah Abouwi

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are databases which don't support notability, and both searches elsewhere and the corresponding wikis didn't reveal anything better. A user created this article as part of a mass-creation project under the previous presumption that all Olympians are notable, but WP:NSPORTS2022 has superseded this presumption. A redirect to Afghanistan at the 1956 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD here.

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following articles for deletion based on the same reasoning:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Field Hockey – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Medical Education

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

This journal does not have significant coverage outside of generic listings on websites like ProQuest. There are no reliable sources to speak of. Article has not had any transformative work done to it since its creation in 2009. 11WB (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indexed in Scopus (and in the top quartile), significant IF. Easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Clear pass of NJournals as Headbomb explains. I'll do some cleanup and provide some independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietmar Kuttelwascher

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

Fails WP:Athlete LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG [10][11][12] – Ike Lek (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source looks good to me, while second source is from the club Kuttelwascher competed for and as such isn't independent. I cannot view the third source so I have no opinion on it. Let'srun (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Ike Lek are sufficient to keep the article for an Olympic athlete. I would believe there are additional sources in Austrian news archives. --Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Ike Lek sources. Svartner (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. The first source provided by Ike Lek is independent. The other two are not. Both are published by the club Ruderverein Ister [de] where the subject was a rower.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the analysis from 4meter4 shows, this subject lacks the needed independent WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. In addition, the only reference currently in the article is a database. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austria at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Rowing per WP:ATD - I don't see any reason to delete. Ingratis (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austria at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Rowing per WP:ATD, WP:BLAR and WP:CHEAP. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a little more here: [13] – Ike Lek (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPC Theological Seminary, Kottayam

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources are either primary or affiliated with the subject. Thilsebatti (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghina Raihanah

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources on the article mention her as Tsania Marwa's sister, making this a case of WP:INVALIDBIO, since her sister would be the more notable figure, but even she does not have an article on enwiki. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 02:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. jolielover♥talk 02:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, multiple deletion on idwiki. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 12:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Weill (California politician)

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

Local mayors do not meet WP:NPOL automatically.

I fail to see significant non-local coverage that would make the individual pass WP:GNG. References are all very local or campaign sites, and a search yields several results from purely local outlets. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Story Kitchen

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, with insufficient significant coverage that isn't just a run-of-the-mill announcement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your concerns, and I now better understand your point about many sources being routine announcements or primary material, but I also believe that there is also substantial, independent coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. Three of the strongest examples are:
1. Variety – “John Wick Creator Derek Kolstad Launches Story Kitchen With Former APA Agent Mike Goldberg, Dmitri M. Johnson” (Sept 2022). This is not a simple announcement but a feature article in a leading industry publication. It discusses the company’s founding, leadership, and positioning within the broader Hollywood/interactive entertainment landscape—qualifying as significant, independent coverage.
2. Polygon – “Hollywood is entering a new era of successful and authentic video game adaptations… largely driven by Story Kitchen” (2025). This in-depth feature covers Story Kitchen’s multiple projects (Sonic, Tomb Raider, Sifu, Dredge, It Takes Two, Clair Obscur, etc.) and frames the company as a central force in reshaping how Hollywood handles video game IP. This is clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it analyzes industry impact rather than routine announcements.
3. Deadline Hollywood – “Story Kitchen Sets First-Look Deal With Amazon MGM Studios” (May 2025). This article provides industry context for a multi-year studio partnership, situating Story Kitchen among comparable companies and showing recognition by one of the most authoritative entertainment outlets.
Together, these sources demonstrate that Story Kitchen has received significant, reliable, independent coverageconsistent with the requirements of WP:GNG. While some citations in the article are indeed announcements, these three (and others like them) provide the kind of depth that shows clear notability. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Story Kitchen has received significant, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources such as Variety, Polygon, and Deadline. These articles go beyond routine announcements or primary sources by providing in-depth analysis of the company’s founding, industry impact, and major partnerships, thereby satisfying WP:GNG and overcoming concerns about WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PRIMARY. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing CORPDEPTH for this article:

1) Examples of substantial coverage: This article provides an "overview of the history of an organization",

2) Audience: This company is in the press more than monthly, and is directly working alongside extremely high-level artists, and creators, in film, tv and games. The audience(s) for the projects that Story Kitchen touches is global, and massive.

3) Numerical Facts: This article does not rely on numbers to make a point.

4) Significant coverage of the company itself: None of the articles info can easily be lifted and used elsewhere. It's one-of-one data that is only directly applicable to Story Kitchen.

4 Is This Trivial Coverage?: As respectfully stated above for (2), this a company working within the mainstream entertainment industry, in an exotic sector (the merging of games and Hollywood), and no other company is myopically focused in this space.

Lastly, why delete Story Kitchen when there are dozens of other film and television production companies listed, with similar or less interesting businesses (such as Thunder Road, Temple Hill, Blumhouse, Di Bonaventura, Original Film, 87North, etc. Please explain what differences you are seeing so that the Story Kitchen article can be augmented to your satisfaction. MLGoldberg (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something hasn't been deleted, it's either that they actually pass WP:NCORP due to more media attention, or their non-notability hasn't been noticed.

The point is that WP:FAME does not matter, it is entirely about media coverage that is non-trivial. You can be in the media a lot, but still not pass the WP:CORPDEPTH policy for the reasons stated there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having methodically gone through the CORPDEPTH list (and its sublists), can you please be more specific with the potential issue, or issues as they relate to the article?

I truly am not seeing what you're seeing, so more context would be supremely appreciated.

Additionally, do you mind highlighting how this article differs from almost all of your other American film production articles (such as the companies listed above, or hundreds more), that have not been deleted and allowed to remain on Wikipedia?

I'm truly failing to see that difference as well.

Examples that appear quite similar to Story Kitchen are:

Thunder Road, Temple Hill, Blumhouse, Di Bonaventura, Original Film, 87North, Escape Artists, Seven Bucks Productions, Marc Platt Productions, Rideback, etc.

Moreover, many are also -actually- in Wiki articles, alongside Story Kitchen! MLGoldberg (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your statement on talk page that I "do not have answers" - I did give you all the necessary answers in my previous response. But if you wish me to be more specific, then I believe that the sources pertain to: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" (such as this being one example), or are alternatively WP:PRIMARY (such as this) interview. If you wish to disprove it, then cite the best three sources you believe do NOT violate CORPDEPTH or are otherwise clear proof of notability.

Regarding the rest of your statement, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument so I don't believe me or anyone is really obligated to answer that any more than it has already been answered above. If something hasn't been deleted, it's either that they actually pass WP:NCORP due to more media attention, or their non-notability hasn't been noticed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your concerns, and I now better understand your point about many sources being routine announcements or primary material, but I also believe that there is also substantial, independent coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. Three of the strongest examples are:

Variety – “John Wick Creator Derek Kolstad Launches Story Kitchen With Former APA Agent Mike Goldberg, Dmitri M. Johnson” (Sept 2022). This is not a simple announcement but a feature article in a leading industry publication. It discusses the company’s founding, leadership, and positioning within the broader Hollywood/interactive entertainment landscape—qualifying as significant, independent coverage.
Polygon – “Hollywood is entering a new era of successful and authentic video game adaptations… largely driven by Story Kitchen” (2025). This in-depth feature covers Story Kitchen’s multiple projects (Sonic, Tomb Raider, Sifu, Dredge, It Takes Two, Clair Obscur, etc.) and frames the company as a central force in reshaping how Hollywood handles video game IP. This is clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it analyzes industry impact rather than routine announcements.
Deadline Hollywood – “Story Kitchen Sets First-Look Deal With Amazon MGM Studios” (May 2025). This article provides industry context for a multi-year studio partnership, situating Story Kitchen among comparable companies and showing recognition by one of the most authoritative entertainment outlets.

Together, these sources demonstrate that Story Kitchen has received significant, reliable, independent coverage consistent with the requirements of WP:GNG. While some citations in the article are indeed announcements, these three (and others like them) provide the kind of depth that shows clear notability. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Story Kitchen meets WP:GNG with significant independent coverage in major secondary sources. Variety covered its founding and industry positioning in depth (2022), Polygon profiled its broad impact on Hollywood’s approach to video game adaptations (2025), and Deadline reported on its multi-year first-look deal with Amazon MGM Studios (2025). These are not WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE, but clear examples of substantial industry recognition. MLGoldberg (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unregistered Biohazard! 17:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Sallés

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

Unable to find notable sources that comply for WP:Notability. Sources like ESPN and Olympics.com are also stubs. Im looking to redirect it to some other article. 8bit12man (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Andorra. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andorra at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Judo – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A flag bearer at such a recent olympics is bound to have coverage. This gives a little [14][15][16][17], but probably isn't quite enough. There are also interviews [18][19]. Still, it is very unlikely to me that she would not have SIGCOV somewhere. These look really promising, but I do not have paywall access. [20][21][22] This certainly contributes [23]. – Ike Lek (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical blank interrupt

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

Disputed PROD, I don't believe this passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could reasonably be merged to Vertical blanking interval; the concept is actually tremendously important but would mostly be covered in paper books (such as Michael Abrash's Black Book), or long-since-departed blogs and Dr Dobbs' Journal website things. It's not always called the vertical blank interrupt; it might also be called the vertical retrace interrupt or various other synonyms, and it was tremendously important because back in the days before operating systems took over control of everything, if a programmer wanted to do anything with the graphics memory or graphics settings, without creating noise on the screen (because of conflicts between the graphics processing chip and the microprocessor), s/he had to wait for the vertical retrace and start doing things during that time. It was therefore used extensively in nearly all games designed for CRT-displays pre-Windows. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNS Global Services

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

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources and reads in a very promotional tone. I have left some feedback on the active author's talk page regarding these issues in the hopes that they can be worked on. Failing that, I don't believe this article would be appropriate for mainspace, so I !vote for deletion or a return to draftspace so the issues can be worked on there. 11WB (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Maharashtra, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for deletion. A company that is earning revenue of $1.3 billion has been bought for $3.3 billion, which is not a joke. The user wants to delete a major MNC firm, which is weird. The editor is totally weird. There are 85 listed sources. I vote to keep and maintain the article. To make a non-issue a issue, I will vote for the user who has proposed for deletion to be permanently banned from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunaita (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is major MHC firm that is earning $1.3B in revenue and was recently bought for $3.3B. There might be m Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revert to version as of July 2025, before all the recent promotional additions. . .Mean as custard (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Lopez_2025-1] Lopez, Paul (2025-06-02). "Strong warnings against use of 'honey pack'". News 5 Live. Greater Belize Media. Archived from the original on 2025-08-15 – via Facebook.

[KPHO_2024-2] "Troubling 'honey packet' trend gaining ground among college students". KPHO. 2024-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-12-08 – via YouTube.

[Lanese_2022-3] Lanese, Nicoletta (2022-07-12). "Honey marketed for 'sexual enhancement' could be dangerous, FDA warns". Archived from the original on 2022-07-12.

[FDA_2021-4] "X Rated Honey For Men contains hidden drug ingredient" (Press release). Food and Drug Administration. 2021-07-09. Archived from the original on 2025-07-12.

[USPharmacist_2022-5] "Hidden active ingredients found in honey-based products". US Pharmacist. 2022-08-17. Archived from the original on 2022-08-25.

[Hagahmed_2025-6] Hagahmed, Mohamed (2025-02-07). "The hidden dangers of honey packets: A guide for prehospital clinicians". Journal of Emergency Medical Services. Archived from the original on 2025-02-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

郵政局名稱	重開日期
香港中央郵局	1942年1月22日
九龍中央郵局	1942年1月22日
灣仔郵政局	1942年2月14日
上環郵政局	1942年2月14日
油蔴地郵政局	1942年2月14日
深水埗郵政局	1942年2月14日
九龍城郵政局	1942年2月14日
西營盤郵政局	1942年3月26日
元朗郵政局	1942年3月26日
大埔郵政局	1942年3月26日
赤柱郵政局	1942年5月1日
九龍塘郵政局	1942年11月15日

Post Office	Reopening Date
Hong Kong Central Post Office	22 January 1942
Kowloon Central Post Office	22 January 1942
Wan Chai Post Office	14 February 1942
Sheung Wan Post Office	14 February 1942
Yau Ma Tei Post Office	14 February 1942
Sham Shui Po Post Office	14 February 1942
Kowloon City Post Office	14 February 1942
Sai Ying Pun Post Office	26 March 1942
Yuan Long Post Office	26 March 1942
Tai Po Post Office	26 March 1942
Stanley Post Office	1 May 1942
Kowloon Tong Post Office	15 November 1942