Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bhutan at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery. The history is preserved should in-language sourcing eventuate. Star Mississippi 01:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jigme Tshering

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Asia. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical case of non notable athlete Czarking0 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhutan at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Archery – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a redirect; however I think a search should be conducted in Dzongkha or whatever his native language is before a verdict is reached. Ike Lek (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to go to the Library of Congress in person they can access a web archive of Bhutan news from 2019-2023 [1] - which I doubt will have much on a 1988 Olympian. Archive access is gonna be hard here. Google Books snippet view shows the name all over the front and second page of Kuensel in 1988, though [2], which indicates there was coverage at the time.

I am personally not familiar enough with Tibetan script to be confident even computer translating any Dzongkha source I find, or really to search in it. Auto translation says the name in Dzongkha is "འཇིགས་མེད་ཚེ་རིང་།", but I couldn't tell if that's right. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎ all except for Airport Thana, for which there is no consensus.

We are all instructed to assume good faith, but that does not extend to blindly trusting the word-of-mouth of an editor who the community decided to indefinitely block from creating new articles due to his persistent disregard for our notability guidelines. Feel free to renominate Airport Thana in three months. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kotwali Model Thana, Barisal

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Non-notable local police station. Searches turn up mentions and the type of routine local coverage, fails WP:GNG. Will be adding the others created by this same editor to the afd with the same lack of coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all also local non-notable police stations:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by onel5969 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This, and all of the other listed police station articles follow similar formats and contain similar levels of information, and are recently created in early 2025. Each seems to have a legitimate second source, and therefore fails WP:GNG. Rather than delete these articles, it might be better to treat each as a stub and wait for the Wikipedia Community to expand the articles. Revisiting these articles in one year, say June 2026, to see if they have been expanded or not, and perhaps then decide if they are legitimate candidates for deletion. Truthanado (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait you say legitimate and then you say it fails, im sorry, can you please clarify or check again if this is a mistake? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Thanas are administrative units and police stations both, they contain relevant and important information, deleting them is not that beneficial, yes upazila system exists and most rural thanas' administrative values have shifted to upazilas but its not the same with urban thanas, its not "non-notable", not every thana receives a 190 page summary, but also not every thana has a page on Banglapedia, these pages do, you see the wards and administration? These thanas linked with Metropolitan Police are extremely important, plus if you saw issues with the pages i created, you couldve improved them yourself, i dont have all time in the world, i have exams, assignments, homework, projects, chores and i also contribute to other platforms, i still try to improve and create pages in Wikipedia though but it would be better for Wikipedia too, if contributors improve the pages i created and many others created, thats the whole purpose, you improve pages and create some yourself, if you see a issue, you try to improve it or see whether it has importance and then talks about possible outcomes and discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on this, and other AfDs, it has been asserted that "Thanas are administrative units and police stations both". However, nowhere has a reputable, reliable government source been given to substantiate that claim. And even if that is correct, is it true for all thanas? Source please.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Airport Thana which according to Banglapedia, (https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Airport_Thana) in an administrative area home to 166,870 people. It has its article on Banglapedia, which most of the 650 police stations do not. A good rule of thumb to use here would be to see if Banglapeda has an article on the subject, which would demonstrate that this particular thana is a legally recognised, populated place which are presumed to be notable. The articles would have to be reworked to focus on the area rather than the police station. In case there is no article, it's a police station, which usually is not notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you are correct, the Banglapedia factor is correct but not every thana is listed on Banglapedia, some thanas were established after or the pages were not yet written, the administrative debate here is that whether thanas are just police stations or administrative units and also used for law enforcement is complex, there are many thanas that are just police stations and many thanas that are administrative units, its not always clearly detailed whether which one, initially Hussain Muhammad Ershad who was the Chief Martial Law Administrator and President created the upazila system, and administrative value of thanas were given to upazilas or sub-districts, but when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party came into power, Khaleda Zia and her administration switched back to the thana system in 1992, but when Sheikh Hasina came back to power in 1996, she started taking decisions which were more aligned with the upazila system and in 1999, the Sheikh Hasina regime shifted administrative value again and then upazilas became the administrative unit for sub-districts again, afterwards many thanas were relieved from their administrative duties but not all thanas lost their administrative value, thanas in urban areas still have administrative duties, such thanas are all over the country, like in Dhaka, Sylhet, Chattogram, Barisal, Rangpur, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Kushtia and other areas, and many still have administrative value, even if there is not a article about a thana in Banglapedia, it can still be a administrative unit, i am Bangladeshi and i can search both online and offline for sources, you can check if any source mentions the thana consisting of unions or wards, then it can definitely be a administrative unit as well. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia is a local encyclopedia...having an article on a local police station there doesn’t surprise me. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
again, the same contradiction, Banglapedia is still relavant, being local doesnt make it unreliable and these are not just police stations, not every country is like yours, thanas are both police stations and administrative units in many cases in Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn’t reject sources because they’re from a specific country. Banglapedia is written and reviewed by national scholars and is a reliable source — your discomfort with 'local sources' doesn’t invalidate its credibility, what next? Should we regard Encyclopedia Britannica as local sources as well and other encyclopedias of other countries as local sources so they cant be trusted? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I never thought that one day I will see an article on police station on Wiki, should we now create articles on millions of police stations present in the world? Never... Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these articles too. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

again, these are not just police stations, not every country is like yours, thanas are both police stations and administrative units in many cases in Bangladesh, First learn and then vote. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Funny how seeing a thana article shocks you — yet these are literally how many urban areas in Bangladesh are organized. What’s next? Being surprised that cities have wards too? So because you 'never thought' a thana would be on Wikipedia, the whole system is invalid? Please see Bangladeshi reports on administration and i am in Bangladesh myself, I know how it is, You’ll realize thana isn’t just a police box on the corner — it’s how people identify their entire neighborhood many times, just because Upazilas exist, that doesnt mean all thanas lost their administrative value, some (rural) ones did but not urban ones, urban thanas still have administrative value. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tried to do some research on this topic to have an informed opinion but I think I am just more confused. Administrative geography of Bangladesh, Thanas of Bangladesh, and Upazila all seem to agree that thana used to be an administrative unit until 1982 when they became upazila, then from 1992-1999 they were thana again, but now they are back to upazila. They also say The word thana is now used to solely refer to police stations. Following this advice I would argue for DELETE. Perhaps these articles are about upazila instead in which case they should be renamed or this fact somehow made clear. Shah Poran Thana for instance seems to clearly state it is about a police station. Moritoriko (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Honestly, I trust the person claiming to be Bangladeshi about their significant. I only say "weak keep" instead of just "keep" because I am not informed on the subject. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ike Lek: Would it affect your trust in BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's judgement to know that they have been blocked indefinitely from creating articles in mainspace, precisely because they fail to understand notability? Sometimes it takes an outsider like Moritoriko to see that the emperor has no clothes. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point that swayed me the most was the administrative importance of the division. I don't think your interpretation of who is an outsider is correct. I had never heard of the user or the article subject before. I think that's about as "outsider" as it gets. Your statements about BangladeshiEditorInSylhet did concern me, so I took the time to go back through their talk page, and honestly I think they were treated a little unfairly. English Wikipedia's notability guidelines are applied far to harshly in my opinion, and it most negatively affects coverage of areas of the world that are already suffering from a lack of global attention. This doesn't mean anything goes, but I think there is room to understand that the notability of a thing can depend on the context of the systems it is in. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV is very logical here Ike Lek, and even though the discussion on ANI led to a indefinite restriction of creating mainspace articles, you can check this page in particular which i created, this is notable among others, some issues occurred between notability issues of the other articles i created. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i am trying to be neutral here but i myself am from Moglabazar Thana, Sylhet, Bangladesh, i have done local, offline and online research on the administrative importance of thanas and i know the topic well. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of them are likely to rise to WP:GNG. There is some local coverage. Many of these are passing mentions in a 1E context. Czarking0 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no, they can definitely pass WP:GNG, its only been 3 months since they were created and not much collaboration by other users until AfDs came up, and when i created these pages, i thought since these are administrative units, everybody will understand the difference of thanas under city corporations (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and Bangladesh National Portal gives key information on administrative units including evidence that thanas are administrative units, especially thanas under city corporations or for decentralization), thus i added just some sources in-depth, but if i add all on what i could find, then definitely it can pass GNG, don't act like this is a site only supposed to be improved by the author, its a site for collaboration. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't seen any sources cited to show that thanas are an administrative division. Both Banglapedia [3] and our article Upazila make clear that the administrative divisions are currently called "upazila" and not "thana". "Thana", as far as I can tell, is currently only a unit of police administration. Beyond this, the assertion that the GNG is met but that BangladeshiEditorInSylhet expects other people to provide the sources to show this and/or cannot be bothered to cite the sources themselves is very unhelpful. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be unhelpful, i am just trying to call for collaboration. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, As for GNG, I absolutely agree it’s my responsibility to provide better sources. Some articles were created during my limited free time (especially while exams were ongoing), and I didn’t expect them to go to AfD before I could improve them. But that doesn't mean the subjects lack notability — only that I didn’t finish the work yet. I’m trying to continue working to improve sourcing going forward, and I welcome collaboration instead of instant deletion. over and over and over again, its being stated that they are just police stations, thanas are police stations but also administrative units according to:

1. ResearchGate

2. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

3. Bangladesh National Portal

4. Government of Bangladesh and other associated sources (i found a few more sources)

===Note===

After 1982 and 1999, the thana system was replaced with the upazila system, however many urban areas contain administrative thanas today still, especially where there are not upazilas there or for further decentralization, see Administrative geography of Bangladesh, usually thanas under city corporations or thanas being used for decentralization are administrative units. You can find more information on thanas from here.

Also the upazila wikipedia article is in some cases, partial, this is a circular reference, thanas are definitely a part of police administration but under the jurisdiction of city corporations or metropolitan police, they may also be administrative units, if thana is not a unit of administration then when it is referred to areas in cities or metropolitan areas in Bangladesh, why is thana used and not upazila? A regular police station wont get that much usage if so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your effort to engage with the topic, but this subject deserves more than a surface-level interpretation based on Western models of administration. Thanas may sound unfamiliar to non-Bangladeshi editors, but that’s precisely why global representation is important here. We shouldn't erase administrative units just because they don't align with U.S. or U.K. structures. Thanas many times have dual functions, while i am cautious about original research, i myself as a Bangladeshi know which ones are administrative units, and to verify whether a particular thana is a administrative unit or just a simple police station. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I want to clarify that I never said others must find sources for me. I create articles in good faith, and if not all were fully sourced on creation, it’s not out of laziness or not being bothered — it's because I was short on time or dealing with overlapping AfDs and exams and assignments. But that doesn’t mean the subjects aren’t notable.

Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. There’s a difference between inviting help and 'expecting others to do all the work.' If someone tags or adds to an article and improves sourcing and makes it pass GNG while the creator also increases sources and expands it significantly, that’s the spirit of teamwork. Deleting contributions before they’re improved — especially ones related to underrepresented regions — defeats that spirit, keep studying. We should be careful not to confuse ‘not done yet’ with ‘not willing to do it.’ Wikipedia thrives when we assume good faith, especially with contributors trying to represent overlooked topics. Regarding the claim that I ‘can’t be bothered’ to cite sources: I’ve created over 80 mainspace articles, many on complex Bangladeshi administrative topics that are often overlooked. This reflects ongoing effort, not neglect.

Some articles initially had limited sourcing due to real-life work, you don't shut down a factory before it even begins full and proper production, work includes exams and managing multiple AfDs, helping family and managing academics and exams and long assignments, I’ve always intended to improve the Wikipedia articles i have created as time permits.

It’s interesting that this criticism comes from editors who may not fully grasp the complexity of Bangladesh’s administrative divisions—something government portals and official statistics clearly document.

Wikipedia is a collaborative space. When contributors put in effort on challenging topics, it’s most productive to engage constructively rather than assume bad faith or lack of commitment.BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:50, 16 July 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.

Inappropriate result

I kind of disagree with the tone and implication of this remark. The restriction on my account is not an indication of bad faith, but rather a temporary measure proposed not because I was creating hoaxes or spam, but because some of my contributions they said is just a police station, it is not, i clearly gave evidence, just needed more collaboration instead of spamming AfDs—particularly on underrepresented Bangladeshi topics.

As for ‘word-of-mouth’—I never asked anyone to trust claims without sources. I cited government portals, research, and structural data on urban thanas. These were repeatedly overlooked or dismissed. I understand that not every article will survive AfD, but implying that I should no longer be trusted to speak on topics I’ve studied and contributed to for a long time, especially as someone from Bangladesh who knows local administration, is just bogus, by that logic, just one restriction will remove all trust and he is just a useless contributor and feel free to delete his contributions without a proper response, what kind of logic is that?

Let’s focus on content—not assumptions. The more productive step here would’ve been helping build up underdeveloped articles rather than sweeping deletion, especially when the subjects are real, state-recognized units. Focus on content, the user's activities are irrelevant here, so even notable recognized topics will be deleted just because it was created by that partucular user? This is not a proper way to close an AfD, I oppose this outcome, respond properly. Many of these articles were about real, government-recognized administrative units that exist on official maps and are referenced in public infrastructure. Deleting them without addressing the specific sourcing arguments weakens Wikipedia’s inclusivity and global representation.

I urge a reconsideration of this closure, or at the very least, a response based on content and policy — not assumptions about the contributor. We should evaluate arguments based on sources and evidence, not who made them. I feel the focus in some comments and outcomes has shifted from content to contributor — from evaluating whether an article meets policy to whether the person who created it “deserves” to be heard. That’s not how Wikipedia works.

Yes, I’m under a temporary article creation restriction, and I’ve accepted it myself, i accepted the proposal myself and then the community came and restricted, i accepted in good faith to improve how I work within notability standards. But that does not mean I’m creating false content, nor that my arguments about sources or administrative structure should be dismissed.

These articles were about real, government-documented administrative units, and I provided relevant sources, maybe should have been more perfectly formatted or abundant, but they existed and just needed improvement. And instead of collaborating to improve them, the response was deletion followed by a statement implying I no longer deserve good-faith engagement.

If restrictions are used to silence, not support improvement, that goes against Wikipedia’s collaborative mission which is a serious violation of Wikipedia policies, Judge my work by the content, not assumptions about the contributor. @OwenX: BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 05:45, 16 July 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, in March 2024, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, e.g. Chinese exonyms and Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 ... Is that it? Are Lithuanian exonyms, in contrast to exonyms-in-general, discussed collectively by independent reliable sources? Does "discussion" mean more than recognition of a well-defined (though trivial) set? —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per policy, deleting this is absolutely appropriate, but why bother? There's no way for it to be promotional or COI, and it isn't misinformation. The way I see it, someone took the time to make this page because they thought it could be useful to someone, and it could be. Why get rid of that? Ike Lek (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to follow the logic in saying that, according to policy, deletion is absolutely appropriate - the corollary to which is that the article should not exist - but then say (paraphrasing) someone took the time to make it, and it could be useful, so why get rid of it? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Weirdguyz (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be moved to the Lithuanian wiki instead. Does not serve a purpose here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani Turkish exonyms in Georgia

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

The cited sources are not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article list should be deleted, I support Chidgk1 argument of no notability.
Draftily – I think Sebirkhan has demonstrated there there may be sufficient sourcing; however the current article is a nearly unreferenced mess. There is sufficient historical context for this to be more than an indiscriminate list, and I think it should be given the chance to live up to that potential, but only if someone is willing to put in the work. – Ike Lek (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if these can be sourced, the scope is going to be so small that it doesn't make sense to have List of Azerbaijani exonyms and then separate articles for each country. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I admit that I am unable to properly assess several of the sources linked above or in the article due to the language barrier. However, from what I can see, I don't think this needs to be a separate article from List of Azerbaijani exonyms. Most of the entries are for redlinked (presumably non-notable) places, which shouldn't be included at all. None of this has inline citations and one of the two sources cited is a dead link. So, overall I lean towards deletion. If Sebirkhan would like, they may use the sources they presented to expand List of Azerbaijani exonyms. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 16 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak exonyms (Vojvodina)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – page serves a useful navigational purpose. Ike Lek (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like this was created by some one (likely) from that region in 2009 as a niche curiosity, but the notability on here is questionable. Slovak wikipedia would be a good ___location. They also created Rusyn exonyms (Vojvodina) and Romanian exonyms (Vojvodina), which should have the same fate. Metallurgist (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree, Slovak Wikipedia should be the ___location for this, not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. If such an option existed, I'd say this is "consensus for weak keep". asilvering (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Haddad

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a small mention including a quote and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on pictures being accessible and his accomplishments, it feels very likely that coverage will exist. We should actually look in newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV and a clear redirection target. Svartner (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Svartner: Any thoughts on the coverage presented below? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If anything else appears besides this quote from Al-Safir, I'll take my vote away, but so far it's not enough. Svartner (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is very difficult to use As-Safir's archives, but they allow you to search his name (that's stories including "Dany Hadad" in the title, but he may be covered under other names such as "Daniel" as well). There's about 10-15 stories with him in the title, some of which I've listed below:

Danny Haddad, Electricity Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 12/30/1979 Dany Haddad Represents Lebanon in Fencing at the Mediterranean Games Al-Safir Source Date: 1979/8/3 Dany Haddad, Lebanese Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1982/1/4 Dany Haddad, Independence Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1986/12/5 Dany Haddad Wins the Expatriates Fencing Cup Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/2/15 Dany Haddad Wins the Christmas Cup in Fencing Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/12/29 Dany Haddad places 37th in the Canada Fencing Championship Source: As-Safir Date: May 2, 1987

Lebanese Fencing Championship: 22 competitors, Danny Haddad first Source: As-Safir Date: March 30, 1980

I haven't looked at all of them – only a few have worked for me, but there looks to be enough to write something decent here, and remember, all these stories were found only by looking at one paper. Lebanon has many papers, and the odds that those other papers wouldn't have covered him further, given what we know, is very small. The Newsday has some bits that could be used to expand as well. If kept, I'll expand this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we need at least one other source since these results come from the same paper, but this is a very promising start. I've tried some searching with his Arabic name but haven't found anything else so far. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the Newsday article appears to be more about the subjects father. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, I noticed you have participated in this AfD but not yet cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I'm neutral on this discussion. We only have WP:GNG source right now, but it suggests that there is likely more WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above source review. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a more thorough review and input from other editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The9Man ^Talk 18:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify - The list of headlines given misses the point that these are clearly primary sources, and we have no indication that there is any significant information we can add to the article. At this point we have not met WP:SPORTCRIT, because despite searching, we do not have any independent reliable secondary sourced information we can place in the article and per SPORTCRIT we must have at least one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't primary sources ("accounts written by people who are directly involved") and there is certainly enough to write a decent article here. As I said, if kept I'll turn it into something high-quality. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Read WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, if you wish to work on it, I'll happily strike and replace with draftify. Nevertheless it cannot be kept without meeting SPORTCRIT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Draftify: Subject only has one usable source as of now. Draftify as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Draftify. Article has potential but needs a lot more research to get done. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources already discussed and this: [4]. He also has a mention in this piece, [5] which while maybe not notable, I thought was worth sharing anyway. – Ike Lek (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs (like the second source) generally aren't considered as being reliable, but that first source you provided, while composed mainly of interview content, contains barely enough independent prose to contribute to notability. Thanks for finding it, I'll switch to weak keep. Let'srun (talk) 13:43, 15 July 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.

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 nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

260 Huberta

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

Doesn't meet notability standards. We don't usually keep articles about individual asteroids unless there are studies about the object specifically. That is not the case here. Renerpho (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC) WP:WITHDRAWN per references presented below. This is probably a "speedy keep". Renerpho (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Renerpho (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found at least three papers discussing this asteroid without much difficulty. It doesn't appear to be non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus: Would you mind sharing the papers you've found? All I can find are papers about collections of Cybele asteroids. Those don't help. Renerpho (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: Sure. There are two older papers on elements for 260 Huberta, the already cited Lagerkvist (2001) which includes a paragraph, Shevchenkoa et al (2021) which has at least two paragraphs,[6] Carruba et al (2015) which discusses the Huberta family with a couple of sentences on the primary asteroid,[7] and of course the entry in Schmadel (2012).[8] Praemonitus (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The elements and the entry in Schmadel aren't sufficient (these exist for every asteroid). The others should be okay, specifically Carruba et al., to bring this above WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Renerpho (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Praemonitus. Svartner (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, per HEY (wp). Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 14:44, 10 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Kpenosen

AfDs for this article:

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

Nigerian player who has only played for minor Vietnamese football teams. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Svartner (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think they're minor. Do you really think so? They were top league clubs, and he was also among the top scorers of 2015. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that they were teams from the lower divisions. Still, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Arguments about level of play largely irrelevant. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons.

1. The current sourcing in the article does show some significant coverage of the player, and probably did even more so before some of the links were lost to link rot.

2. This article has had an AfD before which resulted in a speedy keep, where the closing admin wrote "Clearly meets the subject specific guideline. No reasonable chance of anything other than a keep outcome." Because notability is not temporary (see WP:NOTTEMPORARY), the subjects notability does not changed based on link rot, nor people's attitudes towards notability.

3. As was decided in the first AfD, the player is still notable under Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL, and while it is not an official policy guideline, the superseding WP:Notability (sports) does not have a section for soccer, making it largely unhelpful.

4. The player is likely notable under WP:GNG anyway, from the references already on the article, and the additional ones in existence. Some examples of other coverage available online include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. These are in addition to any print sources that exist in local newspapers. Coverage may also exist in Itsekiri-language media and on the Nigerian and Vietnamese internets.

– Ike Lek (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL is not only "unofficial", it has been explicitly depecrated and thrown out the window. It can never be used. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - I was going to vote Keep, he has a lot of coverage in 2015 after being among the top scorers of V.League 1 and nominated for Best Foreign Player (a category of Vietnamese Golden Ball); However, he hasn't received any coverage since 2016, which makes me kinda concern - KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability isn't temporary ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, change to Keep - KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Clearly notable foreign player with sources who was nominated for best foreigner award and was one of top scorers of the fully pro league. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Burdens me when people think Wikipedia is a soapbox. This subject lacks significant coverage; as such, I vote Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis West State League

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

Mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Was moved from AfC after being rejected twice, without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Sources are mainly primary from Tennis West or routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Depierris

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

18 appearances, no French Wikipedia page. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete additional googling only shows routine coverage Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:N from lack of secondary source coverage. Eulersidentity (talk) 21:59, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saima Akhter

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

No indication of notability. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and there isn't much coverage from reliable sources either. Fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Palestine, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If I accept the premise the subject has any claim to notability, the subject's notability comes entirely from her firing at Meta. There is no significant coverage or sustained coverage of the subject. -Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reminder to participants: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah I agree with Mpen320. Baqi:) (talk) 15:44, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been sitting in my watchlist for a long time. It reads very much like a vanity puff piece, and I really don't think the general notability guideline has been met. There's a ton of sourcing, but it's almost all primary (film festivals posting their showing lists, alumni newsletters) or local news coverage from Long Island (LI Herald and Newsday.) Other sources are non-notable blogs (such as DriveMusicMedia which appears to just be attempts at notability laundering random people.) No major in-depth coverage from more clearly notable publications is found. There's a clear likely undisclosed conflict of interest with the main author, User:HM2021, and I think it's a WP:TNT case here even if the notability wasn't in question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify. This filmmaker may become more notable in the future given that he has future projects in the works in the DriveMusicMedia interview. We can't just erase all of this like he does not exist. Plus many of the sources featured no longer appear in Google search results on him and it would be a shame to lose all of this information. HM2021 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I took a stab at digging through the 62 sources, and there really isn't a lot in the way of WP:SIRS. It's a lot of school publications, social media posts, program listings, some interviews, some reviews in unreliable sources (like this publication is literally PR). I think the best available sources toward WP:GNG are the profiles by local newspapers, which are mostly run-of-the-mill coverage that don't do a good job of asserting notability as a filmmaker. hinnk (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read what "WP:SALT" is and it says you want to permanently erase his existence online? You're insane. The article says he's working hard to make it in the industry and deserves to be seen. Why do we need to say the opposite? HM2021 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protection isn't permanent. An admin could carry out a request to remove the protection, and until that happened, it would prevent a sixth version of this article from being added. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom Shaahaajaahaan (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)~~ — Shaahaajaahaan (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Aniruddhchaudhuy (talk · contribs). [reply]

What happens if he gets a winning film at Sundance and there's then significant coverage on him? Then the article can never be recreated using the information already there? Crazy. HM2021 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A theoretical future article where the filmmaker has an indisputable award win and notable coverage would not look much like this article, since there would be much better sources said article could rely on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promotional autobiographies. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck me, the level of narcissism is overwhelming.[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] ad nauseam. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and duffbeerforme. I've been cleaning up this user's edits for the last 2 years. They may need to be blocked from editing film articles. This is the most engaged I have seen this user, who rarely even uses edit summaries. Mike Allen 20:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a good idea - this is so overwhelmingly promotionally written and the editor just doesn't seem to get why there's an issue - or why their sourcing has issues or that we can't keep articles based on uncertain future notability. It puts every single edit they've made into question. I've mentioned this on the short's AfD, but they may even have put some of the articles they've touched into risk of deletion as well. For example, the Long Island International Film Expo has a lot of the same issues as this article as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I copied all the data from the article so the information isn't lost and it can be merged with the more reliable/significant coverage in the theoretical future article when that's eventually created later on down the line as the info in this will still be useful (his education, filmmaking approach, personal life, accolades/non-filmmaking honors, etc.). HM2021 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ - self-promotion. Llajwa (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Barry Wom (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy just isn't notable and I'll be honest - this is so spammy and promotional that it could qualify for speedy deletion. A lot of this feels like the claims have been puffed up to be more major than they are, even if we were to consider every source usable. I mean, it's nice that he donated books during high school, but the article doesn't need an entire paragraph to say something that could be established in a sentence like "Hechtman has participated in philanthropy, encouraging childhood literacy." That's all. There's also no need to make mention of video/photo montages - that's not something Wikipedia considers notable. It's a nice gesture, but not really noteworthy. Also, the use of the term "cameo role" in relation to the Ben Platt concert film makes it appear like he was specially chosen and highlighted - like say, Stan Lee in the MCU films. I don't see evidence to suggest that this was the case or even what his role in the concert was - for all we know, he could have been an audience member, someone who did some stage hand work and happened to be caught on camera, or interviewed in a "Random Fan #35" context. That's not the type of thing to include unless you can specify what his role was and have sourcing to back it up.

IF this guy passes notability guidelines in the future this article should not be based on the way it currently looks. That would just run a serious risk of it getting deleted as a spam/promotional page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:23, 14 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Parsa

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most content relies on primary or self-published sources, and there is no evidence of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources.

Much of the article’s content is sourced from Mona Parsa’s personal website or press releases. There is no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable media sources (news outlets, magazines, scholarly journals) about her work, impact, or career.

While she has written a children’s book, hosted events, and worked as an attorney, there is no indication of sustained, independent coverage showing influential impact in her field. Llajwa (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Law, Beauty pageants, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any mentions in scholarly or journalistic sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV on google, the internet archive, or newspapers.com. There is a book review cited here, but it appears to lack independence, so WP:AUTHOR isn't met here either. Let'srun (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: do any pages link to this one? I don’t know how to check. Llajwa (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Mona_Parsa -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:26, 12 July 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to The Goon#Main characters. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Goon characters

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

There are no sources in this article, little sources exist so most of these entries would be deleted. Therefore, it should be merged with the parent article: The Goon. See WP:FANCRUFT Easternsahara (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into The_Goon#Main_characters per nom. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what makes sense to add to the main article section per मल्ल. Skynxnex (talk) 00:35, 9 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security. Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (on application of stay)

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

An unnecessary fork of D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security that fails to describe any impact. Emergency applications typically do not warrant separate articles and can go into main articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge:I am reviewing on how to merge it with D.V.D v. Department of Homeland Security. Starlighsky (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This referenced article has been moved to a related article. Should I archive this discussion? Starlighsky (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 23:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article; it's procedurally inappropriate to redirect an article while it is the subject of an active AfD debate. Left guide (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note Left guide, redirecting a page under AfD is not inherently procedurally inappropriate, especially when content is preserved in the history and there's emerging consensus toward merge or redirect. As per WP:AFDPURPOSE: "If the article is clearly a candidate for merging or redirecting, this can be proposed during the discussion." Redirects during AfDs have occurred in many past discussions. It's common to boldly redirect such pages mid-AfD while still leaving the debate open for consensus to form. The discussion remains ongoing, and I’m open to alternative views as consensus develops. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 00:03, 16 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filming of James Bond in the 1960s

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

I would also recommend deleting the same article for the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

These pages are pure content forks from articles for the relevant Bond films, including Dr. No, You Only Live Twice, and others. The rationale for deletion is WP:NOPAGE — the same reason why Filming of James Bond in the 2000s was nominated for deletion. Gommeh 🎮 20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 🎮 20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as for all the other articles. Pure fork. Fails WP:NOPAGE, as it provides no new information. LightlySeared (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and NOPAGE. Where, oh where, are the editors licensed to kill nefarious articles? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr NoPAGE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:FORK jolielover♥talk 12:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree it fails WP:NOPAGE. Once again this article is redundant since these information can be covered in other James Bond movie articles separately. No need for it to be created in the first place. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Would recommend deleting the articles for other decades as well. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also recommend removal of articles for other decades per @Surayeproject3

Eulersidentity (talk) 22:04, 15 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aarne Lindholm

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

A lugstub with no SIGCOV found. To quote Olympedia directly, "Finland won the silver medal in the team cross-country but only the three-best individual results counted towards the result. Therefore Lindholm was not awarded with a medal." Regarding searches, no SIGCOV found in Google News, Google Scholar, nor The Wikipedia Library. Unable to find access to any Finnish newspapers either on my end which support inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Finland. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SIGCOV cited on the Finnish Wikipedia: here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Notability, reference 4: Multiple sources are expected, regardless of whether there are not a fixed number. The source you found just seems to say that he celebrated his 50th birthday, lists some of his accomplishments, but it's a small section of the newspaper. Looks very similar to how sometimes the news will cover recent Americans of all walks of life turn 100. Can you find any more Significant Coverage? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per BeanieFan11. Svartner (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finland at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Athletics. One piece of significant coverage is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – They went by multiple different names throughout their life, so it seems reasonable that there may be more out there that we are simply struggling to find. The one source is enough for me to believe there could be more. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - my searches have not produced anything. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at all? Clearly you're searches are insufficient given that the newspaper archives I searched mentioned him many times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finland at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Athletics: One routine announcement (the article posted by BeanieFan) is not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. No other secondary sources have been found, and as such notablity has not been established. Redirect for now with no prejudice against recreation when actual SIGCOV has been found. Let'srun (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect - The article linked to above is a 50th birthday announcement for Lindholm in the newspaper Vaasa, evidently the local paper for the town of the same name, which in machine-translation reads:

"Today, the janitor of Vaasa Finnish High School, Kare Aarne Linmolahti (formerly Lindholm), turns 50 years old. Gatekeeper Linnolahti was born in Laihia on 12 February 1889. After moving to Vaasa, he worked as a postman at the Vaasa post office from 1907 to 1928. From this position, he became the gatekeeper of the Finnish high school on 1 July 1928. He has performed his duties diligently, conscientiously and to everyone's satisfaction. Gatekeeper Linnolahti has always been an avid sports enthusiast. After moving to Vaasa, he joined the Vaasa Kiisto and, as a runner, competed for several years outside his own province. He mainly competed in distances of 1,500-10,000 m and his "bread distance" was 5,000 m, in which his best time was under 16 min. The result was one of the best achieved in our country thirty years ago, and so it was no wonder that Linnolahti, after excelling in the selection competitions for the Stockholm Olympics, was chosen to represent Finland in the unforgettable Stockholm Games. In Stockholm, he took part in the 5,000 m and 3,000 m relay races. He had to stop in the preliminary round of the previous race, but in the 3,000 m, he won the race with Hannes Tan and Harju from Kälvi, securing second place for Finland in the team competition after America. During his competitive career, he won the Finnish championships and also competed in the marathon, without, however, achieving the same achievements as his runners. For some time after the Stockholm Games, Linnolahti stopped his active athletic activities and has not been involved in sports since.

It's a reasonable capsule biography. For me it is basically SIGCOV. The question is whether it indicates notability and to be honest this is questionable - it's just a local story about the high school janitor, isn't it? That looks pretty routine and WP:MILL. You can see that other people getting birthday announcements are clearly non-notable (e.g., the housewife Maria Ristimaki, the doctor Vaino John Lausas), though the minister Väinö Voionmaa clearly is notable. Also, when it's a birthday notice the independence of the story is dubious - where did all the information in the story come from if not from Lindholm himself? All the same I can see why people are !voting keep based on it.

An additional source of the same length could flip me to keep, but I don't see one. The Finnish WP article says the birthday notice appeared in Helsingin Sanomat, but the link doesn't work so apparently this is a mistake and the piece was actually in Vaasa. FOARP (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, there appears to be a split between redirect and keep !votes, with redirect leaning slightly stronger due to policy-based concerns (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV). There is no support for deletion. Consensus is not yet firmly established. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 00:07, 16 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Papua New Guinea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Dupnai

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

A Lugstub with no locatable evidence of SIGCOV or GNG passing in my searches. Mentioned in passing quite frequently, but not anything else. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Oceania. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I ask you to slow down and the very next thing you do is nominate four more within minutes. Where are you even looking for sources that quickly? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There is no way the nominator did adequate WP:BEFORE in the 9 minutes after their previous nomination. This shotgun approach to AfDs is not in good faith.

Ike Lek (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ike Lek: Please WP:AGF. Do you have a policy based reason for keeping this article? Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is not bad faith, but it is incredibly bad practice and should be enough to throw out the nomination until there is evidence of WP:BEFORE. As for the article, WP:NPOSSIBLE. If he gets passing mentions frequently in foreign sources, I think there is reason to believe there may be more in local sources. Ike Lek (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked google, checked JSTOR (which admittedly wouldn't have stuff but I checked anyways), checked the online archives of the Post Courier, Papua New Guinea's local paper. Nothing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Courier's archives don't extend back to when Dupnai was active. What's interesting is that the 1970s Post Courier archives are accessible and they have plenty of SIGCOV to all the top PNG sportspeople at the time. There's nothing to indicate that the 1980s would be different in the depth of coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the archives that I can search, the most I find for Dupnai is in passing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce this: WP:BEFORE recommends a search of Google, GNews, and GBooks. That is definitely something you can do in ~10 mins.

The people who insist on searches lasting - what? Hours? Rarely seem to apply the same standard to the articles under discussion. On the day that Lugnuts created this article - a very typical day for them - they created at least 26 other articles (any articles since deleted wont show up in this search), with the preceding article being only 6 minutes before this one. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Papua New Guinea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Papua New Guinea at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database source in the article is a one sentence mention and isn't significant. I was unable to find anything of note on the internet archive, Trove, or Google. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Good search, basically per above. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 15 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎ for deletion. None likely to arise, and no need to run this for another week. asilvering (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Probst

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

Insufficient SIGCOV found for a Lugstub. Searched newspapers I was able to access and could not find any. GNG Fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now at over 40 active Olympians at AFD. Add it up with the PRODs and we're probably over 100 deletions I'm supposed to look into within a week. That is wildly excessive and makes it impossible to find the truly notable ones. Could you and LibStar slow down? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find anything resembling WP:SIGCOV for this subject on the internet archive or TWL. I did find [[20]] but it isn't independent or significant coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems surprising that there isn't more about his death considering the circumstances. Ike Lek (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is he the same Oswald Probst who was the vice president of the Swiss Alpine Club? Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Anyway, champion at the first international archery event held in Austria in 1963 and (first ever) Austrian champion in 1964 [21], nice paragraph about him here on being the oldest archer when he went to the Olympics and how he'd been active before archery was recognised in Austria. A mini-bio of him at a book from Salzkammergut Bogensport Club [22], mentioning his many titles and being part of the 1965 World Championship team but unable to compete for health reasons, and which also shows him nicknamed in records as Ossi Probst. The German Wikipedia article cites a biography of him at the Union Wien website, for domestic club competition. We can confirm some of his club-level info from the Austrian government, namely how he was champion over every distance in 1978. And there's some mention of his earlier clubs here, though I'm not sure how good Zielsport Zeitung is as a source. Both the Olympics website and Austrian Olympic Committee say he came 33rd at the Olympics [23] [24] when (German) Wikipedia has him at 41st - should probably fix that. Bit of a mention of his death at World Archery [25] (also mention of him being Austria's first Olympic archer). The Ossi Probst memorial tournament was held in March 2016 [26]. Notability is demonstrated through these sources and the accolades they describe, I believe. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Probst and other Austrians would be a lot easier to search for if Arbeiter Zeitung wasn't indefinitely offline. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kingsif. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 15 July 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.

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This has been withdrawn by the nominator as a completely erroneous nomination (they meant to go to RfPP instead). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auston Trusty

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

Consistent IP vandalism Anwegmann (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep—This is was totally done mistakenly. My apologies. I clicked the wrong button. I'm an idiot. Anwegmann (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start Football

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

Only one store in Newcastle, not notable Update6 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I don't think being a single-___location retailer is itself a reason for deletion if notability has otherwise been established, I at least wanted to note (given the non notable assertion) that this has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since March 2015 — i.e., for about as long as the article has existed in the first place. I don't have any opinion beyond that, but the reasons to keep may not exactly be in ample supply here. (That the article is supposedly about "Start Football" but mostly seems to be about a "Start Fitness" company that deals with several sports but not football doesn't bode well either, but is not necessarily relevant to AfD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Cycling, Sport of athletics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 07:55, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ukraine. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT: like most exonym articles, a boundless list of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added the previous AfD box where this article as included in bundles. Skynxnex (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is useful for a dictionary or language oriented site not for an encyclopedia. Llajwa (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet encyclopedic standards per WP:NOTDICT; it's just a list of linguistic variants with minimal contextual value. There’s little encyclopedic content beyond raw listings, and prior consensus in similar AfDs (e.g., List of European exonyms) supports deletion of such indiscriminate compilations. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 01:28, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Sethi

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

Copied from talk page:

Hello, I am Binod Sethi, the subject of this article. I am not a public figure, and this article was created without my permission. It contains personal information. I kindly request the page to be permanently deleted as per WP:BLP and WP:G10.

I declined an A7 tag on this and referred him to VRT, but looking at the article again, I do think it would be very unlikely for him to be notable whether we can confirm the IP's identity or not, so I'm referring for AfD. Social workers are not usually notable, even if they do win awards for their work. asilvering (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has 9 sources. Of these sources 1,2,3 are all for the same piece of information. I was not able to read sources 2 (404 error) or 3 (language barier) but source 1 mentioned the subject once, as the father of someone quoted in the article, and so doesn’t convey notability. I could not check sources 4 and 5 (language barier) however they appear to be related to the achievements of his father, thus not conveying notability. Sources 6-9 also support one claim, I was only able to access source 7 which I do not believe to convey notability as he is mentioned by name once amongst many other recipients of the award.
As a cursory search did not turn up suitable sources I concur with the nominator that it should be deleted on the grounds of not meeting WP:GNG or other notability requirements that I am aware of. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nagaland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable to dead link sources. Nothing notable here. Fails to meet WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sources article for a non-notable person. Lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Iran–Israel war as a broadly supported ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure

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

While i understand why this page was created initially, given the outcome of the iran-israel war i'm not sure if this needs to exist as an article anymore. The effects are negligible as the strait was never closed and the entire article centers around possibilities that never happened. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good afternoon. Although the Strait of Hormuz never closed, it was more of a threat, so if you want, I'll propose two ideas. You can choose which is best. Could the entire article be deleted or would it be placed in the Israel-Iran war section? Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. A certainly notable topic, but would likely fit best into here rather than have an entire separate article about it, especially if it was just a threat. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should also be added to the Israel-Iran War article, because since there was a threat and it didn't happen, I think it would be best. If the Strait of Hormuz had really been closed, it would have had to stay there, since it wasn't blocked and didn't happen, well, well. I think it's good to add it to that Israel-Iran War article. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran-Israel war It is notable that such a threat was made but probably doesn’t need a whole article a merger is the best option. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think this is the best option. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Borgenland (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. Notable within the development of the war but not warranting a article unto itself. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel war. Notable within the development of the war but not warranting a article unto itself.

duplicate, didn't properly vote previously Eulersidentity (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the war article seems sensible. It was a credible threat, but did not pan out. Metallurgist (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a news story, not relevant as an encyclopedic article. JohnMizuki (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep this topic has the capability to have a separate page, in the meantime it can be merged into a relevant article too. 110 and 135 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Special supply system of China. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State Council Party and State Organizations Special Food Supply Center

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

This unsourced article is now covered by Special supply system of China, which is well-cited. Amigao (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Special supply system of China — well just keep it. This seems easy. Also, it was referenced (see its external links section). Also, an article lacking referencing isn't a suitable argument for deletion. Roast (talk) 05:27, 12 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoima School of Nursing and Midwifery

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

Not notable. In the provided sources, the article’s subject is not the main focus, but only mentioned among other similar entities. Ishtiak Abdullah (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - in my opinion, it looks like the article is written for promotional reasons too. I'd expect the article would need to be almost entirely rewritten to be in compliance with our standards. Gommeh 🎮 19:56, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. L. DiVittorio

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

I can verify that the subject of this biography has asked for it to be deleted; per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this should be honored. Most of the sources contain incidental or passing coverage, or otherwise focus on tweets/internet stuff that hasn't gotten lasting coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). In another context this might be a "borderline" case, but since the subject wants it deleted it should be. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Politics. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that it is DiVittorio who requested deletion and not a troll, then the article should be deleted. I created it because she asked how to make a Wikipedia article for The Pocket Report through a post on its Twitter account in 2022. There wasn't enough independent coverage of The Pocket Report to justify its own article, but there was on DiVittorio herself. She posted positively about the article after that, so I do not think she objected at the time, but maybe she changed her mind. Please just confirm by contacting her directly through the @thepocketreport TikTok account first, because it is still active as of 4 days ago, so the claim that DiVittorio is no longer a creator does not seem to be accurate, and she is frequently subject to trolling because of her political commentary. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianJudoka See her IG; her current story (set to expire soon, but I have a screenshot) asks for the page to be "taken down". Someone who is friends with me and her additionally verified it with me. I don't know anything about that edit summary, I didn't base my deletion rationale on it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Somebody else added that photo a while back, and the incorrect middle name was added by the same user who claims that she's not a creator anymore. But she clearly wants it deleted, so I see no reason to wait. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear BLPREQUESTDELETE case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLPREQUEST, no need to keep the article as someone we absolutely need to have an article about. LightlySeared (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Baqi:) (talk) 09:24, 11 July 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's third uranium enrichment site

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

WP:NOPAGE. There are no details available about this site and it is not operational yet. This content is already present at Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. Astaire (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. Astaire (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain as a redirect. -- Iri1388 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites per WP:CRYSTAL. मल्ल (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON and above, once an article is created (if) then redirect to that instead. Easternsahara (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the 1 paragraph into Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites. Not enough for an article yet. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect until a WP:SPLIT is justified as per all of the above Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2nd paragraph of Nuclear program of Iran#Other sites already referencing third site. Not enough for an article yet.

Eulersidentity (talk) 07:15, 15 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grbavica (1993)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Sedrenik '94, no indication this merits its own article separate from Siege of Sarajevo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DEPTH. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, fails WP:GNG. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:16, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heny Sison

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

Unreferenced BLP for years. Fails WP:GNG. Previously tagged as BLPPROD but apparently WP:ELs count as refs. EL are the person's official website and the TV network's official website that is now dead. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously failed WP:GNG and there's no source applied on the article. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent references/sources. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 15 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Republic of the Congo at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics as a sensible ATD. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addo Ndala

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

No SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Sport of athletics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no SIGCOV and based on the content of the article I doubt the subject is notable in the first place. (Granted, it is a stub but still.) Gommeh 🎮 19:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republic of the Congo at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Having a redirect objective makes no sense to delete. Svartner (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - open to redirecting. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I can find about her is that she held a national record for a little bit. [27] – Ike Lek (talk) 02:00, 15 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to National Citizen Party#National Youth Power. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jatiya Jubo Shakti

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

Fails WP:GNG and might be a case of WP:TOOSOON Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Ahammed Saad is right, redirect to National Citizen Party#National Youth Power section, Mr. Vinegarymass911. 103.157.246.253 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Citizen Party#National Youth Power section Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Citizen Party#National Youth Power. Not notable yet. WP:TOOSOON. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:27, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John's Senior Secondary School

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:NSCHOOL ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lorstaking (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NSCHOOL drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 14:44, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Luchadora

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

Not a notable enough character to have an article, was featured for less than four months and never brought up again. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor WWE gimmick/storyline that has zero significant coverage in reliable, non-primary sources, making it a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deeply unfamiliar with article's subject and indeed, the entire topic area, but happy to respect the wikipedia norms on this subject if they exist. But the above claim that only PRIMARY sources mention the character failed to pass verification. A very cursory search at Google Books would seem to suggest multiple non-PRIMARY sources discuss the character. Feoffer (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I said was that there is no significant coverage in reliable, non-primary sources. As in, the gimmick may be mentioned in non-primary sources, but they do not constitute the significant coverage required to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep on same grounds as Feoffer mentioned. I also believe this AfD to be an attempt to win an editing dispute regarding El Grande Americano and thus falls foul of one of the grounds for WP:SK. AceSevenFive (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is accusatory, as well as false, and this user originally had brought up La Luchadora, not myself. I also believe this user wants to keep this article so I cannot object the draft in the user's sandbox. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the project has other articles about characters, I don't think La Luchadora is notable. It was a few appearences, no coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. It was a minor character during a storyline. Not enough coverage around the character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:01, 12 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoonBit

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

This article has already been deleted in past when named MoonBit_(programming_language). Frap (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Frap (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I believe this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable sources, including [https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643795.3648376], [https://calendar.hkust.edu.hk/events/iot-thrust-seminar-moonbit-cloud-and-edge-using-wasm], [https://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2025-03-05/doc-inenqtkr1924190.shtml]etc.

I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards and have made efforts to improve the article by adding citations and ensuring neutrality. I'm open to further suggestions and willing to collaborate to enhance its quality.

Please let me know if there are specific concerns that need to be addressed. Thanks again for your time and input. Rosemarysus (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop paper was written by people at the International Digital Economy Academy, which develops MoonBit per the bottom of https://www.moonbitlang.com/, so it's not an independent source. The second source is an event announcement which isn't independent or significant coverage. No comment on the third source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed feedback — I truly appreciate it.

I understand the concerns about establishing notability.

Some existing references, such as documentation or project announcements, come from affiliated or internal creators of MoonBit and thus cannot establish notability.

However, we have now included independent, reliable, and significant third-party sources that demonstrate MoonBit’s broader recognition and relevance:

A New Stack article covering MoonBit’s efficient Wasm‑optimized design, notably reducing code size compared to Rust.

InfoWorld, which featured MoonBit in its list of “11 Cutting‑Edge Programming Languages to Learn Now.”

LeadDev’s feature on programming languages in an AI‑driven industry landscape, including MoonBit.

NetEase News (a major Chinese media outlet), reporting on MoonBit’s integration into Peking University’s computer science curriculum—indicating institutional and educational recognition.

Coverage of MoonBit talks and keynotes at high‑profile developer events like WASM I/O 2025, LambdaConf 2025, and seminars at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

These sources are independent of MoonBit’s creators, provide extensive coverage, and reflect interest from respected tech media, academic venues, and developer communities.

I believe this broader and more balanced set of sources supports MoonBit’s notability. I would be glad to continue collaborating on improvements or citations if needed—thank you again for your careful review. Rosemarysus (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mention coverage of Moonbit at events like WASM 2025 and LambdaConf 2025 but those are both talks given by the creator of the langauge which are non-independent sources (and primary). Same with the seminar at Shanghai U. While assuming good faith I also want to note that you should use your own words and not use the output of LLM such as ChatGPT on Wikipedia Moritoriko (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. MoonBit has become a programming language course at Peking University in 2025[https://pku-dppl.github.io/2025/], which also proves that it has a certain degree of popularity and uniqueness. Rosemarysus (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:TOOSOON and possibly never since its been around for 2 years now. In my searching I found a lot of advertising about the language but almost no organic mentions of it, except the one brief mention in this article that is already in the article. Lots of little programming languages get spun up all the time but most of them won't reach notability levels Moritoriko (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many programming languages on the market today. MoonBit has become a programming language course at Peking University this year [https://pku-dppl.github.io/2025/], which also proves that it has a certain degree of popularity and uniqueness. Rosemarysus (talk) 03:11, 14 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. No support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Stephan

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

This article was clearly the subject of sustained promotional editing for quite some time. No progress has been made on the article since the fat was trimmed, and looking into it myself, I can only find routine coverage discussing his appointments, and one interview. I don't believe there's enough sources here to actually build an article upon. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Management, and Science. MediaKyle (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep . The sources are weak, one failed verification (marked) and some claims such as "co-founded 14 biotech companies" are unverified. However, with an h-factor of 71 (now added to his page) I have to reluctantly conclude that he probably passes WP:NPROF. It is a weak keep because most of his citations are team papers, and I do not see evidence of awards. N.B., I also added an academic page in External links. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NPROF Monhiroe (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I removed a promotional statement and changed a number of aggrandizements. Still needs work; it’s not a great article - but the subject does seem to meet WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a draft for replacement content in the talk page. I haven't had chance to review it, but thought it was worth noting. Encoded Talk 💬 08:27, 13 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Little Falls Gulf Curve crash of 1940 without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Falls Gulf Curve crash of 1903

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

With no sources discussing a WP:LASTING impact, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE past 1904 (the accident occurred in the latter half of 1903), and no non-routine coverage (train accidents are unfortunately common, though tragic) this doesn't pass WP:NEVENT. Of the sources currently in the article, the first is a news report from the week of the accident, and the second is a report in 1904. The third is from the 1940s, but it only supports material about a completely different accident. (Little Falls Gulf Curve crash of 1940, which killed 31). In looking at outside sources, the only ones I've been able to find are:

A brief passing mention on pages 104-105 in a self-published book [28]
A student project [29], cited to a different self-published book [30]
Passing mentions like [31] in direct connection to the 1940 crash

Potentially could be mentioned in the background section of the 1940 crash, but I wouldn't personally merge any content from this given the age of the sources. (Alt: redirect to List of rail accidents (1900–1909)?) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and New York. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 1903 crash is already mentioned on the 1940 crash's page, and the references from the 1903 crash page are all used on the 1940 crash page. Apocheir (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(selective) Merge to Little Falls Gulf Curve crash of 1940. Since the crashes happened at the same ___location and due to the same cause (excessive speed) a brief summary of the 1903 crash would be pertinent there. The existing 1 sentence referring to the 1903 crash in the 1940 article could be expanded to 2 or 3 sentences. Right now there's no mention that the 1903 crash happened for the same reason as the more recent crash. I have to disagree with the nominator regarding old sources as there's unlikely to be much modern coverage of the event. I'm traveling and don't have access to my book collection right now but when I get back I will look through my copy of Train Wrecks by Robert C. Reed and see if he covers this crash at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the NYT article (regional/national), it certainly would have been covered in many local newspapers throughout the state. Other later sources include:
- https://little-falls-industrialization.pressbooks.sunycreate.cloud/chapter/safety-first/
- David A. Taylor, and Lucinda M. Parker. Night of Disaster: The New York Central Gulf Curve Wreck. Second ed. Thomaston, ME: Indie Author Books, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.238.91 (talk)

Don't want to get on you too much, 174, but those two sources are the "student project" and the self-published book it was cited to that I talked about in the nomination. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More mentions of this crash:
- https://books.google.com/books?id=2yJKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&dq=little+falls+gulf+curve+%221903%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb0azG87qOAxU9IUQIHfWPOVIQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=little%20falls%20gulf%20curve%20%221903%22&f=false
- https://littlefallshistoricalsociety.org/lfhs-events/this-day-in-history-august-29-1903-2025-08-29/
- https://books.google.com/books?id=HUMoAQAAMAAJ&q=little+falls+gulf+curve+%221903%22&dq=little+falls+gulf+curve+%221903%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb0azG87qOAxU9IUQIHfWPOVIQ6AF6BAgMEAM
- https://books.google.com/books?id=wTY0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA362&dq=little+falls+gulf+curve+%221903%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb0azG87qOAxU9IUQIHfWPOVIQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=little%20falls%20gulf%20curve%20%221903%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.153.244 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Analysis: Source one is published by iUniverse, a self publishing company accused of using predatory tactics against authors, like making them pay large sums of money to get their work published. Please don't cite this one. Source 2 is a brief mention in an article published by a historical society. Good for reliability, but given that this is sort of turning into a merge discussion, doesn't do anything to convince me this is best as a standalone page. Source three is a passing mention directly in relationship to the 1943 crash ("...Gulf Curve occurred in 1903 when a mail train from New York jumped the track . Although an engineer and fireman were killed , the danger was not considered great enough to justify straightening the bend , which would have required rechanneling part of the Mohawk River." Goes immediately back to discussing the 1943 accident). Source four is the already discussed crash report from 1904. As a primary source it's useable for base facts, but not for determining notability in the vast majority of articles, especially events articles. All train crashes will get a report like this anyway, it's very routine.GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:11, 13 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Kaisei College

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

Contested PROD. No refs on the page, hard to WP:V what is written (I removed some for unencyclopedic tone). It doesn't appear that there are RS on ja.wiki to use, not much else found but I don't speak Japanese. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Japan. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability is clear; generally speaking, universities and colleges are considered notable. The ja-wiki article cites nikkei.com, which is a major newspaper and is thus reliable. I doubt there are many English reliable sources but presumably there are many Japanese sources, including offline ones. Taku (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WPGNG Andh Namazi (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can offer three sources which show that notability has been met in Japanese, that would be very helpful, thanks. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you probably have a better luck if you go to some library in Japan, especially in Tokyo for offline sources. I mainly work in math articles so I am not the best person to ask but maybe some editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, especially ones living in Tokyo can help you. Taku (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that's the discussion we are having here. Currently we have a page with no sources and with content that doesn't pass WP:V. Either we need to redeem the page with sources which pass the WP:GNG or we need to delete it until someone can rewrite it at a later date with reliable sources. It can't continue unsourced for more years. JMWt (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

??? Like I said, it's probably not easy to find English sources but I think we can resonablely expect there exist some offline Japanese sources, especially some books in a library. So I don't think it's necessary to delete the article but add those sources. Like I said, for that, the best chance is to seek help from editors who work on Japan-related articles. I understand you think it's necessary to delete an unreferenced article even when the notability is clear; I don't subscribe to that view. Taku (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt I've added 10 sources. Can you reconsider the nomination? MmeMaigret (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a look for sources in Japanese. I found a few articles that may be reliable, however they are all about how the college is shutting down. I haven't found any resources that don't cover this same information.

Erynamrod (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article expanded. 10 sources added. Citations needed templates deleted. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable with additional sources added and as a university/college. WP:NPOSSIBLE DCsansei (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the extra sources added by Mmemaigret, the article seems to easily meet notability now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdum4242 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Ukraine

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

This film lacks significant coverage in indepedent secondary sources. References are republished agency feeds (e.g., ANI/PTI) syndicated across multiple outlets without original reporting. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles by a reputable news agency such as PTI are valid references. I think the references, taken as a whole, add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - mediocre reviews are a sign that the reviewers weren't paid off, but the India Times article is essentially an interview. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 8 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see consensus here that any issues can be fixed by editing. Owen× ☎ 14:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Year of three popes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Year of three popes

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

WP:SYNTH: the only reliable source using the term "Year of the Three Popes" refers to a specific year, 1978, all other years listed in this article are verified by a reference to encyclopedic articles about individual popes. Wikipedia:Notability: no reliable sources are cited to verify that the topic is notable; a book about a specific year cannot verify the existence of an article about multiple years. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this does indeed feel like synthesised pope-trivia. I'd guess most people, when thinking about years of three popes, would be more likely to think of the Western Schism and the three simultaneous popes it generated, with all the fall-out sorting it out in Constance. Elemimele (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably say that most people would probably think of 1978. E.g. the existing source and this one (which also mentions 827 as the first year of three popes, but that may have been taken from enwiki, so possibly a circular reference), and Hebblethwaite's 1978 book The Year of Three Popes.

Stubify to state that the Year of three popes principally refers to 1978, using Irish Post, Hebblethwaite and Poulat to establish notability. I have not read the Poulat book, but this review states that the final chapter is called "The Year of Three Popes (1978)". Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In popular literature, it only refers to 1978, so the article is a synthesis. A single "In 1978, three popes stood at the head of the Catholic Church" could hardly be developed into an article. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the suggestion as an alternative to deletion. Someone managed to write a whole book on the topic, so it seems to me not inconceivable that one might be able to develop an article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available that discuss 1978 in particular, while also referencing prior instances. The Irish Times and similar sources at a minimum establishes the notability of 1978, and the New Liturgical Movement establish the notability of the Year of Four Popes. The rest, while not necessarily individualy notable, are appropriately presented on list form. With these additional sources, there is not clear basis for deletion. The individual instances are sourced sufficiently to establish three pipes in single year. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is essentially posing as a DAB page, but as noted above, the term is only used (as far as I am aware) to refer to a specific year, 1978. So this is synthesis. In any event, what is the significance of having 3 popes in one year? It is just interesting piece of trivia. What can be said about it other than - yes, there were three popes this year, and also these years. Well meaning but not suitable for an article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should only refer to 1978, I think theres enough notability in that very unusual circumstance. It might be reasonable to mention the other years, but that will skirt WP:OR, unless there is a source on it. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and no need to stubbify. There is clearly commentary on both 1978 and papal succession in general, and noting the presence of three or four popes in one calendar year is well within the bounds of WP:CALC and hence not actionable OR. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a thing discussed in reliable sources. If there are problems with synthesis (although I'm not sure there are), they should be fixed by removing the synthesis, not by deleting the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a phenomenon that periodically receives RS coverage in popular media (BBC 2018, Irish Post 2023) and occasionally among more academically minded publications. Anecdotally, I heard this as a casual term among even non-Catholics growing up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and is an adequate addition to Wikipedia's papal collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but no objection to dabifying in a separate discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Musa Shugaba

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

The only notability of this person is serving as an Aide-de-Camp to governors and now as chief personal security officer to the president of Nigeria. The article is also very promotional. The references in the article are press releases announcing his appointment, and two about his controversial conducts which are not significant enough, the rest references are about different topics. Conducted WP:BEFORE nothing significant was found. Notability is not inherited from the offices and officials he is working with Mekomo (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor is welcome to submit a properly sourced draft about the First Jahangir Invasion of Tibet. Owen× ☎ 17:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal conquest of Ladakh and Baltistan

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

Article recreated after it was soft deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Jahangir invasion of Tibet. Lack of notability and WP:OR issues still remain. Wareon (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a well-documented historical event. A search of "conquest of Baltistan" on JSTOR gives a positive hit [32], but that journal article describes a Mughal conquest of Baltistan by Shah Jahan, not Jahangir. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article was originally titled First Jahangir Invasion of Tibet, which is a more historically accurate and sourced name. The article now reflects this with reliable citations. The current title "Mughal conquest of Ladakh and Baltistan" is misleading because the campaign was unsuccessful and limited to the western Tibetan frontier. I support keeping the article under the more accurate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowipedia89 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 sources on the page. Source 1 is a primary source written during the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan and the writing was given as gift to the emperor. Source 2 is Tibet Encyclopedia and written by some unknown author doing own research with references given. Source 3 is unverifiable and Source 4 is just passing mention. I agree with last reviewer that the page is not well documented and the lack of significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources is also missing on this topic. RangersRus (talk) 09:39, 10 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenson Disaster Management Institute

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. It's also poorly written and without even an effort at proper referencing. Institutes, departments and faculty groups are not normally kept for universities unless they have very strong indications of notability outwith of the university. JMWt (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Louisiana. JMWt (talk) 12:35, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hitchens

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Religion, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of the references are from "about" section of the websites of the organizations he worked for and the others are his own writings. He fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a CV and not notable for a separate article or even a stub. See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a notable journalist. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EdTech Impact

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Just some directory listings and brief profiles. Nothing really in-depth or independent to show the company is notable. Junbeesh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails WP:NORG. Nothing in the references to show that it is even a promising organization that could pass notability criteria in the near future. Mekomo (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not reliable, fails WP:ORG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:34, 13 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Catacutan

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

Can find many social media hits, FB, Tiktok, YouTube, Reddit, etc., but other than that and some primary sources like press releases, other than the single source from SunStar already in the article, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another influencer puff piece.

Celjski Grad (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Can't find anything that gets close to passing notability criteria. Mekomo (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Agree it is clearly a puff piece and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a WP:PROMO. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and insufficient sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on notability. AdobongPogi (talk) 23:08, 10 July 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.

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. WP:G5. asilvering (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsil Shahezad Khan

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

Article sourced to PR sites, IMDb, and a hoax "BBC India" (bbc.in.net). Can find no evidence he has written for BBC or Al Jazeera, no evidence he received an award from the Associated Press. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Claims to be chairman of a “World Press Council”, which lists photoshopped headshots of famous journalists such as Meriem Ouchait Belalia and Robin Roberts as executive staff on an otherwise typo-ridden and non-functioning website. The personal website listed is a copy of the World Press Council website with a different logo, and includes text such as " Smply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s" and "Learning with Duolingo is fun and addictive. Earn points for correct answers, race against the clock, and level up." Incredible. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author just tried to remove all mention of WPC, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. as well as his personal website, and replaced them with bogus news outlets. The cited sources still list them. What gets me is the "significant contributions ... including promoting accuracy and integrity in reporting." 🤦🏻‍♂️ Celjski Grad (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just for promotional purposes. Utterly fails WP:GNG with the glaring unreliable source. Mekomo (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A distinguished leader and visionary.... [33] smells PROMO. Nothing for sourcing we can use in the article, Imdb, Muckrack... Nothing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 8 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gorge Road, South Australia

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Only sources are google maps and government of South Australia map layers. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the article don't demonstrate that either WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD is meet. Searches I conducted didn't demonstrate that either. TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 13 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aden Adde International Airport#Accidents and incidents. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aden Adde International Airport helicopter crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Somalia, and Uganda. XYZ1233212 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aden Adde International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Small airplane and helicopter crashes are unfortunately fairly common, and I can't find any continued coverage past the 48 hour mark. I can't see anything in the sources that indicate this will having a lasting impact on a region (though obviously it will have a lasting impact on the family and friends of the deceased), and it's an regrettable fact of life that in conflicts, helicopters routinely crash. The crash is covered in the airport article, however, and a redirect preserves page history should this crash become notable in the future. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 09:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, with the same reasoning. Redirect to Aden Adde International Airport#Accidents and incidents. 11WB (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of the info salvagable for other areas of the project? This article was born out of a failed Wikinews story. Thanks Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you could could get some of the information into the article about the airport! So I suppose I'm okay with a merge, I just don't tend to !vote for them unless I personally am willing to carry one out. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 18:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aden Adde International Airport#Accidents and incidents. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 9 July 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.

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 draftify‎. I see clear consensus against keeping the page in mainspace, and broad support for a move to draft. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Chin Hwee

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

Feels insufficient that this individual meets the notability criteria per WP:GNG. The majority of substantial edits to this article have been made by one-off WP:SPA accounts, which are likely to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets with a personal connection to the subject. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aleain (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is significant enough per WP:GNG. The article does have significant citation issues and is not written with a neutral tone, but nothing that can't be fixed. Draftify is also a good option. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object moving to draftspace, but I'm still leaning on WP:TNT. Aleain (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i appreciate the comments and guidance and have provided updated links to support the citations. 103.51.163.126 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be editing your own article. Aleain (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh i see. apologies, i thot we should learn from guidance of those experienced and improve it ? 103.51.163.126 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is my bad editing. I wanted to make the article sound better and I am so new to this. Will make edits to be more neutral. Thank you all for guidance Teri liew (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but I could not find any evidence of notability as an academic or author. If he is notable, it is going to have to be through WP:GNG through his activities as a businessman. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pls. It is my bad editing. I wanted to make the article sound better and I am so new to this. Will make edits to be more neutral. Thank you all for guidance Teri liew (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further community input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapore/ema-set-advisory-panel-energy-supply-resiliency doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, doesn't discuss him at any length.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/tin-men-capital-makes-first-close-us-100m-043443630.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, doesn't discuss him at any length.
We can't use https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/07/10/2911157/0/en/K-Enter-Holdings-Inc-Announces-Leadership-Transition.html (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Piece is attributed to Globe Newswire, which only ever publishes press releases.
I can't assess https://economist.co.kr/article/view/ecn202501070021 (language barrier). Automated translation faulters on most East Asian languages due to them being heavily context-dependent. (Do not treat this as me dismissing the source.)
We can't use https://cfasocietysingapore.org/about/leadership/past-presidents/ (too sparse), and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1893796/why-walking-away-successful-career-finance-not-so-hard doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Op-ed written by the article subject.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/energy-commodities/trafigura-appoints-tan-chin-hwee-asia-pacific-ceo is borderline, leaning towards OK. It's a bit short, and the last paragraph isn't worth a hill of beans, but there is some detail here.
We can't use https://web.archive.org/web/20180730040730/http://fortune.com/global500/trafigura-group/ (too sparse). Business profile.
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/ace-investor-cant-resist-pull-of-mentoring is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
I can't assess https://www.businessinsider.sg/these-are-singapores-three-largest-companies-according-to-this-years-fortune-500-list/amp/ (technical barrier). Firefox throws up an EEL_ERROR_INTERNAL_ERROR_ALERT and refuses to connect.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/task-force-on-singapores-post-covid-19-economic-recovery-to-share-first-recommendations doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drops, no discussion of Tan.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/home/media-centre/news-releases/detail/ab6fd580-e101-4f7d-977d-2d129cd73b5a is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
http://www.keppelreit.com/N-Press-Releases-SGX-Announcements_news_item.aspx?view=print&sid=2387 is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-life-of-service-is-a-life-worth-swiping-for is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/go-beyond-book-smarts-to-resilience-and-curiosity is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819103117/http://www.kkh.com.sg/AboutUs/WaystoGiveAndVolunteer/Pages/KKHHEF-Sub-funds.aspx doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Barely any discussion of him specifically.
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/spore-must-think-like-a-platform-to-thrive-as-a-digital-hub is 404-compliant (redirects to homepage).
https://web.archive.org/web/20181120201208/https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracechung/2018/11/20/coupang-koreas-answer-to-amazon-raises-its-biggest-funding-round-makes-its-founder-a-billionaire/ is a non-sequitur. (A source that doesn't so much as mention a subject isn't going to be any good as a source for that subject, particularly so for biographical content.)
https://www.kedglobal.com/entertainment/newsView/ked202306160031 is a non-sequitur.
https://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118486528.html is 404-compliant (Firefox throws up a 404 error; is the website URL misspelt?)
I can't assess https://web.archive.org/web/20160816123248/http://www.publishing.com.hk/Pubnews/NewsDetail.asp?NewsID=20150416001 (language barrier).
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/arts/values-at-the-core-book-explores-how-human-values-contribute-to-the-rise-of-nations doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is about a book launch and doesn't discuss either of its authors (Tan included) in any sort of depth.
I can't assess https://www.ft.com/content/e7ae307c-d2fd-4e1d-a66c-1ed67db2bb82 (walled).
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/multipolar-world-order-once-again doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Co-authored by Tan.
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/about-us/organisation/Pages/Mr-Tan-Chin-Hwee.aspx is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page). Even if it didn't, it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://www.keppelreit.com/exception.htm?sc=404 is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://business.smu.edu.sg/master-applied-finance/faculty-Tan_Chin_Hwee is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page). Even if it didn't, it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
https://book.yalesg.org/education-the-great-equalizer-by-tan-chin-hwee.html is 404-compliant (Firefox throws up a 404 error; is the website URL misspelt?)
https://www.weforum.org/people/tan-chin-hwee/ is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140819130400/http://www.worldcitiessummit.com.sg/wcsyoungleaders/mr-tan-chin-hwee doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Was working with the World Cities Summit as a Young Leader.
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/NanyangAlumniAwards/Recipients/2014/Pages/MrTanChinHwee.aspx is 404-compliant (throws up 404 error page).
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/veteran-fund-manager-retires is OK.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130930013031/http://agm.com/OurTeam/PrivateEquity/ChinHweeTan.aspx doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Bio from an employer.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2024/five-alumni-named-2023-24-donaldson-fellows seems OK. (My reading of it is that being an alumnus of the school isn't considered enough of a connexion.)
We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracechung/2018/11/12/asias-2018-heroes-of-philanthropy/ (too sparse). Listicle.
https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2016/09/01/investing-in-care-and-compassion is 404-compliant (redirects to a tag search).
https://www.prestigeonline.com/sg/people/c-suites-give-back-tan-chin-hwee-pays-forward-2of6/ is borderline. An article ostensibly about Tan instead spends about 60% of its text on various charitable initiatives he seems to have no direct connexion to.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/over-1000-ntu-students-receive-financial-aid-from-universitys-covid-19-relief-package doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Direct quote, no discussion of Tan.
https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/youll-never-walk-alone-say-liverpool-fans-raising-funds-for-community-chest-campaign doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Tan.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160325230348/http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130429-419199.html doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Co-authored the piece.
https://omny.fm/shows/money-fm-893/how-do-we-achieve-social-equilibrium doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Podcast where he is a guest.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/incoming/footballs-lessons-being-underdog doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Barely any discussion of tan; most of what is said is from him, not about him.

With all the 404'd-out sources and the sources I can't assess, draftifying this is the best option. Finding archived versions of the 404'd sources (particularly those from The Straits Times) should be top priority. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pure self promotion - does not reach anywhere near notability level for Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and give them a chance to find sources. Per Jéské Couriano above, the sources online now aren't close to meeting notability. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and require the creator(s) to go through AfC due to their clear conflicts of interest. This article is very promotional; fixing that would require a hefty rewrite. I've checked a few sources and have found none that would count towards the GNG, but due to the sheer number of sources I'm unable to conclusively say that this person isn't notable. However, this should not stay in mainspace in its current form. Toadspike [Talk] 07:56, 16 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

316 (number)

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

Appears to be non-notable. The requirements of WP:NUMBER (at least three non-trivial properties, etc.) are not satisfied. WP:PROD was reverted. Викидим (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to additional properties found by Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. --Викидим (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh WP:NUMBER has to be the most interesting thing Ive ever seen in that space, haha. This seems an arbitrary pull. I dont disagree with your assessment, but this needs to be a larger discussion on what numbers to delete and keep, not just pick out a given number. Metallurgist (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I had stumbled upon this article accidentally indeed (while reviewing one of its neighbors for WP:NPP). (2) That said, I presume that the consensus on what is OK and what is not in this area has been reached already and reflected in WP:NUMBER. So, if one of our colleagues knows about other articles under the (very low IMHO) NUMBER threshold for individual numbers, they might want to nominate these articles for AfD, and I might participate in the AfD discussion (if I notice it). (3) In my (limited) AfD experience, the batch nominations do not fare too well here in general, so even then a number-by-number approach might be more efficient. Викидим (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 316 is also an Ulam number [34] and a member of one Tetranacci sequence [35]. It appears in counting asymmetric polyominoes [36] and binary-matrix involutions [37]. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:37, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritthidet Phensawat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 330 minutes in the Thai 1 League. As is often the case with non-notable players, the creator of this article is indefinitely blocked. Coverage such as this and this does not look significant enough to me as to warrant an article. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardinho (footballer, born 1979)

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

Obscure footballer with a spell at Consadole Sapporo in 1999, Bragantino in 2001 [38] and minor Bolivian clubs. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few accomplishments and sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 9 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Duwaji

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rama Duwaji

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

Didnt meet WP:GNG Bozy Gerry (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New York Times, Time magazine, BBC, AP news is plenty of WP:SIGCOV in decent sources to meet WP:BIO. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:SIGCOV gets us to "Presumed" but I'm not sure how it interacts with WP:SUSTAINED ("Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability") and WP:BLP1E (all the above sources are framed as "wife of candidate"). Although there seem to be a few sources that briefly mention her own work without reference to her now husband, without the Mrs-Mamdani sources she would currently fail WP:GNG. If, say, an 18th-century writer has half-a-dozen book-length biographies, each of which devotes a few pages to their spouse, does the spouse thereby satisfy GNG? jnestorius^(talk) 20:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets the general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — No reason to delete at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavetoentermyusername (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Married to notable current figure. Flipkick25 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has been the subject of significant media coverage focused solely on her in Time, NY Times, etc. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- More than enough WP:RELY given to assert notability. Goku from bd (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Sources include significant coverage in several reliable sources like The New York Times, TIME, BBC, and Associated Press. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. The wife of a figure that made world wide news. Equalness1 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Iraq at the 1980 Summer Olympics. I see a rough consensus for a redirect without prejudice to the article being restored if and when independent reliable SIGCOV is identified; requests to show evidence of such coverage in this discussion were not meaningfully satisfied. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moujhed Fahid Khalifa

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

Declined prod. All the sources are databases/results listing. Arab Athletics Championships is a lower tier competition that wouldn't meet WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Iraq. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Specifically, today the Arab Championships have a C-class rating from WA. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, do you have an opinion on notability of this athlete? LibStar (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: inelig for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The athlete has a consistent career and not just a random Olympic competition. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, "having a consistent career" isn't included in any notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From some forums, he does seem to be at least the best-performing all time track and field athlete from Iraq, do we call that best? To the point of searches, his name has been transliterated from Arabic in various other ways - and I'm not entirely sure the (OR?) Arabic rendering at our article is accurate. In quick search I've seen the first name also spelt Moujahed/Moujahid/Mujihid (generally, it does have a vowel in the middle), and the middle name spelt Fahd and Fahad. The Olympics website has him as Mujihid Fahad Khalifa [39]. Kingsif (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What Arabic names have you used to search? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I've been using English Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  English forums calling him the greatest? Could you point me to any of them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We still need SIGCOV for a WP:NSPORT pass, and none is present here. The Eastmain MENA database has newspapers from this era, including Arabic-language newspapers, and covers this region, and there is no significant coverage of the subject in it. As has been discussed many times, news coverage in the newspapers of a dictatorship, which Iraq most definitely was in 1979-80, is very very different to the kind of coverage that US-based editors who have never experienced a dictatorship might expect.

And yes, the fact that even the name of the subject of this article is unclear is a good reason to be suspect both of Olympedia and the entire methodology behind the creation of these articles. It is the precise reason why articles should never have been created en masse based on what is ultimately a single source (albeit one repeated in many different places). We need significant coverage, in secondary sourcing, where people who know what they're doing have checked the facts already for us. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"suspect both of Olympedia and the entire methodology behind the creation of these articles. It is the precise reason why articles should never have been created en masse based on what is ultimately a single source (albeit one repeated in many different places)." The original version of this article didn't cite Olympedia. Lugnuts didn't use Olympedia for his stubs. He used Sports Reference. Here is a 2020 Olympic article of his. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympedia is Sport-reference.com's Olympics database ported to another site. They are the same source. FOARP (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he didn't cite Olympedia, he still cited Sports Reference. Sports Reference isn't reliable? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name is as equally unclear on Sport-reference.com as it is on Olympedia - these are the same source, the mistakes found on one typically being in the other. The Olympic Journal has their name down as "Khalifa, Mujhid Fahad" (see pages 57 and 611 of the pagination here) so why exactly they decided to second-guess that transcription of the name of the subject is not clear. Similarly it is not clear where the Arabic name came from (the suspicion is that possibly this might have been generated using Google translate or a similar tool by one of the volunteer contributors for sports-reference.com/Olympedia based on the romanised name). FOARP (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been up for almost a month, no one has been able to track down any SIGCOV or even settle on the Arabic name for him. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kingsif has apparently found modern sources calling him the greatest Iraqi athlete ever. He meets WP:NATH multiple times over and set Arab records in his event. This is very clearly an instance where coverage exists: the issue is that we haven't even found his Arabic name – i.e. the name all coverage would be under. But assuming that Iraq wouldn't cover its greatest athlete ever is absolutely ludicrous. There's a source I located that appears almost certain to mention him: Al Batal Al Arabi's 80-page report discussing the 1979 Arab Athletics Championships, where Khalifa broke the Arab record and won gold. The thing is that the source doesn't allow for the text to be copied accurately, so we will need an Arabic speaker to find his name. I've also contacted the Iraq Olympic Committee about him, so hopefully they might be able to help. However, at the moment, deleting the article on Iraq's apparent greatest athlete who meets multiple points of NATH when we haven't even looked for coverage under his name is not a benefit for Wikipedia. Remember that regarding NSPORT, Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. This should be an exception – deleting this is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere that Kingsif claimed to find sources calling him the "greatest Iraqi athlete ever"??? JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif found internet forums, which are certainly not IRS. Let'srun (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as no consensus, but following a request on my talk page have relisted to allow further discussion of the sources presented. For closer, please allow a week for complete discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for re-opening Goldsztajn. Beanie has posted a source above, however this does not say what they claim it says: it is the in-house magazine of the Arab Amateur Athletics Federation (and so not independent of the topic), and it does not report on the 1979 Arab Athletics Championships. Instead it reports on a range of other minor competitions (e.g., school, police, military, marathons etc.) in the years 1979-80. It both doesn't have SIGCOV of the subject and wouldn't show notability even if it did.

The claim that the subject is considered Iraq's "greatest" just because they didn't make the finals in the Olympics in triple jump is the absolute purest OR. Online discussion forums are hardly a more sound basis for this claim.

WP:NSPORTS2022 was a clear and high-level consensus - we have to have at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV for an article to be kept. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not enough.

pinging all previous participants so their aware of the relist: @LibStar, Geschichte, Svartner, Kingsif, BeanieFan11, WikiOriginal-9, and JoelleJay: FOARP (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people remember him today as the greatest, that is an incredibly strong indication of coverage existing. Also incredibly strong indication is that he meets NATH multiple times over and set national records, Arab records, etc. Even if the magazine doesn't count, it does include his name, and if we can get an Arabic speaker to transcribe it then we'll know what to search for. As I said above, NSPORT makes it clear that it is a guideline that can be treated with common sense. Everything points to coverage existing. We haven't even looked at any newspapers from his era and haven't searched anything with his Arabic name, despite that being where all the coverage is. Would deleting this improve Wikipedia given how very little has been checked and how extraordinarily likely it is that he has extensive coverage? No, it would not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, aren't the modern sources that identified him as the "best-performing all time track and field athlete from Iraq" forums per this comment? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, reaffirming my delete position. The article is required by global consensus to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, and that has not been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Baghdad Observer is digitalised, although is not available via the Wikipedia Library; possibly accessible via US universities. Would likely have coverage of Iraq's participation at the 1980 Olympics. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of immediately identifiable sourcing, and given Baghdad hosted the 1979 Arab Athletics Championships where it would be extraordinary that there would be no coverage of a gold winning performance of an Iraqi athelete, redirect to Iraq at the 1980 Summer Olympics and once/if sourcing found, the redirect can be removed as the history will remain. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bet that a political daily would necessarily have SIGCOV of the subject of this article - it's predecessor paper (Baghdad News, the archives of which are open-access) didn't seem to do this - but I'm OK with a redirect. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this athlete even when searching with the Arabic name supplied by Olympedia. As such, this subject fails to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per found sources the person seems notable, with most of the sources in Iraqi offline sources. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have you found? The source from BeanieFan is not independent as it was published by the Arab Amateur Athletics Federation. The only sources currently in the article are primary and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. We cannot assume the sources exist, we must actually prove that they in fact exist. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources, it's just the continuous repeating of the same "there must be sources" mantra. Even if Beanie's source were independent (it isn't), it doesn't say anything about the subject anyway. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is incorrect Let'srun. Sources need to be verifiable, yes, but they are not obligated to provide access or specific citations. WP:NEXIST Ike Lek (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources need to be verifiable" - OK, so what verifiable sources have been produced showing notability? Again, the answer is "none". We're not even clear what this guy's actual name is. FOARP (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is specifically not true for athletes, for whom there is a strong global consensus to require citation to a notability-contributing source in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Iraq. Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In my opinion, closing it as no consensus was the correct decision. It may be renamed once more in a few months, but I'm against a forceful deletion. Svartner (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet the required citation to an IRS SIGCOV source? JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a third option, but if forced to pick between keep and delete/redirect, I will choose the latter. I think that we may be on to something, but I am concerned about the assumptions-based mindset. I would support more time on this one by giving it to the draft space, where six months should be enough time. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this article to be draftified there would have to be some serious intent shown to improve it. If the purpose of !voting keep is instead to continue arguing that all Olympians are notable, that is unlikely to be the case. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Roy

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

Non notable singer, with non notable award. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV and fails wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. Creator is blocked and the article is not yet reviewed. Zuck28 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, India, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSICIAN. From the sources, the singer seems a rather local singer and not of national or international level. The significant coverage on the subject is also missing. Shows one award won but this award is not notable and rather a local award. RangersRus (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agrees with the nominator and RangersRus. Taabii (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV. Eulersidentity (talk) 08:18, 15 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Unilever. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unilever Leeds

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

Not seeing references on the page that show why this page needs to be separate from Unilever, where there could be a subsection on the sites. A lot of mentions that the site exists does not necessarily indicate that the criteria for inclusion has been met, even if it has it is better understood in context WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This subsidiary is not independently notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:22, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Road

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

Another non notable Adelaide road that fails WP:GEOROAD. The only sources are google maps, street directory and government map layers which are insufficient for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SIGCOV Andh Namazi (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see that this passes WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep in its former life as (I think part of)Lower North Road there appears to be more historical information, and Lower North was linked to the development of Adelaide to its north. This will take someone with local knowledge to sort out what relates to where. Gnan garra 15:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide actual sources to support your vote. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even doing a Google search for Lower North Rd on Trove doesn't come up with anything that would help it pass the notability guideline. It's just articles about local crimes in the area, a meeting of politicians near the road, and some real estate listings. – numbermaniac 08:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. – numbermaniac 07:55, 8 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎ with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatul Avoyan

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

Cannot find any sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NOTABLOG Nixleovel (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Nixleovel (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person fails notability guidelines and article has no sources. A search reveals no articles about him, reliable or not. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable as there are no RS about him Dualpendel (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find a quite a lot of sources. He's an Armenian folk singer, and they don't use the latin alphabet. We need an expert in Armenian. Secretlondon (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
60th birthday concert, son of famous singer is injured in a car crash I am a man of honor, I will not sing anymore. Tatul Avoyan (trans) Secretlondon (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so the recently found sources can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 8 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information

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

After reviewing Gale, Proquest, Newspapers.com, there is one review from the Associated Press, and no other sigcov. On newspapers.com, there are several hundred hits, but every single piece of sigcov is actually a reprint of the singular Associated Press review. There is nothing else, except some newspapers just repeating its facts. Redirect to Mitchell Symons? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTPROMOTION

~~Andh Namazi (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitchell Symons. I don't think that this is a promotion, to address the concerns of another editor - but the book doesn't pass notability guidelines as far as I can tell. There's a bit of coverage from the AP, but other than that there's not really anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Right now this fails WP:NBOOK and the BEFORE analysis above, plus my own quick check, suggest finding sources might be hard. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Striking my vote as User:Cunard found good sources. Instead, keep and tag with {{sources exist}} if not improved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Berthel, Ron (2004-04-24). "Books answer questions you never thought to ask". The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05.
  The review notes: "Those who treasure trivia will find a bumper crop of the stuff in "That Book ... of Perfectly Useless Information" (Morrow, $14.95). Mitchell Symons has filled 372 pages with little-known -- perhaps for good reason -- facts about birds, insects, animals, the arts, words, and people. For example, who knew that the longest recorded flight of a chicken is 13 seconds? Or that no former U.S. president has died in May? And, one might wonder, which celebrities are allergic to garlic? Drew Barrymore and David Cassidy, to name two."
2. "Bathroom reading". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 2004-11-21. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "If Seinfeld was a TV show about nothing, this is its printed equivalent: That Book of Perfectly Useless Information by Mitchell Symons (William Morrow, $14.95). Every page is crammed with the kind of lists that will kill spare time and brain cells at roughly the same rate. And yet it's so addictive you may end up reading it cover to cover. Examples: "People Who Have Been Pestered for Autographs in Toilets" (Joan Collins, Pierce Brosnan, below, and Julia Roberts); "Statistically the Most Landed-Upon Monopoly Squares" (Illinois Avenue, B&O Railroad, Tennessee Avenue); "The Age + They Would Have Reached in 2005 if They Were Still Alive" (Princess Di, 44; John Lennon, 65; Anne Frank, 76)."
3. Kuch, Maureen (2005-01-09). "Useless trivia makes for interesting reading". The Vernon Morning Star. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Regular readers of this column know that I'm an incurable fan of trivia, and what better way to start new year than by announcing the publication of a new book — possibly the ultimate book — on trivia, called The Book of Perfectly Useless Information. British author Mitchell Symons has spent the last 20 years gathering trivia, much of which has been collected in numerous previous books, but he thinks of his latest, the nearly 400-page volume as a sort of director's cut, if you like, of my whole career." Many of you, I know, will snicker at the thought of anyone having a whole career devoted to uselessness. but useless or not, trivia is addictive, or at the very least, entertaining. Here are same excerpts from Symons* book:"
4. Kesner, Julian (2004-12-12). "Reading Matter: That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information by Mitchell Symons (William Morrow, $14.95). Symons, a former BBC TV director and Trivial Pursuit contributor, has culled random facts and figures from every corner of the globe. They include the humdrum and the hilarious. For example, did you know that Franklin Roosevelt, Albert Einstein and Saddam Hussein all married their cousins? Or that sardine flavored ice cream is the most requested patent in Europe? With its loosely themed sections and comical illustrations, the book is sure to find a dedicated readership in bathrooms everywhere."
5. Article about a sequel:
  1. Berthel, Ron (2006-08-06). "Recent books offer some unusual but useful info: Quirky Reference". The Hammond Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review about the sequel notes: "Mitchell Symons' chunky little 360-page book, a sequel to his "That Book ... of Perfectly Useless Information" (2004) is loaded with information that, useful or otherwise, is certainly addictive and entertaining."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Schmeltzer, Scott (2006-07-27). "It's useless — but pretty entertaining — stuff". Albert Lea Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Lately I have been reading a couple of books that have no point. The books are called "That Book of Perfectly Useless Information" and "This Book of More Perfectly Useless Information," and they are both authored by Mitchell Symons. The books are full of information that is not useless, but actually pretty entertaining. I found the books hard to put down and would like to share some of the little trivia that was uncovered in the pages."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That Book ...of Perfectly Useless Information to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources? cc. PARAKANYAA, ReaderofthePack, and Piotrus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a fan of this kind of AfD discussion. For one thing, the way that the sources are presented tends to overemphasise the importance of the contents of the sources. For example, source 1 above is a review of three trivia books which simply says essentially that they contain trivia. Source 6 is mostly a column containing examples of trivia from the book. Neither of these really can be considered significant in the normal use of the word. This isn't a majority !vote and it isn't up to me, but if it was then this kind of comment would only ever lead to !delete because searching through hundreds of years of newspapers to find examples of CHURN to !keep even books of trivia is clearly nonsense in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding to Cunard's sources: https://www.scmp.com/article/571201/book-more-perfectly-useless-information. Kvinnen (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rationale behind your comment but this particular collection of sources do not belong to the type of instances you might be referring to. The sources are as meaningful as the subject they are covering. The book in question is not a serious one, i.e. the books that generate deep, thought-provoking reviews, the sources presented imho match the general tone of the book in their coverage. The book seems to satisfy the sources and notability criteria requisite for its existence here. Kvinnen (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reply above is meant for @JMWt. Apologies if that is not made clear. Kvinnen (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. JMWt (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this isn't War and Peace, you won't get literary analysis of the themes of the book... It's a mass market trivia book. We've usually held book reviews in RS to show notability. If the aim of Wiki is to cover everything, that would pretty much include books like this. I agree it's not a monumental book that will shift the human experience to a better place, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not WP:CHURNALISM because they are very clearly not press releases, and none of the indications demonstrated in that essay are met here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Even the article now used as sourcing in the article seems to be the same as the AP one mentioned above (the link won't open, but the title appears to be the same). I can only pull up the AP article as discussed. I suppose a redirect to the author would be ok as well, not my first choice however. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several new book reviews have been presented above, should easily meet book notability. Also seeing coverage from Hong Kong and the USA, showing international notice, also helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a book of trivia with trivial mentions. The sources above are not in-depth or significant, and are essentially 'listicles'. Mentions are insufficient. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as person who started AfD) I wouldn't have started the AfD if I had managed to see the other sources. Enough for me to see a pass of NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking mine - I don't think that there's really enough to truly justify it being separate from the author's article (I think all of this would be best suited summarized in the author's article that he frequently made trivia books), but enough people I respect have argued for its retention so I'm striking my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are enough for NBOOK. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:36, 14 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. A month went by with no quorum. Owen× ☎ 11:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kanker clash

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

Non-notable clash. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose:

The Article is part of a wider Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in india which have been ongoing for decades, its a low-level insurgency for past many years so mass casuality events are rare.

Only two articles represent a mass casuality event in the insurgency in the whole year of 2024 one is above mentioned and the other being 2024 Abujhmarh clash, so it not just a regular news and the event have been reported by Foreign media outlets, which is rare.

From a wider perspective, articles that represent mass casualities of the maoist rebels have been targeted for deletion recently. Eg:-

It is part of a larger operation ongoing since 2024 to end the insurgency by March 2026.

While articles which portray Government casualities have been left out from deletion even though they are underdeveloped and represent less casuality events like

Deleting this article and leaving out the others will shift the neutrality of the Insurgency, with possible downplaying rebel casualities and highlighting government casualities observed for wikipedia viewers. Golem469 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the event have been reported by Foreign media outlets" – Can you cite a source? I don't see any.

All these articles should be held to the same standard. If this article is deleted, you are welcome to delete/merge the others as well. This argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation and evaluation of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Summary: While this event attracted coverage in multiple news outlets, there was not significant re-analysis or lasting coverage. This content would be better suited as part of a larger article about the broader conflict that has been ongoing since 2024. Following WP:EVENTCRIT:

Does this event have enduring significance, meet WP:GNG, or have a significant WP:LASTING effect? No, as this is one of a string of clashes in the broader conflict that have put up routine news.
Is there widespread impact, diverse coverage, or re-analysis? No.
WP:GEOSCOPE: Yes, notable in national news
WP:DEPTH: Yes, There is some coverage with context such as The Week.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: No, There is not much continued coverage; stories are washed out amongst other days of conflict.
WP:DIVERSE: Yes, This passes between Times of India, The Week, and Indian Express.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one last try for quorum
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:00, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Already deleted as WP:G5 by ERcheck. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Thomas

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

Non notable actress with only small roles in movies. Not played any major roles to claim notability under WP:NACTOR. Source appear in the form of interviews and paid pieces. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:09, 8 July 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) 06:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant roles in the mentioned films. Fails NACTOR Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meetha Raghunath

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

A biographical page of an actress fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Previously deleted as G4. Highly suspicion of COI. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. LKBT (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. LKBT (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's acting career is of little significance. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlike the other voters, I say delete because the actress is still up-and-coming but I can't find any text interviews. She isn't "unnotable" or "insignificant", just not ready to have an article. Given her current success streak, maybe she'll ready in a year or two. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Patel

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

A promotional biographical page of a film producer fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and United States of America. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references on wiki articleRupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE not notable. There are a number of RS in the sources but the articles themselves are do not support the notability of the subject Dualpendel (talk) 19:23, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seafund

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

None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:CHURNALISM. Fails WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, India, and Karnataka. LKBT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable company. Aneirinn (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of mentions, routine coverage, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing that meets Wp:CORPDEPTH. Should have been speedied and would have been had creator not objected to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent Pharmaceuticals

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and WP:ROUTINE. LKBT (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, and Gujarat. LKBT (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of multiple in-depth independent articles. Taking aside the vague suggestion that NEWSORGINDIA can be used to sweep aside anything from the subcontinent for notability purposes (it's about paid media), I find many, many articles discussing this company at length, in an independent voice, including:

IUP Journal of Accounting Research and Audit Practices (peer reviewed), Liquidity Management and Control: A Comparative Study of Torrent Pharma and Cipla [40]
Renewable Energy (peer reviewed), Cooling without air conditioning: The torrent research centre, ahmedabad, India[41]
CNBC - Torrent Pharma Deal - Here is what JB Chemicals brings to the table[42]
Bloomberg - Torrent Pharma Said to Get $2.3B Credit Line for JB Buy [43]

There's a lot of other material behind paywalls on Google Scholar. And this is a major publicly listed company so there are probably analyst reports as well.

I am curious as to the opinion of the nominator as to the results of their own WP:BEFORE searches. Oblivy (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the sources for this article are more of the CorpDepth variety. The (very cool and interesting) Renewable Energy article isn't an in-depth source about the Torrent company but about a building they paid for. The CNBC article is primarily about, well, "what JB Chemicals brings to the table". The Bloomberg article appears to me to be a standard report of a M&A deal which is specifically noted as NOT in-depth by WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Journal of Accounting Research article is secondary and I suppose it is in-depth in a way, but I don't know what facts in the article you would cite to that article. In my own searching all I found was more M&A reporting, the problems with which I explained above, and some recall notices. There is a MarketLine Company report but I don't know how much that counts for notability. My gut feeling is that this company should be notable as one of the biggest pharma companies in India with plenty of international business as well but I can't find sources that satisfy me. Moritoriko (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Oblivy, but with slightly more cynicism. Any arguments about WP:NEWSORGINDIA would require discussion about the specific articles, not a sweeping declaration that they are unreliable or cannot be used to establish notability just because they are Indian. Weirdguyz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTED; companies with a market cap of US$13 billion tend to receive adequate analyst coverage, such as [44] [45] [46] [47]. The article could use some work, though. Yuvaank (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the in-depth analyst sources found by Yuvaank, yay. Where do you find those? Moritoriko (talk) 23:31, 14 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filming of James Bond in the 2000s

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

Pure content fork from Die Another Day, Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace. I believe this would go under WP:NOPAGE - not sure though.

Something to note: there are similar pages for each decade, all equally as transcluded. 3602kiva (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 3602kiva (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no point in simply transcluding all those sections of different James Bond movie articles into one separate article. Also see my nomination of the rest of those pages for the same reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filming of James Bond in the 1960s.

Gommeh 🎮 20:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure fork of the articles. Fails WP:NOPAGE, as it provides no new information. LightlySeared (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all five "Filming of" articles. The articles are WP:REDUNDANTFORKs with information better served in the articles for the movies. मल्ल (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FORK jolielover♥talk 12:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a separate page since all of these information can be covered in separate James Bond movie articles. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:01, 13 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla (Marathon)

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

Utterly non-notable neighborhood of a small city in Florida - if it even exists. No real reliable sources in the article, nor can I find any. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not clear that this was ever a neighborhood; until some years ago it was the ___location of a resort, and now apparently someone is building a new resort there. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is really easy - neighbourhoods must clear WP:GNG, and this one is so poorly sourced it obviously doesn't, and if it does somehow, deleting the current iteration would not harm the project at all. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 8 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amigdalae

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

WP:N. This project is much too niche to deserve an article; even the artist himself lacks an article of his own. There are no sources, and there is not much of substance in the article itself...most likely because there isn't much to say. 3602kiva (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. 3602kiva (talk) 04:17, 8 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Spider-Man 2. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Octavius

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

Fictional character does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMCHAR. Sources linked go to articles discussing Doctor Octopus (which is not the same subject as the the film character and fictional husband) and do not mention the subject. It looks like the character was created for the film adaptation and does not exist outside that one movie with minimal scene time. Nothing outside of blogs and Fandom can be found to establish notability. Redirecting to either Otto Octavius (film character) or Spider-Man 2 would be a good ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. cyberdog958^Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spider-Man 2 (and/or Otto Octavius (film character)). I did see only brief occurences in serious secondary sources, and sadly the Women in refrigerators commentary is unsourced. But a slight expansion at the target is a good WP:Alternative to deletion in my view. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with merging, but since everything on the page is unsourced (because the sources used do not mention the subject), none of the prose should be used. Also, the page creator themselves state I've only really got speculation and pulling writing tropes out of my behind on the talk page of the article which makes me think that it is largely original research. cyberdog958^Talk 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that the second link also does not mention the character. I still think Spider-Man 2#Plot deserves a sentence on Rosie's role (although there's a half-sentence at Cast). Daranios (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spider-Man 2 - It is somewhat rare for a minor character that only appears briefly in a single piece of fiction to have enough reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, and I am seeing nothing in searches that would indicate that this one is one of those rare cases that do. While I do not oppose redirecting to the main film article as a reasonable search term, Merging anything would not be appropriate because the only two sources being used here, aside from having reliability issues, do not even mention the character as far as I can see. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Daranios. I don't see WP:SIGCOV either but this is partially covered at the main article about the fiction, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Otto Octavius (film character), since this character is unmentioned at Spider-Man 2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She actually is listed in the cast/character list at Spider-Man 2, but under the name "Rosie" Octavius. Her being already listed as a character there is the main reason I advocated for that being the redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm unopposed to the redirect target being the film. That's a mistake on my part, thank you for the catch! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 9 July 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Ali Khamenei as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Ali Khamenei

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

WP:NOPAGE. This content belongs at Ali Khamenei and/or Iran–Israel war. By themselves, threats of assassination - as long as they remain merely threats - are very unlikely to meet WP:NEVENT. Astaire (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Iran, and Israel. Astaire (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom Metallurgist (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ali Khamenei. This is the best pick for including this article's content elsewhere, but WP:NOPAGE makes a strong case for not needing a separate page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just created, NOPAGE applies, not a helpful redirect, nothing to merge, not enough content to sustain the page (i.e. not a valid SPINOFF). gidonb (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mere subject in Breaking News isn't a notability for any article nor this was an actual assassination attempt.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 11:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge. This is hardly a topic that would need its own standalone article separately from a mention in the existing BLPs of the involved parties — maybe if there were reams and reams of content to write about it, but three sentences isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 12 July 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Masoud Pezeshkian selectively. Owen× ☎ 11:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Masoud Pezeshkian

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

WP:NOPAGE. This content belongs at Masoud Pezeshkian. There are no details available about this alleged assassination attempt. The sources in the article treat the assassination as a claim made by Pezeshkian, rather than a fact. Astaire (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Iran, and Israel. Astaire (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom Metallurgist (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. Looks like a paid promotion for Masoud Pezeshkian. Edard Socceryg (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reason for suspecting WP:UPE here? You've just accused the page's main author, User:Crampcomes, of engaging in undisclosed paid editing, with the implication being that they're being paid by the Iranian regime or pro-Iran actors. That is a wildly inappropriate thing to casually suggest without any elaboration. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as above. Nothing to merge. No redirect needed. gidonb (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) as there is more text now. Also, the target can use a bit more information. gidonb (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets Wikipedia:GNG.Crampcomes (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep Both are acceptable outcomes. I'm not in favor of outright deletion here per WP:RAPID and WP:TOOSOONDEL and I'd rather wait and see how the story & article develop. Immediately nominating articles about breaking news stories for deletion is seldom a good idea. Major reliable outlets are covering it (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Jerusalem Post, Financial Times, etc) which indicates notability. It's also not entirely accurate to suggest that sources are only treating this as a claim, as Al Jazeera is reporting on it as an apparent assassination attempt. That said, I'm skeptical that there will be many future developments because this is the Iranian president commenting on an attempted assassination during the Iran-Israel war, not an attempted assassination that just now happened, so I do think this could probably be covered sufficiently on other pages. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Skitash (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not include any substantial information that can not be summarized in a few sentences within the main Iran-Israel war article. In addition to the fact that the information is based on a self testimony by Masoud himself with no supporting evidence or testimonies. Rafi Chazon (talk) 09:24, 15 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of online ticket sales of Ukrzaliznytsia

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

WP:NOPAGE. A simply unencyclopedic topic for a standalone page. This is worth maybe two sentences - if that - at Ukrzaliznytsia. Astaire (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Transportation, and Ukraine. Astaire (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Keep ==

This article documents a historically significant milestone: the very first online transaction for booking Ukrainian railway tickets, completed on December 26, 2008. This event marked the launch of online payment processing for Ukrzaliznytsia, which later evolved into full e-ticket systems across Ukraine.

I was personally involved as the initiator of this first transaction and can provide primary documents such as contracts between Express-2 and E-Cpayment, certification from Belgian processor Clear2Pay (now FIS), official letters from Ukrzaliznytsia, and bank reports from Rodovid Bank to verify these facts.

I am ready to share these materials confidentially with Wikipedia administrators to confirm the notability and verifiability of this topic.

--Tvladimir2 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were involved in the transaction, then this is a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and you should not have created the page yourself. WP:COIEDIT says: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Astaire (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This article covers a historical first in Ukraine's e-commerce and railway sector: the initial online payment and booking of Ukrzaliznytsia tickets in December 2008. The event is verified by an official letter from JSC Ukrzaliznytsia marking the 15th anniversary, and an independent media publication by Espreso TV. I have already disclosed my COI and welcome further neutral reviews. Thank you. Tvladimir2 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ukrainian Railways, fails WP:GNG. मल्ल (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails WP:GNG and is literally just a puff piece for the author. Oppose merge on the basis that once you remove all puffery, there is nothing left. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source may not be reliable as it is an opinion blog post, and the second source fails WP:PUBLISHED. Since WP:V is failed I don't think a merge is applicable either. Jumpytoo Talk 01:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crosswiki spam. The editor admits he's using a chatbot to overcome minimum requirements on various Wikipedia's and upload that content. Taichi (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic per WP:5P. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 20:43, 10 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiho Nakayama

AfDs for this article:

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

Played less than 20 professional matches and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The first AfD of this footballer ended up being kept in 2018 due to meeting a guideline that no longer exists, so it needs deletion. Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is a poorly-sourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masako Yoshida

AfDs for this article:

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

Female footballer who played one friendly for Japan national team in 1980s. No WP:SIGCOV found. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is a poorly-sourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 9 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natnael McDonald

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because there is not enough WP:SIGCOV. The current references are primary and I couldn't find secondary sources in a BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable athlete. Aneirinn (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clear failure in WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nomination.--Killviconiborki (talk) 09:50, 10 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emely Pichardo

(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 non-primary reference is [[48]], but that is a WP:YOUNGATH failure and I can't find anything better here. Let'srun (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Dominican Republic, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drinah Nyirenda

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the PROF test works against administrators rather than researchers. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPROF allows for notability of professors who've held a named-professorship, distinguished professorship or the equivalent in an institution/nation/culture where distinguished and named are rarely used. I do not know the Zambian university system. If her professorships are/were the Zambian equivalent of distinguished, we should keep. Elemimele (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but there's nothing currently in the article that suggests that. (not voting either way) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - Wikipedia is very underrepresented in terms of academics from southern Africa, but there just is not enough sourcing in the article to demonstrate a pass for WP:PROF or WP:GNG even with a pretty inclusionist reading. Quotes by the subject are more about the projects and ministries than about the significance of her directorship. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:26, 11 July 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. There has been no meaningful participation in nearly three weeks, and further re-listing seems unlikely to change that. There is disagreement (but virtually no follow-up discussion) about whether the many sources shown collectively satisfy WP:NCORP. If someone wishes to re-nominate (after waiting at least two months) it would behoove them to open with a review and analysis of all of the sources presented in this AfD and the previous one, perhaps using {{ORGCRIT assess}}. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

N/C in 2017, and I think it's time for another look as corp depth still does not appear to be there in WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Michigan. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are very normal corporate business sources, not ones that establish notability by Wikipedia standards. PickleG13 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Profile: Material Sciences Corporation". Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 38 (7). Sage Publishing: 21–22. July 2007. doi:10.1260/0957-4565.38.7.21. EBSCOhost 26045472.
  According to this page, Noise & Vibration Worldwide is a peer-reviewed journal. The article notes: "Material Sciences Corporation provides material-based solutions for acoustical and coating applications that address noise, temperature problems in the automotive, HVAC, electronics, power equipment, and construction industries. Founded in 1971 the company now has 600 employees in the US, Europe, and Asia and a network of partners on four continents. In fiscal 2006, MSC had net sales of $287 million and net income of $5.2 million. MSC has one of the largest independent sound engineering laboratories in North America, an application research centre located in Canton, MI."
2. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market."
3. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the money losing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as anti-vibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest."
4. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
  The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford."
5. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-21 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic ___location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
6. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
7. Hoover's had an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US."
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite torn on this one, but are you volunteering to fix the article and add something beyond numbers and timelines of announcements? Your rebuttal to the proposal to delete this is at least one order of magnitude longer than the article. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already found several of these on the last AFD and I am unconvinced of WP:CORPDEPTH. I suppose it depends if the Nelson Forbes pieces are significant. IgelRM (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of potentially useful sources linked to help but would love a bit more discussion before closing this out. Relisting in hopes of getting a bit more attention, will see if I can ping some noticeboards to take a look as well..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:33, 8 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven C. Walker

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

I'm not sure which guideline this diplomat is supposed to meet. It's not WP:ANYBIO, it's not WP:NPOL and it's not WP:GNG with zero independent sources. He is currently a WP:NSCHOLAR, but I only ended up finding several others academics with the same name. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chargé d'Affaires and ambassadors serve the same role. Walker was the ambassador for the United States. I think a discussion on making a formal standard for diplomats is completely necessary. I am voting keep here the precedent should be made through that rather than an AfD page. Jon698 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearian has brought up that Walker can be considered notable as an academic. Jon698 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely agree that ambassadors of any country are inherently notable as they hold a national political position per WP:NPOL. I wish this was more explicitly clear in a policy. Chargé d'Affaires have the same responsibilities as an ambassador, but crucially not the same position. Still, I do think that is probably enough. Ike Lek (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is not true that ambassadors are "inherently notable". Geschichte (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus that has developed over the past year is that ambassadors are not inherently notable. He might be notable as an academic: his article on not having diplomatic relationships with authoritarian regimes seems to have some impact. Please discuss his academic credentials. Bearian (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there have been multiple discussions about whether they should be. (See WP:DIPLOMAT and this discussion). In this specific case, as the nominator says, there is not the sourcing for a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither WP:DIPLOMAT nor that discussion are accepted policy. Jon698 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, but it is an essay that emerged after the removal of the guideline from WP:BIO (difference here). If there is a reason to keep under NSCHOLAR, I will reassess my !vote. - Enos733 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not well-written which I think creates some of the back and forth. A not-independent biography here provided by his current employer is a good discussion point. Steve Walker is a faculty member and the acting chancellor of College for International Security Affairs at National Defense University. He has a diplomatic rank of Minister-Counselor which is not an ambassador. I will also note that Charge d'Affaires is not a Senate-confirmed position see 3 FAH-1 H-2432.1-2. I do not see how a non-Senate confirmed head of mission is inherently notable. Yes, foreign service officers are confirmed by the Senate, but you cannot believe all 13,747 are inherently notable based on Senate confirmation. The question becomes, do his roles at NDU and the Wilson Center allow him to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? My belief is no. I found a single Atlantic piece and Google Scholar does not show any sort of published articles. I also searched his name at Foreign Affairs Magazine and found nothing. Accomplished guy, but not notable for the purpose of having an individual article.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 11:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York County Democratic Committee

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

The article has a number of issues already hatnoted, such as it not being clear what the article refers to. The article also isnt substantive, and the only links to it are from two other pages that dont appear to need this article to expand anything. There are also pending discussions for Westchester County DC which is an orphan, and Erie County, which is the best of the three, but isnt much better. Metallurgist (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as the current incarnation of Tammany Hall, which controlled Democratic nominations and political patronage in Manhattan for over 100 years, roughly 1854 to the 1950s. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tammany Hall has no continuity to today. If you can make that case, you could add it to the Tammany Hall page. Metallurgist (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs to be expanded, but you can't argue it doesn't pass notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEBOLD Metallurgist (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already passes WP:GNG with the references in the article, but as the others above, it'd be nice if it could be expanded a little bit. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 13 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest, Indiana

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

This is quite a mess on the topos, where the label jumps around between two different but very similar areas. And here the problem is that our only testimony for the nature of the place is Baker, once again, and looking at the topos and aerials, this looks like a very early residential development. Can someone find evidence to the contrary? Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen a few of these and kept meaning to look into them and what "Baker" is. Judging by the title of the book, it would make a good source for something that existed already, but isnt good as the basis of an article. Metallurgist (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baker is the author of an "origin of place names" book which is used extensively in these articles. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thats what I was getting at. It would be good as a second source (nb: not primary source), but not as the basis of a page. Which is to say, if there were other sources justifying the notability, it would be useful to add to that. Metallurgist (talk) 15:33, 8 July 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relay Protocol

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

Not notable. At best, it can be kept in draft namespace. Ishtiak Abdullah (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one RS and it's not clear that's about the article topic as such - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 9 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essa Abbas

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics per Svartner's suggestion. Subject is non-notable beyond participation in one sporting event. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is widely mentioned in Kuwaiti newspapers of the time. We need someone to check those. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Barry (athlete)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. There appears to be a criminal of the same name. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, the criminal of the same name mentioned by LibStar is likely to influence results. Regardless, though, never won a medal, yet another Lugstub. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 10 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Republic of the Congo at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Coudray

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Congo at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Swimming – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Svartner. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:39, 10 July 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Characters of the Tekken series#Wang Jinrei. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jinrei

AfDs for this article:

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

This character flat out doesn't meet notability standards; most of what's here is primary sources, or very questionable ones. A WP:BEFORE doesn't inspire confidence either. Proceeding here after WP:BLAR was reversed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made on the premise that there were youtube sources from notable gamers earlier, so some of these sources have been removed. The page has been significantly revised after this to conform with the Notability guidelines of Wikipedia. To answer this issue, after I deleted some of the primary sources, a lot of notable secondary sources from prominent authors and publishers were introduced to establish credence. This was done after reading and double-checking the policies and guidelines. Marugamirica (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the WP:BLAR amount to very limited information to learn about the character, it also lacks proper sources itself, and does poorly to present the diversity of the 60+ roster in the Tekken series. Furthermore, the lack of encyclopedic coverage as presented in these Articles for deletion are refuted by the fact that multiple books and secondarily sourced reading materials do present encyclopedic profiles for most of the Tekken characters as of 2025. Marugamirica (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character of Wang Jinrei also presents at the reception, a resulting increase in interest in martial arts films and internal martial arts training, as explained in the revisions of the article. Marugamirica (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking your sources here, but I feel some of these aren't even discussing the character or just barely? Xing Yi Health Maintenance and Internal Strength Development does not even seem to mention Tekken, or Wang, and looking at the pages listed unless this publication is somehow different (it matches the one shown on Google, which I can't preview).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of the character, and there are different editions to the book. What is considered as bare is subjective. Notice the Christie Monteiro page is filled with sources that briefly mention her in articles, but that is besides the point since important information is to be found. That page was allowed anyway though lesser in reliable sources. Collectively the information paint a picture that cannot be found in this cloistered page Characters of the Tekken series. Marugamirica (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not how WP:SIGCOV works...can you possibly screenshot the pages you're citing and load them to imgur for verification, and link others where possible here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Looking through reception, I see most sources have some issue or another. The first two sources are Game Rant, a WP:VALNET source and Event Hubs, an unreliable source. The next two sources are a guide, followed by a WP:USERGEN source. The next two sources are a YouTube source (that appears broken?) and a broken source that isn't listed on WP:VG/RS, but is likely not reliable. The final source of the first paragraph is also USERGEN. In the second paragraph, the source is not listed on VG/RS and is written by an anonymous user. Every source that I can actually check is either broken, user-generated, or unreliable/likely unreliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Define broken because the videos work and are presentable. It isn’t necessarily true that the YouTube sources are unreliable by virtue of being from Youtube either, these sources are from the most influential players in Tekken. Also may I kindly ask how you have come to perceive the sources as WP:USERGEN? I checked your link to the article and the examples in that section are Facebook, Instagram, and Wikipedia itself. I look at the sources for Wang Jinrei, and there is clearly nothing even remotely close to the examples mentioned in your linked article, so I urge you to reconsider your assessment to this page. To the earlier reply of User:Kung Fu Man, yes I can supply or replace with more sources that can be available online if needed. I will be happy to comply and supply sources beyond Event Hubs as well.Marugamirica (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[49] This is user-generated content, IGN.com/wikis content is not usable, even though the content has contributions from IGN editors. IGN.com/wikis content often has edits from users, and whether the articles used here are not cannot be verified (for example, Dadul Wangdi does not appear to be a member of staff, and I can't tell who "Ichs77" could be). It should also be noted that, at the time of writing my grievances with this page, the broken links were indeed broken until being fixed in a later edit. Most importantly, however, I have only addressed the poor sources used; at present, Den of Geek is the only fully reliable source used in the Reception section that I am able to actually verify, everything else is either a YouTube video (pro players are not considered reliable sources unless their perspectives are discussed through reliable sources). As far as the content goes, it's extremely light and insubstantial. If you cut out content that just explains how the combo works, the actual first paragraph becomes much smaller. Further, why is his Heavy Power Punch combo given so much discussion? The way I see it, the punch seems to be the subject of discussion more than the character himself! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse the two concepts. A move is part of the character. The moves make the character's gameplay, they are not mutually exclusive, they explain what made the character gameplay-wise very respected in the series. The discussion was mostly on characterization and storyline up to that point. This punch is one of his basic and well-known movesets that are even shared with a couple other strong characters, which is why it helps describe his identity as a character, so they are not separable. See Kazuya Mishima and notice many articles discuss one move, his Electrics. This is because for many gamers one may find in IGN and other sites, the gameplay is arguably more valuable than his characterization, and we cannot just focus on that alone to explain all facets of this character.

Also you asked if the YouTube videos are reliable sources? I will be happy to share information on this matter. Take the User TheMainManSwe, he is not just a gamer but also a tournament organizer who has seen the inside of the fighting game industry. His perspective has been well regarded by many people, including Tekken Executive Producer Katsuhiro Harada himself. The Canadian company Score Media and Gaming has a video where they kept using TheMainManSwe's videos for their information on their Youtube channel without his consent, but were allowed to anyway, which goes to show his standing in the gaming community.^[1] Knee a multiple time EVO champion got into a debate with him for a myriad of reasons, and TheMainManSwe has been featured at the EVO tournaments by the main commentators Rip and Tasty Steve, since he is well-known in the fighting game community beyond just playing the game well.

As for the broken links, they are not "broken" per se, the video is out there, again it depends how one should define the term "broken," the title just came before the link hence the change, but a quick search of the title on YouTube, will lead you there, and that is arguing on the surface level anyway. Let's kindly not split hairs here. Again, I would like for you to understand that it is best to avoid differentiating his movesets from the character, since the gameplay needs more reflection, and this goes for all Tekken characters. This is not just pertaining to Wang and his characterization, otherwise it looks like a Biopic of a movie role rather than an actual article about someone from a game/E-Sport, which Tekken is primarily known to be. Finally, the IGN content is checked by editors, nor did you try to establish who Dadul Wangdi happens to be, or how does he have insubstantial connection to IGN. Either way, there are other sources for the Tekken 5 movesets that he has, and all this information is available when one actually plays the game, it's in practice mode, that is why the visuals were best shown through these sites. In fact, the video of his movesets is merely electronic evidence made from the same impression- it is literally in the video game. Thus, the source is the video game, and this will not violate the Original Document Rule since it was posted with the same impression and intent as the original game itself. To clarify further, in practice mode, you just press the simulation for each move, and the CPU will display how it is done, that is all the video is about. No original research or new information was added beyond what Bandai Namco/Namco placed in the game. However, if necessary, I will be happy to find more sources that reflect the frame data of his moves that can be found by playing the game. Hope this helps, cheers. Marugamirica (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in articles about his moveset, and it's not my obligation to establish who Dadul Wangdi is. I won't be replying further, as I believe my point has been adequately made. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested about his moveset, other readers might be, again because gameplay is important and informative for many people who want to try to play the character, not just discuss his backstory and characterization. Perception is multifaceted. Why do you refuse to discuss further, and the issue on Dadul Wangdi was something you brought up so shouldn't it be established with clear and convincing evidence before the source is discarded? The lack of quantum of evidence on these matters does not mean there is closure at all to this point. Marugamirica (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about Youtube, see WP:RSPYT. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Video on YouTube

Redirect Seems lacking in significant coverage and improperly sourced. The article recreator also appears unclear with how reliable sources on Wikipedia work; this is just one simple read away and can clear up many issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with that, it may be a simple read but in actual practice to topics such as these, it becomes more nuanced than that, such as in the case of the videos for example. In terms of reliability, in the page Wikipedia:Applying reliability guidelines, it is stated that "A full consideration of a source doesn't look just at the source, but also how others perceive it." It also says, that the reliability of a source depends on both the source and the claim, with the ultimate criterion being the likelihood that the claim is true. It then states, "that doesn't mean that an editor's opinion of the truth carries any weight. Instead, we look to several properties of the source as proxy indicators of its trustworthiness." My point being circumstances indicating trustworthiness refer to credibility. But sometimes professional gamers who perceived this nuance and in perceiving can make known their perception to others become trustworthy sources. Some like TheMainManSwe have been cited by digital media/news companies already. The expertise is a factor in determining what an expert opinion may be, and some information on gameplay as discussed earlier will not always be found in an article by a known newspaper, ex. The New York Times. These larger newspapers will not be discussing gameplay, and that is why the videos may serve an invaluable asset to understanding a character. I completely agree with your point that finding more coverage from large media company articles is best as the page suggests due to verifiability, but certain topics can be better covered by professional gamers who spend time studying the game and sharing it with an audience. They are also scrutinized and fact-checked when they become well-known, such as TheMainManSwe on his points about powerful combos that can be applied in-game. It is these nuanced takes that help people fathom the diverse array of characters in the Tekken series. If I may, I will stil try to supply more available reliable sources when needed. Marugamirica (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that these Youtubers are subject-matter experts and count as reliable sources, which may be a big stretch because "cited by media" may not rise to the "works published by reliable publications" necessary to fulfill WP:SPS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is still failed since any critical commentary on the character besides pure gameplay aspects is sourced to either unreliable sources or trivial coverage.

Of course I know you'll probably continue to argue I am wrong, and that's the problem. WP:IDHT is grounds for sanctions if one refuses to actually listen to policy based arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify with you that I am not arguing about commentary on non-gameplay on your comment. I have already stated that not all the sites on it would have poor secondary sources. Some sources on his characterization do fit the bill of such description. Nor is it safe for you to presume that I want to continue to make you feel wrong. I earnestly want to improve this article and Wikipedia. I have no intention to violate rules, and want to comply with the guidelines, hence this discussion I want to partake in. Nobody is violating rules just discussing clarifications, since that is the goal of this opened forum anyway. Now, as for the threat of sanctions, that should not be the goal in regulating and constricting the potential flow of this discussion either. Since after all this is a free discussion page to hash out issues, and I have been completely complying with some of these older comments by making better edits on the main article per the suggestions.

Of course now, it becomes unjust that other characters get more coverage and their own pages due to non-gameplay reasons, while the gameplay is actually a small part of their prominence (such as the meager content on Leo Kliesen or the fact that the Josie Rizal page is almost sourced from one country but there is no reliably sourced information on her gameplay either- as compared to the page of Wang Jinrei which features both and constantly revsied citations to improve on the page), but those who play the game see it differently and would like to learn more information on the characters actually known for their gameplay. Wang also is known for having one of the best storylines too, so in all fronts there is a peaked interest. On that note, I feel it is more unsafe to disregard all the information in the page of Wang Jinrei and redirect it to small footnotes in the Characters page, when such information can be useful when revised and improved instead (which takes work but benefits everyone) of being completely left empty to those who could still read it and learn from it. Please do not interpret or feel that you are being attacked, targeted, or offended, as it is for mere clarification only and not to violate the rules. I am respectfully pleading my arguments and that is all, it is not my call how it is decided. I respect and see your points sir. Thank you. Marugamirica (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "unfair" as Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, it has different criteria than the Tekken Wiki.

A character can be notable solely for their gameplay but this is far rarer than for other aspects of them. In this case the article doesn't make an argument his gameplay is unique and special not just in Tekken, but in video games in general in some way. It's just a rote list of moves. Most of its "importance" argument comes from the character's depiction and its sourcing is poor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tekken characters per nom. Nothing really worth keeping here and very little in the way of reliable sourcing for the character. I would advise the article creator to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, since you can very much get in trouble for that. Your point has already been made extensively, it's best to let it rest so others can chime into the discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tekken characters per Pokelego999. I wouldn't mind a slight merge per WP:ATD. There isn't enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 11 July 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.

[1] Video on YouTube

[1]