Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 07	June 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 delete‎. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schmid

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

Fails WP:PROF, nothing in google scholar for *this* eric schmid, none of the listed papers have any significant number of citations Psychastes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Switzerland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I am skeptical of WP:NCREATIVE, and the current article does not make a case for it. Commenting that several of the references in the article do not appear to mention the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still looking into sources in the article and a BEFORE, but it seems that what is here are a lot of name-check mentions, listings, connected non-independent sources, or brief snippet of content that are basically mentions rather than sustained in-depth significant coverage that we would normally see for a notable artist. No notable exhibitions, nor works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, nor the usual art historical sources nor art critical/theoretical coverage. Holding off on !Voting for now until I do a deeper search, but it looks like he is not a notable artist or curator. Also want to mention that curators do not inherit the notability of the artists they select for shows they curate. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Someone has to cast the first !vote) -- one reason for general guidelines like WP:NPROF's statement that graduate students are very rarely notable is to help wade through mountains of side-mentions, mentions-of-groups-participated-in, etc. and all the other near citations that this article is full of and let us ask, "is there a significant reliable source that says that this person is significantly important in any of his fields?" Without it, it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (keep up the good work Eric...) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for any criteria in WP:NPROF and likely also for WP:NARTIST since I dont see any indication that he is part of a permanent collection or even had his own solo exhibition yet. For example the Speak Local exhibition was not a solo exhibition and it doesnt look like any of the others were either. Similarly I dont see any in depth profiles that would amount to notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the comments above, especially the Too Soon comments. Not yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this multidisciplinary person, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Maybe in a few years, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost never keep doctoral students. Bearian (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't mean to pile on here, but I've done a search in Swissdox for '"Eric Schmid" Kunst', and it seems that the most notable Swiss artist by this name is a photographer from Wädenswil. Most of the sources here are primary, while those that are not often fail to mention Schmid, let alone provide significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. By the way: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andreweil0. Graywalls (talk) 11:02, 15 June 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 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Kiemele

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

Cannot find strong secondary coverage, minor part-time driver that relies on database sources for most content Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author has provided this source [1], it should be considered when looking at the article overall Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an independent source: Cronkite News is an Arizona State University publication and the story is about Kiemele being recruited by ASU. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 1 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!} 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the improvements I still side with the view that this article lacks WP:RS media coverage and doesn’t qualify under WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I have found some sources about him, they are either passing mentions or not independent. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON as he could well get more coverage in WP:RS over the next few years, but he just isn't there yet. Giuliotf (talk) 08:51, 12 June 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 France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing. ✗plicit 23:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Vuillard

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

Subject lacks the needed significant coverage to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only two references currently are in order of appearance (1): a database and (2): doesn't mention the subject. As such, there is not enough notability here to justify a standalone article. A possible redirect is France at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Rowing where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is definitely the correct course of action, per the comments above. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Similar to my last vote, this person is known most for the event he participated in. Is notable enough for inclusion on the event that he participated in but fails WP:GNG for his own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:42, 12 June 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. Sandstein 07:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Mail Centre

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

Not a notable Mail Centre. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regional mail centres aren't really notable, though obviously they generate a bit of news when they get restructured or closed down. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 9 June 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 per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 08:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

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

The subject matter doesn't meet notability according to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources; primarily, the content is original and speculative. There is also significant overlap with existing articles on Aulikaras and the Alchon Huns, making the entry a copy. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 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!} 23:03, 8 June 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 23:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League arenas

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

This list fails to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. The only sources cited here are QMJHL Arena Guide (personal web site by a hockey fan and not reliable), and Stadiumjourney.com which is essentially a database for stadiums. Although components of this list could be cited, without independent reliable sources, this list is not notable or encyclopedic. An option would be to merge the information into the league's article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? Aside from the nom's cogent arguments, and that there's nothing out there discussing these as a group as LISTN requires, compiling this for a junior league fails the cruft test. Ravenswing 11:36, 9 June 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 Corpse Party. Sandstein 06:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team GrisGris

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

No reliable sources, appears to fail WP:NCORP, possible redirect to Corpse Party. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace It seems like some effort has been put into this company's Wikipedia page, but it seems to have no sources of note or that meet Wikipedia standards. Rather than simply deleting, I would move it to the draftspace to continue to gather sources. PickleG13 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corpse Party, does not demonstrate passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at first instance - draftifying is nice, but a cursory search doesn't yield a lot unless there is WP:NONENG coverage out there. The article patently fails WP:NCORP and the article is written in a way that merely lists the games published instead of providing background information - see WP:NOTWORK. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:24, 9 June 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 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Kincl

AfDs for this article:

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

I would delete and salt. Apparent vanity page, Potential COI. Non-notable MMA fighter. For me its really the fact that he subject's highest achieved world ranking was #35 and is currently ranked at #60 in the Middleweight rankings (Completely fails WP:NMMA). Sources are atrocious and mostly profiles, fight announcement and event results, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that WP:GNG is met. Here is my analysis of the sources:

Lekkha Moun (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly sourced, with not much better that can be found by searching the internet. I am an advocate of returning things to draftspace in general, but it seems hard to find better sources than these at the moment. If we have evidence toward conflict of interest, I favor deletion. PickleG13 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons brought up in it's last two AFDs. Three times here is enough. Nswix (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has happened to change my analysis of the references from the previous discussions. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I remain unconvinced that the given sources meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:24, 11 June 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 23:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of the content is sourced to their website and most of the other sources do not meet WP:RS, with some being blogs, PR sites like Feedspot, reviews with no named author, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 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. Withdrawn. Sandstein 07:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, because it hasn't been discussed as a group. It's a collection of links to external sites, hence WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I fail to see how the chapters of a National Fraternity don't constitute a group, there are *no* external Links outside the References (which is where they should be) and Alpha Sigma Phi doesn't have chartering dates at a single web page (like most fraternities and sororities do) and as such, a larger number of references are needed, which doesn't affect whether the page should exist anyway.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources I don't think the various chapters have been discussed as a group. The references are just links to individual universities that have a chapter. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination is in error. This article has at least two secondary sources that cover the chapters of Alpha Sigma Phi as a group. One is a Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the main authority on all Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Alpha Sigma Phi was included in every edition of Baird's, including the edition(s) cited in this article. The second source is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, a scholarly project of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As is the typical positioning with sources that cover all entries in a table, these sources are provided in the lede above the table. In addition, the links within the table/list go to other Wikipedia articles, such as the main article about Alpha Sigma Phi and the various colleges and cities that host chapters, not external websites. Also, there is a precedent of moving long lists of fraternity, sorority, and honor society chapters to a secondary list article, rather than maintaining the list in the main organizational article. List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters is a good example of a list that is simply too long to functionally work in the main article about the fraternity. Both WP:FRAT and WP:UNI have a preference for this type of list over including content in the main university article or the main Greek letter organization article. In short, this article not only meets the requirements for notability and a list article, but is also the preference of the main WikiProjects that oversee this content. Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I also concur that this is a ridiculous nomination. The AfD nomination came out of nowhere, on specious claims of a lack of discussion and references. The references are simple to fix, and one need not delete!, delete!, delete! in such cases to resolve the problem. Our Project group fixes, polices and improves the articles in our area of interest and expertise (some 3,500) methodically and via consensus. As a significant, nationally known fraternity, with chapters on many campuses that are recognized by their student life administration, many of which have existed for more than 50 years with multiple available references, this group and its individual chapters are notable. This designation is consistent with other articles, prior editing practice, consensus, and Wikipedia editing policies. The nominator is not a Project participant, but merely is taking an arbitrary shot at the article without understanding.

Other Project editors are currently working on reference improvements, and have clarified why this article was correctly spun off as a subordinate article to the main Alpha Sigma Phi article. A very clear rationale. Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. It is going to be kept per WP:SNOW anyway, no need to keep it open and clutter AfD. It was a mistake to nominate it and I am going to be more careful with my AfD nominations in the future. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 10 June 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. (non-admin closure) I changed my mind about AfDing (but not about their notability). (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Malmgren

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my rationale in the last AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 This one? I am kidding, it seems like you !voted twice in the previous AfD Polygnotus (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't realize there already had been an AfD, so shortly ago. While I disagree with the conclusion of that AfD (2 articles and some quotes because journalists know your phone number does not notability make) it may be best to close the AfD (especially because the previous one got, let's call it, off track). On the other hand, if Malmgren is notable then there is no evidence of that in the article (the FT thing and the American banker thing cited by Eddie as keep reasons are not currently in the article). I should file a feature request for Twinkle to warn me when I try to nominate an article that recently was AfDed. The sources that are in the article are incredibly weak. Polygnotus (talk) 19:54, 8 June 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 and redirect‎ to 2013 British Columbia general election#Political parties. Sandstein 06:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unparty: The Consensus-Building Party

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

Delete per WP:ORG: minor political party that ran in one election (in 2013) and garnered less than 0.01% of the vote. No significant coverage in reliable sources; coverage in general is limited to routine electoral coverage by local news outlets where their two candidates ran in 2013. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 British Columbia general election as an ATD. Fails WP:ORG. मल्ल (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NPOL. It ran in a single election and won nothing. There is not much media coverage of this party to meet notability threshold. Patre23 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, no indication of notability and no in depth coverage. --hroest 18:41, 11 June 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) Toadspike [Talk] 23:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Concept

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

Delete or merge / redirect to Western alienation, per WP:ORG. Minor, fringe political party that ran in a few elections and by-elections, garnering less than 1% each time. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources available online, or in BC provincial archives that I could find. Perhaps it warrants a mention at Western alienation if reliable source(s) are found, but the topic has not had sources to demonstrate standalone notability in over two decades. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Western Canada Concept no longer has a presence of any significance in Canadian politics (thankfully), but it attracted a significant amount of media coverage in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it's been given non-trivial mention in several published works on Canadian politics. (A search for the phrase "Western Canada Concept" on the Internet Archive's "Search Text Contents" function yields 632 text sources. Even accounting for some duplication, that's a credible amount.)
Many organizations that were notable in the pre-internet age don't have much of an online presence now; this is one of them. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should mention that the Western Canada Concept actually won a seat in the Alberta provincial legislature in a 1982 by-election. (For context, see Olds-Didsbury and Gordon Kesler.) It's not correct to say they "garnered less than 1% each time." CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with CJCurrie, there is significant coverage. Actually a decent amount of coverage online too, from what I can see. I've added a few sources, one of which would count for notability. Alongside the sources on archive.com identified above, there are also 2069 hits for "Western Canada Concept" on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and 13 on JSTOR.//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party did elect an Alberta MLA in a byelection, so it was definitely mainstream for a year or so before becoming a fringe movement again. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They did elect a candidate and had significant coverage with over 2000 newspaper articles mentioning them, so this seems clearly notable. --hroest 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third-place finish in the 1982 Alberta election. In addition, "Western Canada Concept" is vague enough that a reader might want more insight. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:GNG. As previously stated, placed third in the 1982 Alberta election and was not fringe at that time. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the WCC elected a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 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 23:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryujiro Yamanaka

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

Previously prod deleted and re-created. 24 professional appearances in Singapore before going into coaching in 2021. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, needs more WP:SIGCOV. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If there are more sources provided, please let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:46, 12 June 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 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E Reece

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Lacks enough SIGCOV sources in independent sources. I only found these reviews [2] and [3]. Searched ProQuest and Google news. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Kansas. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to prove the claims in the article. Nowhere to redirect. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has been tagged since 2011 with no improvement. Most of the content is unsourced and the handful of sources cited are either interviews or not reliable. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 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. Sandstein 05:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi

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

I accepted this at WP:AFC in good faith, but having seen comments on the talk page it seems that the article is contentious, and possibly misleading so bringing it here for a community discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify or redirect to persecution of Yazidis. It is likely possible to write some sort of article on this topic, but this one would to be scrapped and rewritten to satisfy WP:VER. I don't object to deletion. On second thought just delete the article; content has enough issues that preserving is more harmful than helpful and I've begun to doubt the notability since all the sources I've found are either passing mentions or derivative of the Six-Hohenbalken paper. It's a shame this topic is not better documented or researched, but we can't change that. (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't remember well but This article was first named as "Yazidi genocide" and as I do remember it was drafted because of multiple problems, I can see that they changed everything in the draft and then moved to article (Or maybe requested for moving it to articles), and I am right about this, you can check the history editing of the article for my claims about it's old title and topic. Since the creator has been involved in Creating hoax content, I support the deletion of the article, and maybe another good faith editor can re-create it with a better version. R3YBOl (🌲) 18:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, History, Military, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's creator is known for creating hoaxes here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft this article speaks on a real event but could have some more improvements which is why it should be made into a draft Eternalhk (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace. The article is clearly not ready, which I thought it was, which was why I submitted the draft for review. I am still trying to make sure the article can work and be on Wikipedia. If you have any problems with the article, please contact me. I will try to fix every part of the article, as I don't believe this article is a hoax either. Thank You.Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 11:36, 9 June 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. Sandstein 06:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fnaire

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

Questionable amount of notability and sigcov to deserve its own article. YouTube and Genius "sources" do not count. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Morocco. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (still new here, didn't know that YouTube is not a reliable source!)

I updated the sources and removed YouTube and Genius. Please have a look and let me know if there are better ways to improve the article. Rap no Davinci (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to make it easier to my fellow editors, here are some of the main reasons why they pass for WP:ARTIST (my bad as the creator of the article not to include them from the beginning):

• Awarded the prestigious royal decoration Order of Ouissam Alaouite by the King of Morocco for their artistic contributions to Moroccan music. [s], [s 2]

• They performed at Mawazine in 2019,[4] top 5 biggest festivals in the world [5] and the biggest in Africa. [named by billboard [6]]

• The first Moroccan hip hop act to perform during the NBA All-Star Game halftime show in 2017. [7] [8]

• A collaborative song with India's T-Series and Nora Fathi. [9]

They are one of the most influential hip hop acts in Morocco's history, my mistake I included YouTube links at first not knowing it's not reliable on Wikipedia.

Let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:37, 8 June 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. Sandstein 07:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAFU (company)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. I find it rather concerning that an article like this was accepted in AfC. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, this nomination borders on the frivolous. CNBC? Check. Arabian Business? Check. The National;Emirates 24/7; Khaleej Times all national newspapers? Check. It's not even WP:BEFORE, it's staring you in the face, right there. The article is scrappy, but deletion as eny fule no, is not cleanup. The company is notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your perspective and it has already been discussed at RS Noticeboard. Kindly refrain from continuing this line of argument in a condescending tone, as it may be perceived as disruptive. Charlie (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in that discussion, in which I note I was an enthusiastic participant, to deprecate UAE media or to treat them as generally unreliable. My line of argument, which I will feel perfectly free to continue to pursue, is that these are all RS, we clearly and unarguably pass WP:GNG and this nomination is, in that case, incorrect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV, reliable secondary sources. ORG has won awards, boosting notability. As Alexander above has previously mentioned, the sources are reliable and secondary. jolielover♥talk 06:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this is failed to meet WP:NCORP. Unable to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The references are just passing mentions and announcements by the company. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs copy editing and some review but it definitely should not be deleted. It has substantial content. However I do feel it is a bit promotional in nature.

— 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. (asked to comment by OP via email) I think there is enough material to make it work, including a couple of full-length articles about what it does. That is, there is definitely enough SIGCOV to let it stay (UAE sources are not automatically bad just because they work in UAE - go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you believe that they are problematic). But in its current iteration, the article is crap. It's apparently an energy startup but it's unclear what its products are, what's so special about the company, what its business model is. The partnerships and deals border on routine coverage, and it's unclear what their significance is. Just listing all the partnerships is not good enough and I guess it's a guised attempt at self-promotion: "look, we have deals with the government of Dubai and companies as far away as Quebec!" That's not what a company article should look like. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki Thank you for your helpful thoughts. It will help others vote better. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Szmenderowiecki that the current sources seem very WP:CORPROUTINE. I may conduct a BEFORE if I have the time to assess any sources not yet present against ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of available sources, especially in light of WP:NCORP, would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with all due respect, this fuel company is plainly not notable: it is one of thousands in the world. Also, with all due respect, the sources are terrible; this is not the editor's fault, but from my personal experience, the media in UAE is so heavily conflicted and censored that they don't even know it. But their chocolate is delicious. Bearian (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am, unfortunately, not actually literate in Arabic, but with the aid of machine translation the search results for the Arabic language name (كَفو) do not appear to be much better. A small sample includes an article about a Nissan partnership in Al Bilad, ditto, ICAR, Al-Bayan, resuming fuel charges, Khaleej Times (Arabic version), which all fall under CORPROUTINE, and some comments from their CEO in Al Khaleej. As best as I could tell, there is nothing more substantial in NONENG sources either. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 15 June 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 G5 deleted‎. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Kumar (hacker)

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

Nonnotable hacker. The references are PR babble. Eg. "Developed by Zero Defend Security, a leading Indian cybersecurity firm," - a leading firm with a single person??? I deleted several statements with false references, i.e., footnoted did not support the statements. It appears it was initially generated by AI --Altenmann >talk 15:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, LLM generated text with sources that don't support the information, and no indication that this is a notable person. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with insufficient evidence of meeting WP:NBIO, the article has a promotional tone and was created suspiciously quickly, so I'm concerned that the author may have a conflict of interest. Same editor also rapidly created an article for this person's company, Draft:Vastav Ai (moved to draftspace after creation). Dreamyshade (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this is part of a long-running pattern: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:34, 8 June 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 draftified‎ at Draft:Robert Lundahl. Sandstein 07:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thorp Lundahl

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

Purely WP:PROMO and resume-like. Amigao (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been augmented and expanded to include personal and family information speciifically related to Robert Lundahl's public and well vetted fimmaking. There are 54 citations, many from news outlets including the LA Times, KCET, Cascade PBS, Salem-News.com, East County Magazine (7 million readers). His films have aired nationally in over 80 cities on PBS stations, distributed by Zeiden Media. He has received an Northern California Emmy® Award and have been vetted also by and may be referred via IMDb (Internet Movie Database), and Bullfrog Films. His radio documentaries may be heard weekly on KPFK Los Angeles, tackling Southern California Environmental Justice issues and water controversies. He has worked with Native American leadership including Mojave Hereditary Chief Reverend Ron Van Fleet, Chemehuevi Hereditary Chief, Matthew Leivas, Sr., UFW United Farm Worker and La Cuna de Aztlan Chicano leader Alfredo Acosta Figueroa (Yaqui/Chemehuevi) relative of Joaquin Murrietta, Jose Maria Figueroa, (Figueroa Boulevard), Governor of Alta California, who freed Native, Indigenous people from the Mission system that enslaved them, Viejas Kumeyaay Chairman Anthony Pico, relative of California's first Governor Pio Pico (Pico Boulevard) and Native American activist and linguist Adekine Smith (Klallam). Lundahl's research and the importance of his films is exceptional and necessary to our collective understanding of a relavant history today as immigration "crackdowns" and fedral assaults roil our cities.

Please remove the nomination to delete. Thank you! CottonsPoint (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Smith (see Wikipedia) Misspelled above CottonsPoint (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. CottonsPoint needs to read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and then take the article through WP:Articles for creation. The article is simply not up to Wikipedia's standards. I honestly cannot determine whether the topic is notable as this is, today. Lamona (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's much misunderstaning about the Native Indigenous experience. There is a tendency to expect to "Westernize" it. There is a lack of familiarity with key individuals, it's literally and metaphorically another world from the American consciousness. Ludahl, I think he would say by invitation through friendship was placed in a position of being Executive Directof of a Native 502 (c) 3 in the state of Washington, under the Direction of President Linda Wiechman (Elwha Klallam) which led him to take action on behalf of the Klallam Community to address an act of desecration of tribal canoes laid up on the beach out front of the Red Lion Inn in Port Angeles. By agreemment with tribal mambers, aka friends, Song on the Water, the film was made as a collaboration. That film the second, following Unconquering the Last Frontier, was made possible because Lundahl had worked closely with Klallam elders Beatrrice Charles and Adeline Smith. powerful women who had testified in the Boaldt Decision (Think Fish Wars, Marlon Brando, Sasheen Littlefeather,) ect in addressing American genocide documented in his films.

He is the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Coast Salish Tulalip Tribes Film Festival, for that reason. Editing will continue to add the above. Respectfully, thank you for your comment, "I honestly cannot determine whether the topic is notable as this is, today." We believe you. It may be a matter of experience and exposure with this difficult subject. However that does not mean the subject of the article is not "notable," whatever that means in a Western context. It also does not mean it should be "Deleted" which reads like a similaar act of violence against Native people. Best to try to enlarge your mind across barriiers of culture which have resulted in so much pain and destruction of people and the environment important to us all. Gratefully for your better understanding.

Hoyt,

Cottons Point CottonsPoint (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipediaafdwatch/comments/1l6etko/wikipediaarticles_for_deletionrobert_thorp_lundahl/ CottonsPoint (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made CottonsPoint (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments here have nothing to do with the problems with the article. Wikipedia articles all follow a particular style and follow a series of policies that are designed to guarantee a consistent level of quality in the article itself. This article follows none of those policies. It is quite possible that once it does there will be no question about notability, but as it is today it does not fit into the Wikipedia style. If you haven't familiarized yourself with the pages I suggested, then you are unlikely to create a successful article. It does appear that this is the only article you have worked on. New editors are encouraged to take their first articles through AfC as a way to get help with learning the Wikipedia style. It's that simple. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity. I lean towards this meeting WP:GNG but it is absolutely not (yet) ready for mainspace. — tony ^talk 01:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested, with caveats. We are a private charity, with our own mission, which may or may not align with others' missions. We are not a webhost for other non-profits. We have never published original thought. Our practice is that producers are rarely considered notable because they are so common. A re-write should focus on what makes the subject truly notable and different from the thousands of other filmmakers, but not throwing everything on to a page. Also, we have a manual of style, and the failure to abide by it is actually a reason to delete. We must do this to ensure our continued existence, as the wealthiest person in the world is literally trying to destroy us. Bearian (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Form follows function not the inverse. The function is telling the story faithfully and correctly with respect to all those cited.

This attacking of style points as a smokescreen for perceived political motivations seems like capitulation to the right wing anti-woke crowd. That's nuts.

There are 106 reliable citations. They are ALL mainstream and noteble, and therefore supportable. And they are interesting from a readability and story perspective, so that this does not read like a resume, the original complaint.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1hnhgtr/why_does_elon_musk_want_to_kill_wikipedia/

This Musk "hard-on" for Wikipedia is addressed above.

The prejudice against "producers" is a prejudice against vetted and validateable media communcation and the truth. How is that different than your political adversaries? Are you similarly prejudiced against bankers? Navy deck commanders, professors, the University of Oregon, Sarah Lawrence College, or the Klallam Tribe? Cesar Chavez? the Laws of the United States, Distributed solar energy? Canoes? History? Dam Removal?

Perhaps to satisfy this rediculous argument we should just go ahead and put the dams back in the Elwha River and forget that Bea Charles, Adeline Smith, Linda Wiechman and Robert Lundahl ever existed. Happy now? We should tear up the Blythe Intaglios, insist that the First Amendment of the Constituion be torn up, That farm worker children can be abused in schools, and that American Indians can no longer fish in usual and accustomed grounds. Let's go back to the McCarthy era. Wikipedia can safely cheer from under their dests.

Let's just delete America, your immigrant families and your history too. There are so many of you. CottonsPoint (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best to view expanded to full screen. CottonsPoint (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? NO CottonsPoint (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: In its current form, this article does not seem ready for mainspace as it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, especially § In Summary. Incubation through the Articles for Creation process seems appropriate here and would allow for a better opportunity to assess whether this subject meets WP:GNG. Despite the number of citations, there is a considerable lack of reliable sources. A re-write would need to focus on encyclopedic content that is written from a neutral point of view and with no original research. CottonsPoint may find it useful to read Help:Your first article and consider the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Referentis (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is straight up promo. If there is any notability hidden here let someone independent start from scratch. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Moved to Draft:Robert Lundahl. Deb (talk) 07:23, 16 June 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxposure Media Group

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Delhi, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2014-05 Jorge Arauz (closed as redirect to Maxposure Media Group)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all sources appear to be press releases or the company website (primary). I don't see any independent coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 09:36, 16 June 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 GE Ventures. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Microsystems

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG and most WP:PROMO. - Amigao (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you for reviewing the entry. I'm not experienced in creating new articles and obviously I've messed up on this. Can you help with some guidelines of what would be needed to make this article acceptable? Is it about the quality of the references (I'll look at the guidelines) or are there other issues. Would love to learn a little so I don't waste your time with articles that are not of sufficient quality again in the future. MikeMaynardUK (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GE Ventures: Sources are WP:ORGTRIV (press releases, funding announcements and other routine coverage) and found much the same after searching ProQuest. While I do have a subscription to WSJ, the cited article requires Pro so can't access it; however it was written in 2016 when it split from GE so a new company and the subtitle is "A New Startup Wants to Replace Electronic Switches That are Common in Industrial Technology Equipment" which suggests it is based on what they say about themselves. The company is mentioned at the target article and it is possible they could meet notability at some point in the future so redirecting will maintain the history. S0091 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 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 Kristoffer Gildenlöw#Career. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dial (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created by a band member and somehow survived a previous afd. Despite this there doesnt appear to be any reliable sources about the band. GamerPro64 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. GamerPro64 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY in its current state.Entranced98 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:BAND Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 02:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BAND and citation search is not turning up reputable sources. Driftingdrifting (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kristoffer Gildenlöw#Career as a viable ATD, also per CHEAP and PRESERVE. The band with lineup is explicitly mentioned at the the target. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 12 June 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 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.Nandibewoor

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

I can't find any reliable secondary source that mentions this professor. Sources that backed up his achievements are mostly links to Wikipedia pages, and only one source shows that he is a professor in Karnatak University. Also, the article is poorly edited. I think it failed WP:GNG 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. His citation record could potentially make a case for WP:NPROF#C1, although I think it's borderline at best. But the article as it stands is an AI-generated mess that's almost entirely uncited or cited only to Wikipedia. If someone wants to clean this up it's not impossible that he might meet NPROF, but I'm having trouble finding sources that would allow us to write an adequate BLP in any case. The article as it stands is pretty much entirely unsalvageable. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and TNT. All sources except the irins link (which is generic and not about the subject) are either WP:CIRCULAR references to Wikipedia itself, or tagged as via chatgpt. Nothing here can be verified and even if it could we would need TNT to eradicate any chatgpt-generated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. And the fact that this article will require fundamental rewrite to confirm to standards, irrespective to notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced and a non-notable article.Almandavi (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT was never more relevant than for this article. Someone wanting to make a case for notability would need to start over anyhow. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice since it seems the subject itself could pass WP:NPROF with a rather high h index and several awards such as the lifetime achievement award from the https://indianchemicalsociety.com . --hroest 14:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patre23 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination and other comments. Zuck28 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly written with AI. The author didn't even bother to remove the emojis. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:41, 12 June 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.

Indresh S. Chauhan

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 List of war correspondents in World War I. Clear consensus to get rid of this page, but its history has to be preserved for attribution. I've picked the redirect target with slightly higher pageviews, with the thinking that if any readers end up here, they are slightly more likely to want this list. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

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

What possible reason is there to join two distinct groups in a "list" that is not a list, when the two groups have their own separate lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling: I see now in the talk page that the decision was made in 2022 to split the list in two. However, is still retaining an article (of sorts) the only way to keep the edit history? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution history must be preserved, one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be deleted, since the historical attribution before the split must be preserved. But the article is not needed now that both lists are split. So I guess options are either pick a redirect target somehow, or turn this into a brief disambigation page. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of this page but in a way that enables us to preserve the attribution history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a way to hide the page from run-of-the-mill viewers? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify. The title, the two list items, that's that, no hiding. BTW I wouldn't call readers "run-of-the-mill viewers", we are making the encyclopedia for them. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either list for attribution purposes. Which one doesn't matter since nobody is going to search for this exact phrase. Sandstein 06:00, 16 June 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhar Khanzada

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator's reason. Ixudi (talk) 13:49, 1 June 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 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has concurred with the delete rationale, this may not stop the nomination. I have no opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 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 03:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Vallabhbhai Global University

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

Lacks notability. Sources are primary, press releases or passing mentions. No In depth coverage in independent media. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:Organizations, India, and Gujarat. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dismiss. This a page for academics not for universities. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I have updated. Plz have a look. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The university does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Wordings are promotional WP:PROMO. No independent reliable sources WP:RS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and Charlie and given this is a private university WP:NCORP is the more relevant notability guideline but it doesn't even meet GNG. Not surprising given it was just recently established. S0091 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 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 23:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surana College

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

Routine article about college not shown to be notable from existing sourcing. No additional sources found via WP:BEFORE Ticoeditor (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree with Nominators findings, tried on diff search engines, have yet to find SIGCOV about the school.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:24, 6 June 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 14:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a private organization and not a public University, I dont see any SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. --hroest 15:30, 11 June 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 Room#Remake. Sandstein 07:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Room Returns!

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

There is no upcoming film about that because it was de facto cancelled over 2 years ago. IdanST (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @IdanST: do you have sources stating it was cancelled? The content of the article seems to indicate it is in post-production, though lengthy... -2pou (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Room#Remake. Sources in the article are announcements and interviews. No proper critical analysis of the movie or its production. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge _SUBWAYguy 19:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mika1h. There's really no coverage of this other than an announcement that it would be made. It looks like it's been in limbo since 2023, as everything just says that it's in post-production. If/when this does release and get reviews, it can always be restored. But until then I think we could just copy the production and release section into the main article. I'll go ahead and do that, and make any necessary tweaks for flow. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did find where a theater in Australia is supposed to screen a preview in August - however there's no guarantee of this coming to fruition or that it would gain the necessary coverage to pass NFILM/NFF. My recommendation stands for this to be redirected to the main article until we get some reception for this. I will add a note about the screening to this article, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:23, 11 June 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. Sandstein 06:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial order of chivalry

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

I couldn't find sources discussing colonial orders of chivalry as a group like this article aims to do, seems to fail GNG/NLIST. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Order of chivalry. Wholly unsourced and without adding almost anything on top of Order of chivalry, I think this is just a matter of WP:NOPAGE regardless of notability. MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with a redirect would be that I think the concept of a distinct category of "colonial orders of chivalry" existing is not reflected in reliable sources at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After looking for further sources, I'm leaning towards delete too. MarioGom (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some kind of OR or SYNTH. By the way, this has been linked all over the place, so will take some cleanup. If this gets deleted, we'll have to remove it from the navbox at the bottom of this page and reword articles like Royal Order of Cambodia to remove the word "colonial". Toadspike [Talk] 23:35, 15 June 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 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanda Institute

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

The Kompas piece is nice to go towards notability, but the other 3 are all primary sources, and two of those are mere mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, although searching was difficult due to the a similarly named organization for contemplative studies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Buddhism, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 8 June 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 00:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SiGMA Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination: first nomination achieved a no consensus result exclusively because of the keep votes by a group of sockpuppet dedicated to AFD fraud. I'm asking for a re-evaluation of the deletion discussion, now free of brigading by the now blocked group. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 1 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 13:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying all (unblocked) participants in the first discussion: @Daniel Quinlan, Yue, IgelRM, Go D. Usopp, Helpful Raccoon, 多少战场龙, Old-AgedKid, HighKing, and Unicorbia:. MarioGom (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of sources to review, but the cirteria we are working towards would be WP:NCORP, and on that scope, we fall short. Nothing appears to meet WP:ORGDEPTH for the organisation, and although events are their business, and thus there is event coverage, this is not notability for the organiser, for which we would need sources to be about the organiser and not the event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"for which we would need sources to be about the organiser and not the event" we wouldn't, it doesn't need to be the primary topic of the coverage to count as sigcov. That being said I'm still not seeing notability in those sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with Sirfurboy; the sources that popped up after my !vote mainly cover the conference rather than the company. I am not convinced that the offline coverage alluded to here is sufficiently non-routine and independent. I assume the offline coverage is similar to this online source which is just a routine announcement. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not entirely convinced that the topic isn't notable (there does seem to be some OK coverage of scandals they've been involved in)... But even if it is this is more or less a WP:TNT situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe the sources establish notability. And even if they do, WP:TNT is needed due to the other extensive issues with the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:44, 8 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Griffiths

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

Completely unsourced, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Griffith meets WP:GNG as there are eight reliable sources. Please note, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The nominator clearly omiited WP:BEFORE. Flibirigit (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree he meets GNG. These aren’t profiles or proof of WP:NOTABILITY, but standard athletic mentions. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has his own bio page at the Hockey Hall of Fame! The hall, and the British Columbia one as well, have bios of him and that is not notable? Ridiculous.18abruce (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. That's not how notability on Wikipedia works. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not unsourced anymore (as addressed in the nomination) and sources and accomplishments seem ok. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Coverage exists, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The subject is the former team owner of the National Hockey League's Vancouver Canucks, and is an inducted member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 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 08:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source exists and link is still active. There are many articles and publications about them, and their nonprofit is quite active as well. Iseaseeshells (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, none of them say what he has actually done as an "activist", they are simply mirroring each other. I saw several pages that says he founded The Oasis Project but there are no articles that elaborate on it, say who it has helped, or what it has actually done. Many publications do not do their own research to see if the information given to them is credible. They are simply calling it "a Nigeria-based registered non-profit organization" but it is not registered with the Nigerian CAC or Global Giving, so it is not an establishment. So again, these publications are mirroring each other. Example: "I believe the sky is yellow and pink because you told me. You believe the sky is yellow and pink because I told you." Sackkid (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you’re coming from, he is active with his nonprofit, Obodo, which is registered with CAC Iseaseeshells (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would still need to be significant coverage from reliable sources in order to support the claim that Matthew Blaise is notable by Wikipedia standards. Also do you know Matthew Blaise personally? Sackkid (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 12:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and fails GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:39, 11 June 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 12:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources; how significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The coverage that you are referring to all mirror that this is a gay man who happens to be the son of a former presidential aide. But there is no actual notability in that. I would say it would be more appropriate to merge this with Doyin Okupe but it is already there. Sackkid (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Shoerack (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E, where the "event" is him coming out. Extremely weak case for notability. The claims of him being a "model" or "activist" are not substantiated. Can be redirected to his father Doyin Okupe. Astaire (talk) 22:36, 14 June 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 12:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Avesyan

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only references currently are primary to the leagues the subject has played in and I can't find anything better. Let'srun (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Delaware. Let'srun (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Delete per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:41, 11 June 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 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian physicist

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

I feel like a list of Indian physicists might make sense, but not an article defining an "Indian physicist". This feels more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even have articles like Physics in (country); I can't see any justification for a "definition" of a physicist who "is connected to Indian origin" – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ClaudineChionh, With a good faith, may I know why you can't see any justification for a "definition" of a physicist who "is connected to Indian origin"- Sntshkumar750 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Someone who is interested in Indian physicists can browse Category:Indian physicists and maybe add the category to anyone who is missing. Someone who is interested in the history of physics in India can read (and maybe improve) History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent. Why would we have an article on any combination of country + profession, unless a specific combination is particularly notable? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear@ClaudineChionh, may I know why do you feel that Indian physicists are not notable. When Boson is coined on the name of Satyendra Nath Bose, a light scattering known as Raman effect is name named after Indian physicist C V Raman, etc. Sntshkumar750 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: Of course those individual scientists are notable, that's why there are articles about them here. You haven't given any reason for this very broad and vague Indian physicist description to exist as its own article. That is what is being debated here. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ClaudineChionh, when those individual Indian physicists are notable, then why not an encyclopedia should be created to give the full description of the Indian physicists in a single page, so that the readers will read about Indian physicists, its histories and contributions in a single article. Sntshkumar750 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sntshkumar750: I feel that we are talking at cross purposes and I welcome feedback from other editors. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have List of Indian scientists, which includes physicists along with other scientists. Dirac66 (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree fully with the nominator, but I think repurposing this into a list of Indian physicists with a bit of prose at the start on the history of physics in India would be an easy alternative to deletion. We have articles like List of German physicists, List of Russian physicists and List of Jewish American physicists, and I'm sure there are enough sources about Indian physicists as a group or set to satisfy WP:NLIST. So if the article creator wants to add a new section with a bulleted list of the entries in Category:Indian physicists and move this page to the new title following this AfD, I'm fine with a keep. Otherwise delete per nom. MCE89 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of Indian Physicists, maybe OK, but this isn't it. Athel cb (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original page creator has just created List of Indian physicists. This could redirect to that page but it doesn't seem like a likely search term. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title on this is very strange, and I believe that List of Indian scientists is just fine. PickleG13 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps an article like Physics by country would be more essential before we create country specific articles like this one. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary imho. It's much better to create articles to specific Indian physicists instead.

KyloRen2017 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 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 – Article has been speedy deleted under WP:G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users". Procedural close by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasim Shahnawaz Ansari

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

Article exists based on a single event where the subject has been charged with, but not convicted of, a crime. As the subject is otherwise non-notable, deletion is appropriate per WP:BLPCRIME "editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime" and WP:CRIME. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps move to AnonSec or AnonSec security attacks without mentioning names. The article seems to rely too much on police statements. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Along with the policy-based reasons for deletion of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME, the authorship of this article is suspicious. It was created in one fell swoop by an inexperienced editor as part of a rapid sequence of new articles that included low-effort techniques such as AI-generated text, a copy of somebody else's draft article, and a repost of material that was previously deleted. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:45, 8 June 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 G5'd‎. Created by a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of OSINT tools and frameworks

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

I'm not sure this meets WP:NLIST; such a list could be incorporated within Open-source intelligence instead. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its List of osint tools and framework, widely used in cybersecurity ___domain Markeste02 (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Whatever properly referenced is in Open-source intelligence --Altenmann >talk 14:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this does not meet WP:NLIST. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:33, 8 June 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 08:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management and the Circular Economy: A Comparative Perspective with Emphasis on Africa and the EU

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

Reads like an LLM-generated attempt at a student assignment. I haven’t checked the journal refs yet but the news refs are 404/hallucinated. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and Europe. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AI-generated essay slop. The journal articles are real, but the article creator has also created multiple pages about the lead author of those studies: Draft:Izuchukwu Obani Research on Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria and Draft:Izuchukwu Precious Jideofor Osemudiamen Obani. So this is also part of an attempt to promote this particular researcher. MCE89 (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Absolutely no place for nonexistent hallucinated references on WP. Frankly this should be grounds for a speedy deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an AI-generated essay with fake sources. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 09:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in fact this article should have been proposed for deletion first. I would have endorsed it.Plasticwonder (talk) 03:16, 14 June 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 08:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kinoshita

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

Deleted before. With a career only consisting of 22 games in a second tier, he would need several pieces of independent significant coverage to meet GNG and SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just deproded for bureaucracy. Cleary fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 9 June 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 08:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arsan Pengbanrai

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

Not notable as a footballer, only played 333 minutes in Thai league 1. Deprodded with the reasoning "has considerable coverage". This is frankly not very helpful, because the existence of news pieces does not mean that there is significant coverage. In my opinion, the provided coverage is not significant, with articles being shorter than average, not going in depth and relying heavily on quotes. Here is one example:

Asalah Phengbanrai, defender of Phrae United, hopes to win the last match of the first leg at home against Trat FC.

For the 2022/23 Thai League 2 match 17, the last match of the first leg, Phrae United (ranked 4th) will open their home stadium to meet Trat FC (ranked 13th). Before the match, Asalah Phengbanrai, the veteran defender of the army “The Wild Horse” revealed that…

“In the last match of the first half of the season, we had the opportunity to play at home in front of our fans from Phrae who came to cheer us on at the edge of the field. We will make our fans happy and impressed by watching this match.”

“For our goal, of course, we want to win. I expect that if we can get three points in this match, it will have some effect on our team’s ranking on the league table. Even if we don’t move up, at least the gap between the points of the teams that are better than us won’t be too far. We might even get closer. Let’s test it again in the second half of the season.”

For the M-150 Championship or Thai League 2, season 2022/23, match 17, Phrae United will meet Trat FC on Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 6:00 p.m., broadcast live on AIS PLAY and T Sports 7.

Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Where is the considerable coverage? Just two sources on the article, and one is the player's soccerway profile. Svartner (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ballthai.com, linked in the edit summary.[10] One of them is the example Geschichte was referring to in the nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Although his career suggests that there theoretically should be coverage of this player, there doesn't seem to be any. Anwegmann (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The most in-depth coverage I found is this piece from Himsanam.com, a local football news site for Thailand's northern region, covering his retirement.[11] There are quite a few more results on the site, but like Ballthai.com's, they're mostly updates and match reports. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 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 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hunt

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

No evidence of notability, most of the sources cited don't even mention the subject, and BEFORE finds nothing better (although I should add that searching is a bit tricky, as there are plenty of Lawrence Hunts out there). Very insufficiently referenced, as well, esp. for a BLP, and involves quite a lot of COI editing, making it effectively just vanispamcruftisement. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV in prose form, not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't found significant coverage about the topic in mentioned references. Thus fails to pass significant coverage, general notability guidelines and biography. Fade258 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 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 08:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist) and I came over here to find a WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTCV promotional article for an academic that I do not see passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. None of these sources is truly independent of the subject in the way we would want for a proper biography what with the WP:FRINGEBLP implications. The cringeworthy picture included makes me think there has probably been some WP:PROMO going on and while AfD is not cleanup, this seems to me to indicate that a WP:TNT is warranted and I doubt anything will arise from the ashes. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the past discussion from 2008 about whether this article should be deleted seemed to have suffered at the time from an undue credulity that the ideas for which Tajmar's notability was being argued, were somehow not WP:FRINGE proposals. The benefit of time, I hope, shows that they really, truly are and that the sourcing does not rise to the required WP:FRIND levels for proper inclusion in our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with sourcing required. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Which sourcing? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the extremely low bar of WP:NPROF. Most of their papers are barely cited, and when they are it's often in predatory journals or bottom tier ones. Not all the time, but often enough that citations are too low to matter. Awards are also minor. This is not a notable researcher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After evaluating the sources in the article and searching for other possibilities, I agree with jps and Headbomb. Nothing indicates that an article is warranted here. The awards are inconsequential fluff, and the citation record would be unremarkable even if all the citations came from worthwhile journals, which they don't. (Two of the sources currently in the article are conference proceedings. In physics, that's little better than writing a blog post about your work.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tajmar’s TU Dresden profile [12] lists his key publications from 2003 to 2011. These have a median of about 25 citations on Google Scholar, which is modest for an academic. A JSTOR search only turns up a single passing mention, which doesn’t suggest much academic attention. His CV also shows no listed publications from 2012 to 2020, despite being updated in 2020. This falls short of notability under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. On top of that, the article also gives weight to a 2006 gravitomagnetic experiment that has never been independently replicated, raising WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE concerns. This is more than a cleanup issue. The subject does not meet the standard for a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was looking through all of his highly cited papers (100+ citations) which are usually relevant to establish NPROF#1 notability and of the 5 papers, none of them were actual research papers with him as first author, the others were either large collaborations with dozens of authors or review papers or a book. There is one paper that contains some experimental data on a particular type of propulsion method but one moderately cited paper is not enough for NPROF. Based on this I dont think we can reasonably argue that he passes WP:NPROF#1 and I could not find evidence for him passing any other criteria of NPROF. --hroest 15:07, 11 June 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 Glitch Productions. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Paradise

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

Article fails to meet notability requirements; it relies solely on two citations from YouTube and IMDb, and the Reception section only covers audience reception from IMDb. No results were found during my attempt to search for reliable sources. SleepyRedHair (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch Productions. I've failed to find independent significant coverage. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone... I saw that there are some errors on this page, which is about to be deleted. Please fix it, okay? To do this, you need to follow these steps:

Change the categories "Category:2021 Australian television series debuts", "Category:2021 Australian television series endings" and "Category:Television series set on fictional islands" to "Category:2021 web series debuts", "Category:2021 web series endings" and "Category:Works set on fictional islands" to make more sense, since this series is not a television series, but an internet series;
Also add the categories "Category:Australian animated web series" and "Category:Australian adult animated web series" to make it even more meaningful and relatable;
Also add the episode synopses so that everyone knows, possibly;
Add this important link to the reviews section, because for example, there are people who really liked this series: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14330574/reviews/

So, what do you think of these suggestions to keep this page alive on this site? So, thank you very much, I hope you understand my requests in this message, and have a good luck and a good start to your Saturday night! Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate you wanting to help improve the article, but as I've already stated, the article fails a lot of Wikipedia's crucial guidelines. For instance, IMDb is not a reliable source. SleepyRedHair (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Insufficient third-party sources to establish standalone notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:57, 14 June 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 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shede Dev

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

No references and minor temple failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to a non-notable temple with no reliable sources to verify any information or establish notability. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not able to find any sources - maybe it has local significance or possibly details in non-english sources. Asteramellus (talk) 23:59, 10 June 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 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of firewalls

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

Only one reference of dubious reliability. The topic may arguably meet WP:NLIST, yes, but what we have here is 99% WP:OR (likely obsolete, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a legit thing to have, would be surprised if no good sources compare. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be almost entirely original research, therefore its accuracy is very unclear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is original research. desmay (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:58, 12 June 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 08:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

Tagged for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:36, 1 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!} 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search for sources yields only notable sources that discuss the concept of Reform Judaism and nothing to do with the actual organization itself. Noting the long-standing notability concerns, there's not much to salvage here. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 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 Count the Stars. There is consensus to redirect this to Count the Stars after merging content there or to The Devil Wears Prada (band) as needed. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Williams has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at the moment: I think I agree with the OP on this one. I feel as though this one may fall under WP:BIO1E? My reasoning being upon inspecting the references, many cover the 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash in which he was tragically involved (19 of the 22 references). This is only upon initial inspection however and I would be interested to see others' points of view on this. For now I concur with OP and think a redirect with coverage on a relevant page would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge/redirect to the page of the band Count the Stars would be most appropriate. My reasoning for this rather than the OP's suggestion is that there is no definitive evidence Shapiro had any link to TDWP other than the crash. As Shapiro was a founding member of Count the Stars, this to me makes sense as the most appropriate choice for merge/redirection. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any relation between him and the band other than him dying in the same event as Daniel Williams, who was a former member of said band. 2600:1004:B347:4AE1:3C78:5FC1:1294:B927 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point if correct. A brief scroll of Google seems to back this up. It appears Dave Shapiro was a music agent/executive, but not of TDWP. In my post above for this reason, I only stated to redirect to a relevant page and not specifically to the article for TDWP. This may have been an oversight by the OP, however I think the point to redirect elsewhere stands on its own regardless. 11wallisb (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending this to be a reply to guninvalid’s comment because he said that Dave Shapiro should be merged with T.D.W.P. 2600:1004:B33F:699D:C81D:4C36:8E3F:4FB5 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be able to see these messages! 11WB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While we have a rough consensus to Merge/Redirect, we have two different target articles suggested and we have to get that down to ONE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about Shapiro so I am fine with @11wallisb's suggestion of redirecting to Count the Stars. Parts of this bio can be merged into both articles anyway, but since there can only be one redirect, I'm okay with that being Count the Stars. guninvalid (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The only reason my redirect article differed is because Shapiro has no searchable link to TDWP (other than the crash). 11WB (talk) 08:31, 8 June 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 08:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Bakal

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

The highest level the subject appears to have played is a single season in the third tier of American soccer before retiring from the sport. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per norm -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:54, 12 June 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 08:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bagrou

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

The highest level the subject appears to have played is the third tier of the US and Austria before retiring from the sport. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Austria, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Raskuly (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:28, 9 June 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 08:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Baghvardani

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

Only appears to be a record of the subject playing a single indoor game and he coached a single year of college soccer. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Iran, Illinois, and Texas. Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:28, 9 June 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 08:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tambon in Thailand - N (Part 2)

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

If I understand correctly, these "Part 2" and "Part 3" articles are redundant with the content of List of tambon in Thailand (N–O). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't it against Wikipedia to have "Part 2 articles"? Either way, it's unencyclopedic to have them. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the person who created these forks never performed a proper split, resulting in orphaned duplicates. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I notice the creator's user talk page has a section about unnecessary undiscussed article splits, and the user has not edited in about 8 years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 8 June 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 deleted‎ Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Yeon-soo

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

Hoax article. Should be speedy delete but an IP user showed up to contest the speedy notice; likely sock user.

None of the refs support any of the claims made. Same IP user tried to strip the article of much of the obviously false information. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lh1011/Archive; welcome back Lh1011. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Brunei, and South Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they just moved it to draftspace and deleted the deletion discussion notice. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ended up being speedy deleted by admin grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:53, 8 June 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 08:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Grapesurgeon you're right. She hired User:Eavesayes but after a decline another bad faith editor posted the same draft on the mainspace. Gheus (talk) 14:01, 12 June 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 Buffalo Six. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more feedback here, especially given that it is a bundled nomination. Merge? Redirect? Or deletion? Or....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I've taken a look at three of the six; all coverage in the articles and on the web is related to this event, none seem otherwise high-profile, and the role of each individual in this event was, I would argue, not substantial. Therefore, WP:BLP1E applies. I'm going with "merge" here because we always redirect after merging, so "merge/redirect" is redundant. How much we decide to merge, if anything, is up to the editor who performs the merge. I agree here that there's not much beyond trivial details from local news in most of these articles, but perhaps the merging editor wants to salvage some stuff. Toadspike [Talk] 09:48, 16 June 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. This isn't going to go any other way. charlotte ^👸♥ 17:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 Los Angeles protests

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Coverage here remains based on preliminary reports, secondary sourcing is sparse, and it’s too soon to assess the protests’ long-term significance. This material would be better merged into broader U.S. protest chronologies—e.g. List of protests in the United States, List of protests in the 21st century, or List of protests and demonstrations in the United States by size—or, if issue-specific, into 2025 United States protests against mass deportation. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait this doesn’t look like this event will end soon. 2601:586:4600:97D0:CD06:3F24:1DE5:2748 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s true the June 2025 LA protests are ongoing, Wikipedia policy makes clear that WP:RECENTISM warns against standalone articles for unfolding events until there is sufficient secondary coverage and historical perspective—articles “slanted towards recent events” should be merged or scoped into broader topics until long-term significance is established. Dahawk04 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM is not "Wikipedia policy". Regardless, you should close this AfD, as this article is a duplicate of June 2025 Los Angeles County protests. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would've been sympathetic to this argument before, but the protests have spread all through LA county and the National Guard is getting sent in. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions that protests have spread county-wide are unsupported by major outlets—reports indicate demonstrations confined to specific areas only.
The only indication of National Guard involvement comes from a secondary remark; no formal deployment order or government press release has been issued.
WP:VERIFY requires that “material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged” be accompanied by inline citations; these broad assertions currently lack direct, verifiable sourcing.
WP:RS mandates reliance on authoritative, published sources for all content—until such documentation emerges, these claims remain speculative and unsuitable for a standalone article.

Given the lack of verifiable evidence for county-wide spread or an official Guard mobilization, these points cannot justify retaining this article; any confirmed developments can later be added to a merged summary when reliable sources become available. Dahawk04 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The protest is county-wide, per the The Wall Street Journal, as protesters have gathered in Paramount and Los Angeles. They have also gathered in New York City. A memorandum has been signed taking over the National Guard. That was all cited in the article by reliable sources. I have serious doubts about your understanding of Wikipedia's policies based on these assertions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct personal attack and goes angainst our guidance for civil discourse—see WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. If you believe I have misapplied policy, please quote the specific guideline and explain its relevance. Otherwise, I request administrator intervention to enforce civility and keep this discussion focused on policy merits. Dahawk04 (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All that was stated is that, based on this comment and others, you have misunderstood policy. It was not an attack, let alone a personal attack. The word "you" may have run afoul of WP:AVOIDYOU; what would have been better is, "I believe policy has been misunderstood." Not sure why that warrants administrator intervention. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single thing that is remotely close to "an attack" in elijapepe's comment, what are you talking about? Dmhll (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into June 2025 Los Angeles County protests; article is more fleshed out and already made. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes the most sense TW929 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added an external link to the PBS coverage. I don't think this issue is being resolved anytime soon. Let's keep this and see how it goes over the near future days and weeks. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the preference is to “wait and see,” we could merge the current material—including the PBS link—into the broader coverage at 2025 United States protests against mass deportation in the interim. That article already provides context for these demonstrations and can be updated as more reliable sources appear. Once there’s sufficient secondary analysis and lasting significance, we can revisit and, if warranted, spin off a dedicated page. Dahawk04 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the above 2025 United States protests against mass deportation will end up being the main article. Possibly, we are seeing more and more aspects of this. Until this gets closer to that, we'll see how all these others go. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into the other article on the LA events: 2025 Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, which is written in less of a first-person description of the play-by-play way. Also, the proposed merge article seems not to have the POV of the writing in this article. N2e (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content of 2025 Los Angeles anti-ICE riots has now already been merged into this article. There is, however, another article, June 2025 Los Angeles County protests, that necessitates merging – Jamie Eilat (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the substantial Los Angeles street riots of 6 June, and the calling in of the National Guard by the Feds on 7 June, certainly make the events notable. There are many mainstream media sources covering the street action (stones etc.) and the police response (tear gas, etc.) This is not merely yet another "protest" of the June 2025 Los Angeles County protests, with protests happening around the LA county. This event/set-of-events is the marked street rioting and arrests, and the arrests didn't happen for mere "protest"ing, but for many specific actions around the failure to disperse, concrete block throwing, etc. N2e (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ful Ox (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is tremendous secondary sourcing, so these protests are definitely notable - the question is where the material belongs. These protests seem to be increasingly different than previous protests, especially with the National Guard entering. I don't see the harm in keeping it separate for now as events unfold, and if necessary, we can re-evaluate whether to merge in a week or two. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is the article to keep, merge the others. Brad (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly one related set of protests as opposed to multiple unrelated disparate ones in LA. Wickster12345 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Law, Politics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States protests against mass deportation. Breaking news coverage is a primary source that does not contribute toward notability, and it does not make sense to have an standalone article every time anything newsworthy happens in the world. Cover this properly in the correct place instead of making a crufty description of every time anyone says or does anything related to the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should absolutely be kept. This event has been covered extensively by multiple reliable news outlets, including Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. At the very least, we should wait and hold off on a deletion. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 05:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that protesters' and trump's actions stand the general protests out and the news alr govern global attention Foxy Husky (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only once we have WP:RS and avoid WP:RECENTISM. We have to be very careful to avoid fake news sites. This is notable given the city itself - it's not just any American city. There are valid reasons to keep it. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- important and developing.Wi1-ch (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy kept I never seen LA rioting as such since 1992. Since it was extensively coverage domestically and internationally, it should be kept. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this is more than just protesting - this is rioting, and the National Guard is being deployed. This is looking like the most serious riots since Rodney King in 1992, and it has its own article. 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:6800:4A44:A7D:9746 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much coverage, too many streams of information from multiple sources. Ryan shell (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per international and domestic coverge 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6403:71D0:768D:10A6 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait still remains to be seen what the macro effects of this are, if any. Think potentially significant, but not sure yet. Think some of the other keep rationales are pretty weak. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel like there are enough sources talking about the clashes in LA specifically especially now that the National Guard is being called in, it's better to wait and see how it will unfold. Durranistan (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the sources I found about the National Guard being deployed^[1]^[2]^[3] Durranistan (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cited above reasons--Noel baran (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Personisinsterest. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This event is notable. Bakhos Let's talk! 14:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - If for no other reason than the significance of the White House calling up the CA National Guard over the protests of the CA Governor. KConWiki (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This event is still ongoing and it seems like it will keep escalating for a while, i think that it will quickly get convoluted enough to require multiple articles, so It would be counterproductive to delete it Not a kitsune (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID EvansHallBear (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable event. Skitash (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Wait per WP:RAPID. While this can be re-evaluated in the future, with the National Guard called in, this is somewhat guaranteed to have WP:LASTING significance and meet the rest of WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT criteria. MarioGom (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given widespread involvement and coverage. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unclear if nominator has even read the article or sources. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's an important ongoing event and I believe thousands of troops were deployed Yesyesmrcool (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already making the news out here on the East Coast, too...it's emphatically more than local at this point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's far too major to remove. Elizatrin43 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheEndItDoesntEvenMatter (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For example, I for one found this article useful. I had heard a bit on the news, and was frustrated trying to find an overview of what had happened via searching the Internet. Then I thought of looking for a Wikipedia article on the topic (this one) and was much more satisfied. Wikipedia can be very useful. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep - This incident has been extensively covered in-depth by many many reliable sources, passing WP:GNG with flying colors. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the protests in Los Angeles become partuìicularly interesting expecially after the police deployed tear gas and riot units and Trump decided to send the armed forces in the city, i think that this article is very useful and should be taken, i also got frustated without finding a general overwiev of the event particularly because on line news can't be modified with the evolution of the protest differently from wikipedia. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable. Suggest WP:SNOW to keep. SocDoneLeft (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Taylor, Harry (2025-06-08). "Trump praises 'great job' by national guard in calming LA protests, as mayor says troops are not in the city – US politics live". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-06-08.
^ Chowdhury, Antoinette Radford, Maureen (2025-06-08). "Live updates: Trump deploys National Guard to LA in response to immigration clashes | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Stojanovic, Sandra; Younis, Omar (2025-06-08). "Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents continue". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-06-08.

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. Reliable independent sourcing to establish notability not present nor shown to exist. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [13].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI. Deb (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - I have found several sources in Swedish media that cover Råfilm and things they have done. Even excluding coverage entirely about their films (I'm not sure if they count, it is about their productions) there are two in Sydsvenskan: [14] [15] and one in Proletären: [16].
I agree that the current article needs severe cleanup, and we should start from a clean slate by stubifying it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of their films: [17] [18] [19] AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been proposed for deletion because it is written promotionally, not because it's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG is a notability criteria. Stubifying solves the promotional content and I believe it is notable otherwise. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with stubification, At least with the current title and topic. I feel Detained/Forväret (2015) is the main subject but it does not meet WP:NFILM. You can find more if you search it's Swedish title (Forväret) but I couldn't find any coverage from non-promotional sources. That would be the only path to notability for Räfilm as it has received. I don't believe the limited semi- promotional swedish language sources are sufficient for stubification. I think the Swedish language sources also support that Forväret is the main notable topic , not Råfilm. This might be a good candidate to move to the Swedish language Wikipedia. If it is retained on English Wikipedia, I think reducing it to a stub about Forväret is the best move. There are plenty of indie films on Wikipedia that are notable but do not have notable studios or creators per WP:ORG InvisibleUser909 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to keep this list since the main article is gone. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT given the checkered history of promotional editing. This article is based entirely on primary sources and looks like it was generated by an LLM. If AlexandraAVX, an editor whose work I greatly respect, is willing to use independent sources to write a new article on this subject from scratch and publish it herself, she is welcome to do so, but I see no reason to start this work on the basis of promotional LLM gunk. Toadspike [Talk] 09:51, 16 June 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 Negative refraction. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Total refraction

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

While seemingly reasonable at first glance, this just isn't a topic.

First, none of the sources given talk of total refraction, only total internal reflection. A 2002 source is mentionned, which I've tracked to be doi:10.1364/OL.27.000815, but 'total refraction' is only found in the abstract, and in the body it's 'total reflection', indicating a typo/mistake.

There are minor instance of 'total refraction' being found in literature, but it's simple impedance matching (optics) leading to no reflection at the interface, leading to what most people would call total transmission, but some call total refraction.

While a previous version of the article made more sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_refraction&oldid=54441257), this just isn't a topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Negative refraction. Current content of the total refraction article is completely worthless. ZhangThis review discusses the minor topic "total refraction" in the context of "negative refraction": Zhang, Y., & Mascarenhas, A. (2005). Total and negative refraction of electromagnetic waves. Modern Physics Letters B, 19(01n02), 21-33. The sources that use the term "total refraction" seem to be by these authors, but "negative refraction" is more widely used.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 8 June 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] Taylor, Harry (2025-06-08). "Trump praises 'great job' by national guard in calming LA protests, as mayor says troops are not in the city – US politics live". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-06-08.

[2] Chowdhury, Antoinette Radford, Maureen (2025-06-08). "Live updates: Trump deploys National Guard to LA in response to immigration clashes | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[3] Stojanovic, Sandra; Younis, Omar (2025-06-08). "Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents continue". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-06-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]