Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

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

29 August 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 28	August 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Yantraraja

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

Topic already covered in Astrolabe. This is a duplicate article with not enough notability. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Astronomy, Technology, and India. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brauerei Kaiserdom

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

No sign of notability, a search returns perhaps one notable article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Germany. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcon (convention)

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been tagged for sixteen years as being based on primary sources, and nothing has changed--OK there's one little announcement from a local newspaper, and that doesn't add up to notability. This is not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberux

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

Failed crownfunding campaign on indiegogo, ~~website down~~, latest and only entry in news section is from 26 April, and no new captures in August, no social media activity since 30 Juni, after a flurry of activity in the months prior. Promised prototype has not been relased. That's what I call a dead parrot. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Spain. jolielover♥talk 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Press from January and June 2025 mainly. All promotional and nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa (singer)

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

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage documenting passage of certain specific criteria of achievement -- but as written, the strongest notability claim here is that one of her songs appeared in a movie soundtrack (i.e. the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" clause), with the rest of the content being strictly on the level of "musician whose music exists".
And the article is referenced entirely to bad primary sourcing that isn't support for notability (label PR, YouTube, Amazon, a music video database), with not a single GNG-building source shown at all, and has been flagged for needing improved references since 2012 without ever having a single new reference added in the entire 13 years since.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to American music media from the 1990s can find evidence that she passes GNG on better sourcing than I've been able to locate, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find evidence she attained musical notability and this (not and not using as an RS) all but clarifies she won't meet that or GNG. Star Mississippi 17:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Can't be Wasting My Time" charted and if I read a review in The State (Columbia) right it also went gold. Good for both NMUSIC 2&3. I will update the page with some sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated, Bearcat? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, but merge/redirect both 11-20-79 and Just Wanna Please U to her. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the recent article expansion may help establish clearer consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split billing

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

A classic dictionary definition that is unhelpful and has no standalone notability. There is some discussion of billing codes that is US-centric and might belong in an article about medical billing, thus the Medicine tag. I do not know the topic well enough to know where it could go. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Medicine. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Chernobrov

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

Article is on a deceased Russian UFO fan who discovered (...) time travel. All sources are non-RS (e.g. Pravda). A standard WP:BEFORE finds numerous mentions in UFO blogs, the Daily Mail, etc., but not much else. There is nothing further in the six translations of this article on parallel wikis. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Paranormal, and Russia. jolielover♥talk 18:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shamoun

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

Non-notable subject. All I could find were blogs and press releases. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person with no significant coverate. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 18:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable enough, looks like a promotion. KnightMight (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, you broke your 2-year hiatus just to renominate an article that was already closed as keep only five days ago? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that AfD is not about editors’ motives but about article content and sourcing. A prior discussion doesn’t preclude renomination if notability concerns remain (see WP:DELAFTER). The key issue is whether the subject meets WP:GNG as an individual filmmaker. Current sourcing appears limited to coverage of a single award-winning short film, which may establish notability of the film, but not necessarily the filmmaker. This discussion is focused only on that question.

Also, much of the coverage appears routine, centered on the film’s awards, and the article’s tone gives the impression of promotional editing, raising concern about WP:NOTPROMO. KnightMight (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Protocol

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

This page seems to have been largely copied from the Dutch Wikipedia, where it was created by a user who was subsequently banned from Dutch, English, and finally Global Wikipedia for pushing FRINGE transphobic content.[1] As you might expect, this article has a lot of problems. First, it overlaps heavily with the puberty blockers article and effectively acts as a POVFORK. Second, it uses several primary sources and popular news articles rather than sticking to the highest quality sources available (medical reviews and medical guidelines). Many statements are uncited and UNDUE weight is given to a single source, the Cass Review. Finally, it violates MOS:MISGENDER. It is unclear whether English Wikipedia really needs an article specifically about the Dutch Protocol or whether this is adequately covered at puberty blocker. Regardless, due to the numerous problems in this article, it would be better to exercise WP:TNT in this case and start from scratch. Nosferattus (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I agree that this now-extensive article seems to have become a content fork of the puberty blockers article. I suggest very careful merging of any useful content from this into the main article, and for this to become a section redirect. Update: Having seen the activity regarding this elsewhere, I have changed my opinion to Delete for the many reasons given by other editors here. There may be an article to be written on the Dutch Protocol, but this isn't it, and I cannot see any way to get there from here without deleting this first. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I only just saw that you'd edited your comment - to clarify they are indeed the same editor. He primarily edited via IP, was forced to start using an account as a sanction on dutch wiki, then after his account was banned/blocked on a few platforms started using the IP again until it was subject to a range ban. I'd toss in some diffs but I'm on a train atm, the talk page has a link to an AE sanction that links to the dutch wiki cases.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

banned/blocked? Which is it? WP:BAN & WP:Block are two different policies.Tiny Particle (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puberty Blockers are just one (optional) stage in The Protocol: Therapy, Social transition, puberty supression, cross-sex hormones, Gender-affirming surgery. The recent NY Times podcast attests to the importance of this article. Tiny Particle (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the protocol in the article mentions nothing about therapy, social transition, or gender-affirming surgery. The Dutch Protocol is essentially just the use of puberty blockers prior to gender-affirming hormone therapy (with various levels of oversight). This can be adequately covered at puberty blockers, or if a dedicated article is really needed, a new one can be created from scratch. Nosferattus (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and~~ redirect as proposed by The Anome, article so focused on puberty blockers that making it cover the entire Dutch Protocol would be easier with the current iteration gone. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the information given by Licks-rocks this should be obliterated and not merged to avoid metastasis of improperly sourced content. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small update on this: I went back to check and the original author contributes only about 5 percent of the current page. Me and some other dutch editors have already been over this one. Most of the current page is (re-)written by an editor called cixous whom I would peg as at the very least not intentionally misleading.

@Flounder fillet tagging you because I figure it might change your vote. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome you too. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to still be a POVFORK sitting on an article name that could be put to better use. Dutch language references and content they support should be merged into Puberty blocker as the only worthwhile salvage from this, the page can then be redirected or deleted. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blow to kingdom come as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with someone trying to merge but be extremely wary about the sources. Based on my previous experience with the user who wrote this the sources used may not align with the content they purportedly support. They might not say what the article claims they say, or they might even directly contradict the article. I have no idea how much cleanup has been done on this particular one before or after it was translated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / TNT: Per nom/my notes at talk. I don't think there's any material here worth merging - most of it relies on primary sources we shouldn't use for MEDRS. I do think it should have it's own article, but it should be short, focused, and use the best RS - this iteration of it won't help with that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus @The Anome @Flounder fillet @Licks-rocks

Please see related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Steensma (which is also about Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, Annelou de Vries, and Henriette Delemarre-van de Waal) - content with issues from this article was copied into those.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, including removing all the material about what was/is done in various parts of the UK: not defining for the Dutch Protocol (and either omitting the material regarding Finland or rolling it into the discussion of how the protocol has evolved). And beefing up the non-primary, scholarly sources. (The article is also crying out for a copyedit, and Licks-rocks raises a concern about sources needing checking.) But the news sources cited for the section of the article that is actually about the Dutch Protocol demonstrate notability, and this is not a subtopic of puberty blocker. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my earlier close, reopening and relisting per request on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first to avoid bad content metastasizing. Then create a redirect-with-possibilities. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POVFORK per WP:TNT. If this is a notable topic, distinct from puberty blockers and Gender dysphoria in children to the point where it needs its own article, then somebody else can write a proper article about it later but this is no good in the meantime. It isn't even a helpful starting point for anybody trying to make a valid article on this topic. No objection to anybody creating a redirect after deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep after extensive rewriting. I thought it'd be worthwhile to add two cents, as I have written on the Dutch orginial of this article as well, per @Licks-rocks comments above (who was more than welcome to ping me here). As they pointed out, it was originally conceived by an editor who got permabanned from the Wikipedia project for his apocalyptic transphobia. I - along with many others - have made some attempts on the Dutch Wikipedia to achieve a higher level of neutrality, but obvious issues persist: primary sources (which were added primarily from my side to show that there is no Secret Trans Cabal that is transing them kids; contemporary Dutch politics was/is scary for trans people), undue weight to sources that I couldn't tackle (particularly the use of media sources that only report on criticism of the Dutch protocol), lack of decent sources in the history section (they exist both in English and Dutch), structural issues (which is largely inherited from the aformentioned banned user), and significant overlap with the article on puberty blockers (which, admittedly, was not that big of an issue on the Dutch wiki due to its appallingly small article on puberty blockers). Besides that, I'd like to note that this was my first major attempt to edit on Wikipedia, so for the sections I rewrote, there are obviously a lot of awkward phrases.
TLDR: this article was created by a highly ideological user who got banned from Wikipedia and suffered from various (though very patchy) attempts to get it into a slightly less amorphous shape. Therefore, it seems fair to delete and rewrite it or delete it and add to other articles if necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cixous (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources present demonstrate encyclopedic content. If there are changes to be made, there is no need to delete (per WP:RUBBISH). Svartner (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Multiple editors have critiqued is a heavy reliance on OR, primary sources, and etc. The majority of the text is cited to the primary pieces defining the protocol, while some of the highest quality sources cited in the article don't even mention the Dutch Protocol / Approach / any synonym thereof. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana: Live in London

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single concert. Only contains one source. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Disney, and United Kingdom. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2026 Indian Premier League personnel changes

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

WP:TOOSOON, even the 2026 season doesn't have an article yet as its clearly TOOSOON for it. Vestrian24Bio 16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldilocks and the Three Bears (Faerie Tale Theatre)

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

This article fails WP:NTVEP; it is no more notable than any other Faerie Tale Theatre episode. Songwaters (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Songwaters (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Web Services Metadata

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

Last one for now. Fails WP:NOT as a Java documentation page, could not locate any coverage to support GNG: 1 2 3 4. I did find a passing mention in this paper. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one more search: 2 hits on Google books, but both passing mentions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Transactions

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

Fails WP:NOT as software documentation, currently supported entirely by a single PDF source. I could not find reliable academic or Google news coverage. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any notable coverage of this film after January 2024. It appears to have gained a lot of attention on release but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a year later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SUSTAINED is not a good criterion to judge films. Reviews are generally published at the time of their release. - E. Ux 22:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am on a multiday travel (with limited internet), so I just copy-paste what I wrote on the previous deletion-discussion, because I feel this argument still stands. Especially with a film, that will always not recieve the same level of media attention a couple of years after its release:

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like Bloody Disgusting and Joblo.com, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.'x

I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.

A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.

This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership".

Jonastav89 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My stance is still the same. I won't fight against it being kept, but I am concerned that much of this is based on a single press release. They're all generally the same: "This movie released! It's so wild that they made a horror short on a Mickey Mouse short that's in the public ___domain! Here's a link to the video!" They are reacting to the idea of the film, rather than to the film itself. Much of it seems to be clustered around the same point in time, so it's likely that it's either based on a press release sent out to multiple outlets or the same 1-2 initial short articles about the film. There aren't really any true reviews, just quick shock reactions. Even the ComingSoon.net review comes across more like they're reporting on the idea and not a reaction to having watched the short. If we had one article that was a review rather than a "reacting to idea" I'd be more comfortable arguing for a keep. This just feels like something that would be eventually redirected in a few years' time, if no further coverage were to come about. Again, not arguing against notability at all. Just that this is a bit weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I do note that there is an article on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I do think that it would be good to add prose to the article and make it more like Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater. If anyone wants to work on that, definitely do. It's something I've been meaning to get around to, but haven't had the time as of yet.

This kind of plays into another issue with the "reacting to idea" part of what I wrote above. In the articles people are kind of reacting more to the idea of people making horror movies once one version of a major icon passes into the public ___domain, rather than to the short itself. While yes, the short is part of it and is claimed to be the first known example, none of that really led to any in-depth coverage of it other than "wow, they're really doing this". I also want to note that the other arguments are based on cases where there's actually quite a bit of coverage that goes into some depth. Winning a Razzie is something that would probably be enough to pass NFILM on its own. It's a fairly major, well-known award. It's no Oscar, but it's also pretty selective. And as I mentioned prior, we don't really have anything that could be seen as a true review - they're reactions to the idea. Again, not arguing for a deletion. Just that this would be a weak keep at best for me if I were to argue for that. I feel that if we had a good prose section in the works article, this would be good as a redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think that sustained applies to media in the same way given that reviews are secondary, but the concern is that this really did not get any actual reviews. There is a mention of it in an academic journal about copyright but it's just a few sentences [2] PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. Would fit well there, but coverage is on the thin side for a standalone article. Sandstein 12:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for feedback on Sandstein's merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews are sufficient to justify an article. SUSTAINED isn't a food marker here, since most media that are a single release (i.e. not something like a TV series) will only ever get a burst of attention when they are released. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to National Highway 66 (India)#Incident. I see clear consensus against retaining this as a standalone article, with broad support for the proposed merge. While a highly unlikely search term, attribution rules require us to keep the history behind the redirect if any content is merged. Owen× ☎ 12:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 National Highway 66 collapse at Kooriyad, Malappuram

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most ...accidents...), whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, India, and Kerala. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highway collapse is not an everyday traffic accident, and this seems to have become something of a regional political issue with a fair amount of fallout. Coverage seems to meet general notability. -- DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Road collapses as part of regular construction are a regular part of life and despite the road's construction being an issue culturally in the area, no loss of life, and the most that came out of this is the generic 'screaming Indian news channel condemnation' result where the construction company was punished absurdly (two days after, they were blacklisted, which is retributive) and minor injuries as part of a wedding party. Nathannah • 📮 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Highway 66 (India), but only the key information. This is a news story and a brief part of the highway's history, not an independent historical event or case study. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree on merging the details, but this title as a redirect is very long and implausible. Nathannah • 📮 00:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Nathannah, I suggest leaving at least multiple redirects such as:
"2025 National Highway 66 collapse"

"Kooriyad National Highway 66 collapse"
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to that merge and redirect to a finely-targeted redirect name. Nathannah • 📮 23:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and zero enduring historical impact.

Celjski Grad (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to National Highway 66 (India) per Thebiguglyalien. We may want to move the redirect to a new name per Nathannah's observation. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Not clear the topic is WP:DUE in National Highway 66 (India). We don't have enough distance to tell whether this really is worth covering in that article and should avoid WP:RECENTISM bias. As such, oppose merge because mentioning it there doesn't seem justified per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 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.

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Display Ports (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG - ff the three references, one is a broken link to a UPenn global list of think tanks, one is an e-paper article on their engagement of a US lobbying firm, and thhe other is to a copy of one of the subject's own reports. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have repaired link syntax in the nomination so that {{subst:afd2}} can actually function. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clicked on and checked all the references at the article. They seem to work fine. Apparently WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ fixed them after this nomination...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only repaired this nomination page itself; I have never edited the article or its references. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have taken the time to figure out exactly what was done at the article previously. Normally I try to do that and this time I missed it. Anyway, I have now added 2 more newspaper references to help improve the article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 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, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some sources to support. There could be more improvements to the page.*DP (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Here are some reliable independent sources from google scholar and google books with WP:SIGCOV: [3], [4], [5], [6], These added to the sources already present in the article are enough to pass our notability guidelines of nonprofit organizations.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed the one primary source reference that this article had. Replaced it with 4 archived newspaper references. I archived all Pakistani newspaper references in case of electrical power outages there as we all know from the current news from Pakistan that there is severe river flooding and very heavy rains of the Monsoon season all over the country. Much higher chance of references working when they are archived by Wayback Machine based in the United States.

This article is much improved now, if we also consider the 4 book references supplied above by 4meter4...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Mail

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

Fails WP:NOT as software documentation. The article is currently supported by primary sources from Java/Jakarta publishers. I checked for reliable independent in-depth coverage, and haven't found any yet: 1 2 3 4, please let me know if I've missed anything! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty–Old Dominion football rivalry

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

No evidence that this is a notable rivalry. Fram (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Virginia. Fram (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources to support this. The closest we have (and it's not close) is a reddit post about rivalries mentioned in a video game. Aside from the lack of SIGCOV, this lacks any of the attributes of a rivalry (other than, I suppose the coincidence of both schools being located in Virginia). In particular, the programs have played only five games over a 12-year period. There is no regularity of play (five games in 12 years), no lengthy history (first game in 2013), no trophy, or close competition (Liberty has won four of the five games played). Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure about saying keep or delete yet because both teams are in the same state. I will just wait to see how things work out here. NotJamestack (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proximity has nothing to do with whether or not this is a rivalry. The sources I reviewed suggests this is mostly a PR push and I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patan

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

Right off the bat, Sardesai, Govind Sakharam (1946) and Saxena, R K (1957) are unusable because of being written by being far too old and not providing WP:SIGCOV to this conflict. Tony Jacques only provides 8 lines of coverage. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources are only considered too old for something is new research has made them outdated. This is not the right venue and a merge request might have been better, but you have not proposed a merge destination 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 15:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Gehlen

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

Little established notability. Sources are of dubious reliability; only source close to passing GNG is a Daily Dot article. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Germany. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources available are interviews, which are not secondary sources, or are otherwise unreliable Starcraft fan websites and the like. Even the Daily Dot article feels more like a disguised promotional interview than an actual secondary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 23 August 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 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HOV Services

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

Fails NCORP, promotional. No reliable independent coverage - listings, puffery portfolio texts, nothing more. Jazzbanditto (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Tamil Nadu, and Texas. jolielover♥talk 11:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only coverage is routine reporting from NEWSORGINDIA, which is not independent. Hence, the subject entirely fails to meet WP:ORG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aban Offshore

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

Fails NCORP as the sources are routine WP MILL and not provide in-depth independent coverage of the organization. Jazzbanditto (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. jolielover♥talk 11:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The references provided are mostly routine financial reports or directory-style listings without any significant in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources. The content reads like a basic company profile and lacks encyclopedic depth or lasting notability. Setwardo (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject clearly meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Although some of the coverage is older, reliable sources exist, and I have updated the article with working references by replacing dead links.Fixopu (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination doesn’t seem to be made in good faith. Also, something feels unusual about the page, possibly linked to a conflict of interest or paid editing, done in an attempt to save or salvage the page. Charlie (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zou Qiguo

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy P. Riley

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

Little to no independent notability outside of Activision career; could warrant a redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Video games, United States of America, and Missouri. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only the Complex article is significant and reliable. No additional reliable sources found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this article is not enough to redirect to Activision? IgelRM (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSI Claw A8

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

Notability concerns. Written like an ad without demonstrating much independent notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. [7] [8][9][10] all point to standalone notability for the device, and while it's slightly on the edge of WP:TOOSOON, there is no indication that its coverage will diminish in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: this article should be merged with “MSI Claw A1M” under common name “Msi Claw”

GonzalezRio (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the potential rather than current state of the article, I see the possibility of both pages being fully fleshed out. I don't think a WP:OVERLAP is there, as they are entirely different systems. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veniamin Smekhov

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

Written in unencylopedic tone, barely sourced Sushidude21! (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haitianism

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

I believe the topic fails notability criteria.

This article was created in 2017 by User:BobHalford806 before most of it was revision deleted due to copyright issues. Specifically, the deletion logs say that it violated the copyright of this article (archive). Notably, the infringed-upon text does not contain the word "Haitianism".

Despite being 8 years old, the article has not undergone a significant revision since the deletion of copyrighted material. This means that all currently present text was effectively added by BobHalford806.

The article cites one source, which, according to Google Scholar, itself has only one citation. This book is not searchable in Google Books, and the article citing it does not contain the word "Haitianism".

A search on Google Scholar for " "haitianism" -"anti-haitianism" " shows 116 results. Excluding "anti-haitianism" from the search is necessary in order to avoid excessive manual filtering. Per my guesstimation, these results can be categorised into the following groups, in decreasing order of frequency:

A different word for "Haitian nationalism".
A more general ideology in support of slave rebellions.
Mirror translations of the abstracts of scholarly articles written in Portuguese about topics including that of "Haitianismo".

I am neither proficient at Portuguese, nor capable of accessing these scholarly articles, so I cannot verify whether the Portuguese scholarly articles are about the same topic as this Wikipedia article.

This leads us to examine Portuguese Wikipedia. There, an article Haitianismo used to exist, before being redirected to the Portuguese equivalent of Haitian Revolution, seemingly per the vices of a lone administrator who concluded that the article was duplicative and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Per the Google Translated version of the now-redirected article, I believe it was about the same topic as the one I'm proposing for deletion.

I have also asked ChatGPT regarding the topic of "Haitianism". Its answers plainly do not support the article's view of the topic, instead favouring the idea that "Haitianism" refers to either Haitian nationalism or an ideology in support of slave rebellions. Even after engineering ChatGPT with the explicit intent of tricking it into supporting the article, the best it can do is perform an internet search and then summarise this very Wikipedia article. If instructed to not search the internet, it will effectively never support the article before being explicitly instructed to.

Considering the circumstances, it appears to me that "Haitianism" as the article describes is the mirror translation of a somewhat obscure Portuguese academic concept. English sources, however, do not commonly use this term. And when English sources do use this term, they do not use it to describe this topic.

As such, I believe that the term "Haitianism" does not refer to any distinct concept in English literature. The article should therefore be redirected to Haitian Revolution. I believe this redirect would serve all potential meanings of the term well, so no disambiguation would be required. Dieknon (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Social science, and Haiti. Dieknon (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HyperIn

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacking significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just noting that the history on this one is a mess for anyone that's confused. It was created at HyperIn, which I draftified to Draft:HyperIn. The page creator moved it back to mainspace at HyperIn Inc and self-draftified it to Draft:HyperIn Inc. They then cut-paste moved it to the original redirect from my draftification at HyperIn. MCE89 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade It looks like you've deleted all of these except Draft:HyperIn, which is now a redirect to a deleted page. Sorry for the mess here, but I think whichever one of these contains the actual page history (Draft:HyperIn Inc?) should probably be undeleted? I think that at the point where you deleted it R2 probably didn't apply to HyperIn, since the page creator had cut-paste moved the content from Draft:HyperIn Inc which they blanked. MCE89 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted HyperIn Inc because the author blanked the page. Thank you for pointing out this mess of history, though. I'm going to ask another administrator who is more familiar with managing page histories to take a look at this. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this mess further:

This page was G5,G11'd [11], only to be recreated 15 minutes later by another account.

Also relevant, this laundry request 🧦. Nil🥝 14:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameem Akhtar

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

Poor and unreliable sources which fail to demonstrate notability of this filmmaker making two non notable movies. Rht bd (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails sigcov. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider a merge of Rina Brown into this? It would not be unprecedented. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I noted in the AfD for Rina Brown, there certainly are sources. As well as the sources I listed there, other books and articles describe and analyse Akhtar's other films. See eg [12], [13], [14]. Akhtar also received the Shilpakala Padak award in 2020 [15] - she is listed in that WP article, but her article does not yet include this information. I will try to add these sources and additional information to both articles. At the very least, WP should have one article about the film maker and her films. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per RebeccaGreen. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started adding info and sources. The text already in the article is rather confusing, so I have started a filmography section to add the refs to, and will sort out the text when I have the sources entered. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources that have been added to the article appear to be enough for GNG and NFILMMAKER. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having won the Shilpakala Padak award, the subject passes WP:NFILMMAKER. The sources also seem decent enough to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any notable coverage of this film after January 2024. It appears to have gained a lot of attention on release but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a year later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SUSTAINED is not a good criterion to judge films. Reviews are generally published at the time of their release. - E. Ux 22:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am on a multiday travel (with limited internet), so I just copy-paste what I wrote on the previous deletion-discussion, because I feel this argument still stands. Especially with a film, that will always not recieve the same level of media attention a couple of years after its release:

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like Bloody Disgusting and Joblo.com, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.'x

I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.

A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.

This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership".

Jonastav89 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My stance is still the same. I won't fight against it being kept, but I am concerned that much of this is based on a single press release. They're all generally the same: "This movie released! It's so wild that they made a horror short on a Mickey Mouse short that's in the public ___domain! Here's a link to the video!" They are reacting to the idea of the film, rather than to the film itself. Much of it seems to be clustered around the same point in time, so it's likely that it's either based on a press release sent out to multiple outlets or the same 1-2 initial short articles about the film. There aren't really any true reviews, just quick shock reactions. Even the ComingSoon.net review comes across more like they're reporting on the idea and not a reaction to having watched the short. If we had one article that was a review rather than a "reacting to idea" I'd be more comfortable arguing for a keep. This just feels like something that would be eventually redirected in a few years' time, if no further coverage were to come about. Again, not arguing against notability at all. Just that this is a bit weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I do note that there is an article on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I do think that it would be good to add prose to the article and make it more like Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater. If anyone wants to work on that, definitely do. It's something I've been meaning to get around to, but haven't had the time as of yet.

This kind of plays into another issue with the "reacting to idea" part of what I wrote above. In the articles people are kind of reacting more to the idea of people making horror movies once one version of a major icon passes into the public ___domain, rather than to the short itself. While yes, the short is part of it and is claimed to be the first known example, none of that really led to any in-depth coverage of it other than "wow, they're really doing this". I also want to note that the other arguments are based on cases where there's actually quite a bit of coverage that goes into some depth. Winning a Razzie is something that would probably be enough to pass NFILM on its own. It's a fairly major, well-known award. It's no Oscar, but it's also pretty selective. And as I mentioned prior, we don't really have anything that could be seen as a true review - they're reactions to the idea. Again, not arguing for a deletion. Just that this would be a weak keep at best for me if I were to argue for that. I feel that if we had a good prose section in the works article, this would be good as a redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think that sustained applies to media in the same way given that reviews are secondary, but the concern is that this really did not get any actual reviews. There is a mention of it in an academic journal about copyright but it's just a few sentences [16] PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. Would fit well there, but coverage is on the thin side for a standalone article. Sandstein 12:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for feedback on Sandstein's merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews are sufficient to justify an article. SUSTAINED isn't a food marker here, since most media that are a single release (i.e. not something like a TV series) will only ever get a burst of attention when they are released. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Hall of Fame

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

Cannot find any decent in-depth coverage. Anyone can start a vanity award. There is no money or any real kudois attached to this award. And this article has quickly led to lots of other articles being spammed with links to this so-called award. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think it is fair to call this a "vanity award" or "so-called award" without proof. Most of the recipients are notable, as can be seen from the column of mostly blue links to the names of recipients. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eastmain. That some of the recipients are notable counts for nothing, as no one has to give their permission to be given an award from anyone else. YouTube is not a suitable ref, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Arts, Awards, Organizations, Science, Sports, Asia, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't seen in-depth secondary coverage either that would satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing really independent beyond things like press releases or articles focusing on the awardees. The mention of awardees having their own BLP pages isn't relevant here and would run against WP:INHERIT. We don't chain notability of one page to the notability of another. This is a notability discussion for the WP:NORG, not those other pages. Coverage of the group itself appears to be pretty trivial rather than substantial too. KoA (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage in digitised newspapers, and in news stories found through a google search (including in news media in Asian countries). References could certainly be added for the inductees. Some of the sources also have more information about the Hall of Fame and the Robert Chinn Foundation, which could also be added to the article. According to the sources, it is a non-profit charity, and does provide support to various beneficiaries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, RebeccaGreen. You say that there are sources, but have not added any here or to the article itself. WP:ORG sets a higher bar for this sort of article than for most other article types. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:NONPROFIT. I added some materials and agree with RebeccaGreen. There are usable materials behind pay walls, but here is one example of WP:SIGCOV that anyone can view. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added 60 references to the article. A WP:BEFORE was obviously not done.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Display Ports (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG - ff the three references, one is a broken link to a UPenn global list of think tanks, one is an e-paper article on their engagement of a US lobbying firm, and thhe other is to a copy of one of the subject's own reports. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have repaired link syntax in the nomination so that {{subst:afd2}} can actually function. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clicked on and checked all the references at the article. They seem to work fine. Apparently WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ fixed them after this nomination...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only repaired this nomination page itself; I have never edited the article or its references. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have taken the time to figure out exactly what was done at the article previously. Normally I try to do that and this time I missed it. Anyway, I have now added 2 more newspaper references to help improve the article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 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, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some sources to support. There could be more improvements to the page.*DP (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Here are some reliable independent sources from google scholar and google books with WP:SIGCOV: [17], [18], [19], [20], These added to the sources already present in the article are enough to pass our notability guidelines of nonprofit organizations.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed the one primary source reference that this article had. Replaced it with 4 archived newspaper references. I archived all Pakistani newspaper references in case of electrical power outages there as we all know from the current news from Pakistan that there is severe river flooding and very heavy rains of the Monsoon season all over the country. Much higher chance of references working when they are archived by Wayback Machine based in the United States.

This article is much improved now, if we also consider the 4 book references supplied above by 4meter4...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an closed 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 is keep. --shaz (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Singia Junction railway station

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

Disputed redirect without rationale or improvement. A couple of brief mentions of the station, but zero in-depth coverage. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. One of several articles created by this same editor which are poorly sourced. Will nominate them separately since they probably all need independent evaluation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dhaka–Jessore line#Stations as is the usual case for a station with no notability of its own. They planned it, they built it, it exists; that is pretty much the extent of the coverage. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any problem with this article. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhaka–Jessore line#Stations – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly a station of some size and import, particularly being a junction station. It should be expected that reliable coverage of the station will improve in future. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This station was built in 1882 as part of the Calcutta–Jessore–Khulna line. Since then, the station has played an important role. After the Dhaka–Jessore line was completed in 2024, its importance increased significantly, as it is now used as an alternative to Jessore Junction for trains departing from Khulna towards Dhaka. Therefore, I believe it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. If you require citations to support these statements, please let me know, and I will provide reliable sources. Thank you. Stud.asif (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the reliable sources that you say show the importance of the station? Jumpytoo Talk 02:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keeping this article and Redirecting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while opinion is divided, AfD is not a vote. None of the Keep !votes are based on policy. The article's creator has been asked repeatedly to provide sourcing, and has refused to do so.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator need not be the one to improve it! Will Thorpe (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This is not a BLP. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a railway station, it passes the notability guideline. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Afifa Afrin: Which notability guideline, and how does it pass it? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dhaka–Jessore line#Stations- One story building of no historic, cultural, economic or artistic importance. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing present in the article seems sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Absent a source analysis to convince me otherwise, this looks perfectly fine.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 ok, but I don't think this article is important to be on WikiPedia. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT is a poor rationale and not what is used to determine if an article meets the WP:N to have an article. Jumpytoo Talk 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Assessment table:

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Prothom Alo	2 brief mentions	✘ No
dhakatribune.com		✘ No
ratdinnews.net		? Unknown
banglapedia.org		✘ No
bangladeshmoments.com	Same story as in source #3	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

- Thanks for the source assessment, Onel5969. You're mistaken about bangladeshmoments.com being the same story as ratdinnews.net, though. They're the same kind of story, but they're about two different protests three months apart. The demands of the two were similar, although the second added a demand that express trains stop at the station. I agree with you that the reliability of bangladeshmoments.com is uncertain. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dhaka–Jessore line#Stations as this is not important and has low quality. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm unimpressed by the rationales of the other keep !votes (and, for that matter, those of most of the redirect !votes), but come down on the keep side based on the following new sources. First, replace bangladeshmoments.com, which has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking, with essentially the same story in Gramer Kagoj, a legitimate regional newspaper in Jessore, the nearest large city.[21] They published a second, more in-depth, article about the station eight months later, by a different author.[22] A third independent, reliable source containing significant coverage of the station is [23]. If you don't like Channel 24, several national dailies published the same story.[24][25][26] By the way, every source calls it "Singia railway station" or, informally, "Singia station". No one calls it "Singia Junction railway station". So whether it is a junction station or not, I don't believe the word junction should be in the Wikipedia article title. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Worldbruce that show the subject meets GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home

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

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since NLIST states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". It links to WP:LISTPURP, which provides the definitions of these terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. Navigation: This is not an index, outline or other table of contents Development: These topics are very fringely related and all of them are blue links anyway. If this list did serve a purpose for development, that is already fulfilled and so it can be deleted. The above comments for navigation also apply. Lists and categories: Again, this doesn't really apply as this doesn't serve a navigation purpose. There isn't a category for this list, and if there was then that would be WP:OVERCAT. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:

First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.

Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey data. Per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").

Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the counties list interesting. This article received 8,013 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.

As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per this N talk, it looks like most editors would want the exact list group/set (United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home) to be notable, rather than a rescoped group/set (like "US multilingual communities" as in the Google Scholar link by A. B.) Agree with A. B. that individual list members do not need to be notable though. Still could not find the list's exact group/set via quick Google search (but might've missed something?). Agree with nom that this list's group/set seems a bit like WP:OVERCAT imo (unless noted in sources I missed, ofc). Would keep per A. B.'s point re list's informational purpose, but honestly not sure how to assess that :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The false balance with Australian article is unconvincing (WP:OTHERSTUFF). desmay (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [27], [28] and [29] are sufficient enough to meet NList. (I also think this is very clearly a useful list but I understand that meeting NList is a better argument). Esolo5002 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home

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

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since NLIST states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". It links to WP:LISTPURP, which provides the definitions of these terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. Navigation: This is not an index, outline or other table of contents Development: These topics are very fringely related and all of them are blue links anyway. If this list did serve a purpose for development, that is already fulfilled and so it can be deleted. The above comments for navigation also apply. Lists and categories: Again, this doesn't really apply as this doesn't serve a navigation purpose. There isn't a category for this list, and if there was then that would be WP:OVERCAT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:

First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.

Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to Modern Language Association of America data; per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").

Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the communities list interesting. The county level information shows whole areas where languages other than English are really established as opposed to the communities list which lists what are sometimes just small pockets of foreign language. The article received 2103 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.

As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for same reasons as my delete in the other AfD - except that would not keep this one even for informational purposes as per A. B., as this list seems less relied on for info than the other one, and they both serve similar info purposes it looks like/imo - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gerenčer

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

Weak claim to notability. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions in match reports [30] [31] [32] [33]. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lacks IRS SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season

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

Non notable season article, nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. Also 14 years out of date, which further demonstrates that this is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United States of America. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chitwan Rhinos

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

We have had multiple previous discussions about Nepal Premier League teams - all with consensus that we do not require separate team articles (just look at how many times Pokhara Avengers and Janakpur Bolts have been deleted, plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janakpur Bolts). Still don't need separate team articles, a redirect would suffice rather than these WP:GNG failing articles with WP:ROUTINE coverage- but this article has been created and edited by multiple editors, so makes sense to have AFD discussion. I propose redirect and protect the redirect from future creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/BLAR, including creation protection, per nom. Insufficient sustained, independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Georgia (country)

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

I think this is an encyclopedic topic but most of the content is unsourced and WP:NOTGALLERY applies. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Affan Kurniawan

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

Apparent memorial page. WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although Affan Kurniawan is known for a single tragic event, his case has drawn significant attention from both national and international media, including Tempo, Katadata, and Channel News Asia. The coverage goes beyond reporting his death—it also follows developments such as the National Police Chief issuing a direct apology, the official investigation into the Brimob officers involved, and reactions from Gojek and Grab. These responses show that Affan’s story has resonated widely, making him more than just the subject of an isolated incident and highlighting his significance as a symbol of the event itself. Nusantarakita (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and has coverage due to recent situation only, not the subject himself.
Delete per nom, obvious BLP1E. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to August 2025 Indonesian protests, which is covering the event that expanded in wake of his death, as otherwise BLP1E applies. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E applicable. Kaliper¹｜talk 12:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, no redirect. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Murder of Affan Kurniawan, because the latter page already exists before this page subject to proposed deletion was created.~~ August 2025 Indonesian protests, per Masem. We need to preserve its page history. DDG 9912 14:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLP1E. ^EF⁵ 14:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ColosseoEAS

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

Having removed a lot of original research, it's clear the subject of this article fails WP:NCORP. C 679 08:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Slovakia. C 679 08:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ely

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find sufficient reliable independent sources with significant coverage so as to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. The article has remained unreferenced and essentially unchanged since the last AfD in 2016. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Video games. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy: Seems the game novels are his only notable works (layman's definition of notable, that is, not WP:N's definition). Nil🥝 08:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should've said in my nomination that I'd also be happy with a redirect. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'm all for keeping writers if possible but it's almost impossible to even find the books when you google him. I'd even just delete on the grounds that it frees up the name for someone later. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, very little sourcing going in to anything on him as a person or the books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky Flames

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, best I could find is a passing mention by USA Today. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, Education, and Sports. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liberty Flames and Lady Flames. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some coverage exists, see here, here, and here. Apparently, this mascot has had several different names over the years, while maintaining the same basic eagle persona throughout. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Ejgreen77. NotJamestack (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per sources provided above which show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am not convinced by the coverage in sources, which appears WP:TRIVIAL, and does not demonstrate standalone notability. I believe that a section in Liberty Flames and Lady Flames can easily encompass the mascot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't entirely see why the coverage is trivial. I feel like it's just enough SIGCOV for a standalone article. Emphasis on the words "just enough", hence my weak keep vote, but that's just how I feel. NotJamestack (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. Even with the sources found, it would be WP:OR to create an article about several different mascots under several different names. They would be more appropriate to be grouped at the main article about the team, but all the mascots individually fail WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith Centre

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previously was much larger but was removed as unsourced. Unless notability can be proved, this should either be deleted, or an appropriate redirect should be found. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Poland. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wcquidditch This should also probably be added to Europe related discussions. I didn't think to add it when nominating for deletion. I was in a car (Obviously as a Passenger) when nominating this article and was in a rush to get out and was in a rush that I only included it in 3 topic lists. I very quickly felt like: "Shouldn't this be in list of Europe related discussions?" I actually do not know so please make the right decision on behalf of me. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jexs

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

This bundle of AfDs are all llm generated slop that were not checked at all, pronouns switching for the subject for no reason, very promotional tone and sentences that don't say anything. Numerous sources are 404ing as well which is odd from articles that are so recent. I am not arguing that any of the subjects lack notability, I am arguing that the level of content is so poor that it should be blown up and started from scratch. Moritoriko (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Guatemala. jolielover♥talk 07:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all the same issues:

Anna Papalia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Most of these sources are non-independent as they are either almost completely written by her ([34], [35]), merely repeat her interview tips while adding vapid TikTok comments ([36], [37]), or repeat what she wants to say about her own book ([38], [39]). These sources do not contain serious independent analysis of her work, nor do they contain non-trivial biographical information. UPE concerns have been raised at another article created by the same editor (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulip Interfaces).

I found a capsule review here but that isn't enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if her one book was notable that isn't enough to fulfill NAUTHOR (we would shift it to the book... but that isn't notable either.) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Programmed to Consume

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

One reference, seems to fail notability as barely any other acceptable sources seem to exist Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 06:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abysmal Dawn: Quick WP:BEFORE, but didn't find any sources that would help it meet WP:NALBUM. Nil🥝 06:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to About.com review listed in the article, there are reviews by AllMusic, Blabbermouth.net and Metal.de: [40], [41], [42].
Keep - also Rock Hard (magazine) [43] (paywalled) and Ox-Fanzine [44] etc. I also added an offline one from Scream (cmagazine). Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Ashes

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

No references, seems to fail notability easily Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. jolielover♥talk 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by Blabbermouth.net and Metal.de: [45], [46]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a short review by Exclaim!: [47]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this also has one in Ox-Fanzine [48] Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AfD after a previous no consensus decision as it was referenced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Welsh. There remains no significant coverage of the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited and discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions of article subject in the news coverage, but no WP:SIGCOV on this individual. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Nayyn (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dude you don't get to rehash the same arguments over and over again. The sources haven't changed significantly and neither has any of the guidelines. My previous argument still stands. -- Sohom (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion" was what I said before and I still stand by it. -- Sohom (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect to 2023-2024 Jason Parker cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That appears to be the topic that has significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the subject is not necessarily notable as an independent cybersecurity researcher, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to note for the record that the article on Dan Kaminsky demonstrates precedent where a security researcher is considered notable specifically for a discovery in his case, the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability. The article itself highlights this under ‘Known for Discovering the 2008 DNS cache poisoning vulnerability’ This suggests that discoveries, when accompanied by significant independent coverage, can satisfy WP:GNG. AxiomGaming (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources listed in the article do not cover the subject directly and in detail. There is coverage about the subject's work for a span of time around government information security, but there's little biographical detail about the subject to write a Wikipedia article. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Structure of Indiana University Bloomington

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of academic departments and units of colleges and universities. An article could plausibly be written about this topic but it would bear no resemblance to this bare listing of academic departments and units. ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a valid WP:SPINOUT. We should cover the departments at the University. The solution here is to improve the article through editing as the issue is surmountable.4meter4 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Indiana. jolielover♥talk 06:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A listing of individual schools and their departments in a particular university is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fain House

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

I cannot find information that would support a standalone article about Fain House, not even on the Carson–Newman University website. There is no evidence that Fain House was declared a heritage site or historical place. There is not even a decent reference to include a phrase about the building in the Carson-Newman University article. The building fails WP:NBUILD. Some parts of the section on the Fain Family may be subject of a separate article: the 63 Tennessee Infantry Regiment and col. Richard G. Fain. These articles would be best built from scratch. WP:TNT Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it’s like an abandoned attempt. There’s nothing cited in the article about the house, beyond the map, and a quick search doesn’t give me anything that could go in. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tennessee. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Isle Studios

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

Appears to lack standalone notability and fails WP:NCORP - furthermore, no obvious target for redirection since there two separate articles on games they made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either game in this category (which subsequently needs to deleted after the redirect). There is a lot of routine announcements about games but nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Work

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

None of the cited sources are direct and in-depth enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. There are a few references like this and this that discuss its bot in detail but are not directly about the organization. The founder of the organization, Jaime-Alexis Fowler, is a former public relations and media executive so this kind of coverage is expected to exist. Fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and California. jolielover♥talk 06:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are two sources that could be argued as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Those are Quartz and CBS. However, even if everyone agreed, that makes two sources which does not amount to significant coverage in my opinion. The rest is just mentions, quotes, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valiama Narain

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

the information does not establish any general notability about this person. The only result on Google Books is an obscure book written in 1989, so there is a lack of significant coverage. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Tamil Nadu, France, and Trinidad and Tobago. jolielover♥talk 07:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article doesn't even explain why she's notable. This reads like somebody's history assignment on their ancestor. I found one more source [49] but overall, fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 07:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wispr Flow

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited sources are mostly blogs, PR-based articles, funding rounds, launch of products, all come under WP:CORPTRIV. Lacks direct and in-depth articles to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Zimeri

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

Unable to find WP:GNG level sources. Most of the cited sources are self-published or connected to the source, and the ones that aren't make only trivial mention of the subject. Subject also does not seem to qualify for any WP:NPROF criteria. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Albania, Kosovo, and North Macedonia. jolielover♥talk 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Bouabid

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. He did not finish sole Olympic event. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Tunisia. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Welsh

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

Subject lacks significant coverage by the sources in the article. Their name has been mentioned reasonably frequently in connection with discovering vulnerabilities, however not a single article spends any time discussing the subject aside from crediting them with the discovery. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for similar cases where security researchers were kept despite most coverage being in the context of vulnerabilities. For example, in the AfD for Jason Parker (security researcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)

(2024), the article was not deleted. Editors there noted that repeated attribution in independent, reliable sources across multiple incidents demonstrated sufficient notability, even if no single profile piece existed. This situation is comparable. AxiomGaming (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nothing if not consistent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Parker (security researcher) (2nd nomination). Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon has stated "I'm nothing if not consistent" (here) and previously "Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)

). In the second nomination for that article, he also argued: "discovering vulnerabilities, even if notable, does not make the discoverer notable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Parker_(security_researcher)_(2nd_nomination).

The reasoning in this discussion seems different from those earlier AfDs on similar subjects, raising concerns about consistency in applying WP:SIGCOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#significant_coverage. Per WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, each case should be judged neutrally on the basis of independent sources and coverage, not on an editor's changing stance across discussions. AxiomGaming (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the inclusion of this discussion in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions is directly supported by a reliable source. For example, TechCrunch explicitly confirmed my Maryland connection, stating: "and Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland." (TechCrunch, June 30, 2015) https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/. This demonstrates clear sourcing for the Maryland relevance of the article. AxiomGaming (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is significant coverage, not merely being mentioned in passing by a reliable source. Brandon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Coldwater, coverage of my work is significant - multiple reliable sources directly reported on vulnerabilities I discovered, not merely in passing. Several of these disclosures were substantial, involving adversaries potentially gaining access to the personal information of entire customer bases at companies such as MetroPCS, Verizon, and Charter. AxiomGaming (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates do not set precedent and no consensus outcomes with 2 participants are especially unpersuasive. Coverage of your work is not the threshold, there needs to be significant coverage of you. Your name and place of residence does not constitute a Wikipedia article. Brandon (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require that the subject be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent, reliable outlets (Vice, TechCrunch, Gizmodo, The Register, BuzzFeed, etc.) provided detailed reporting on vulnerabilities that directly attributed their discovery to the subject. This meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to WP:V claims beyond the discovery. Don't think this person counts for WP:BLP1E. Discovery used in a WP:UNDUE fashion with regards to notability. Nayyn (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage means more than a passing mention, but does not require the subject to be the sole focus of an article. In this case, multiple independent and reliable outlets directly attributed discoveries to me:

The Register: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit up until a patch was dropped."

https://www.theregister.com/2015/11/16/metropcs_patches_hole_that_opened_10_million_user_creds_to_plunder/

Vice: "Security researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh, who both work at secure payments firm Cinder, found the bug in mid-October."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nasty-bug-in-metropcs-website-left-personal-data-of-subscribers-open-to-hacker/

TechCrunch: "Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. They have previously discovered basic but dangerous vulnerabilities at PayPal."

https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160318225931/https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/security-tools/wall-of-fame-honorable-mention

Yahoo News: "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit…"

https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/2015-11-15-metropcs-site-exposed-subscriber-data.html

Fierce Wireless: "Report: MetroPCS customers' personal information had been vulnerable due to website security."

https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/report-metropcs-customers-personal-information-had-been-vulnerable-due-to-website-security

in addition to coverage in multiple independent reliable sources

The AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20181228020539/https://bugbounty.att.com/hof.php#archive

) explicitly lists Blake Welsh under the research group "Cinder." This confirms both individual recognition and organizational affiliation.
These are not trivial mentions they provide direct quotes, organizational context (Cinder), and secondary verification (e.g., TechCrunch on PayPal). This shows repeated, substantive coverage across multiple outlets, which meets the standard for significant coverage under WP:BIO. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: In my earlier comment I mistakenly presented the Yahoo News wording as a direct quote. To clarify, the article paraphrases that "Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh" found the vulnerabilities. AxiomGaming (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, WP:GNG is ultimately the core standard for biographical notability. It requires only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources-not that the subject be the exclusive focus. Here, the combination of TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, Fierce Wireless, Vice, fastcompany, BuzzFeed and industry recognition (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) clearly demonstrates repeated, non-trivial coverage.

In two separate AfDs regarding another cybersecurity researcher (Jason Parker), editor Sohom emphasized: "I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage in my opinion (imo)." This was stated more than once, reinforcing that such sourcing is sufficient for WP:GNG in this field.

That same reasoning applies here. Multiple independent, reliable outlets have provided in-depth reporting, explicit attribution, and contextual detail. Other cybersecurity biographies with weaker or equivalent sourcing have been considered to meet WP:GNG, and applying the same standard consistently, this article does as well.

Furthermore, WP:V appears to be covered, as the cited articles contain verifiable facts and attribution. In addition to multiple independent news outlets, industry organizations themselves (AT&T Bug Bounty Hall of Fame, PayPal Wall of Fame) have validated and listed me by name on their official websites. This provides independent verification alongside the press coverage, ensuring compliance with the verifiability requirement.

Additionally:

Per WP:RS, the outlets cited here TechCrunch, The Register, Vice, Yahoo News, and Buzzfeed, and Softpedia, PayPal and AT&T are all widely recognized as independent, mainstream, and reliable sources that regularly cover technology and cybersecurity. These publications have longstanding editorial oversight, are frequently cited across Wikipedia, and are routinely relied upon in existing articles about technology companies and cybersecurity professionals.
The fact that each of these outlets & companies themselves have Wikipedia entries further supports that the community has already evaluated them as notable, persistent, and generally reliable sources of news. If the community thought they were fundamentally unreliable, they likely wouldn’t be cited so widely, nor have standalone articles explaining their editorial roles and histories.

If coverage in these outlets were discounted, it would set an unusually high bar inconsistent with Wikipedia practice, since many comparable biographies of professionals in this field rely on the very same sources to establish notability. The use of these publications is therefore in line with WP:RS and with how Wikipedia has consistently treated reliable technology journalism & companies.

Given that these sources provided not just passing mentions but detailed coverage explicitly accrediting vulnerabilities and offering organizational/biographical detail, they meet both WP:RS and WP:GNG standards. AxiomGaming (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AxiomGaming, you're bludgeoning. Please step back and let other editors have some input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is AxiomGaming the subject of the article? Is that disclosed in this discussion? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AxiomGaming is the subject of the article. Full disclosure: I have a declared conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Blake Welsh, as noted on my profile. This will be my last comment on this AfD. AxiomGaming (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: See source assessment table. I looked through the sources and I did not find sources that cover the subject directly and in detail for significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/30/vulnerability-in-security-service-lifelock-could-have-exposed-logins-and-passwords/ Techcrunch]		short mention of subject: "Taylor, aka Cosmo The God, is chief information security officer of Cinder, and Welsh is a student at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. They have previously discovered basic but dangerous vulnerabilities at Paypal, Charter, and Verizon. Taylor wrote about the exploit for his blog."	✘ No
The Register		Mentions the subject, but does not describe subject directly and in detail. "Cinder researchers Eric Taylor and Blake Welsh say the vulnerabilities were simple to exploit up until a patch was dropped."	✘ No
Vice		Two facts: Welsh found the bug, and Welsh works at Cinder	✘ No
Yahoo News		Facts here about subject: Welsh found this bug and found similar bugs	✘ No
Buzzfeed		Fact about bug discovery and Welsh's educational affiliation	✘ No
Softpedia		Two sentences about Welsh as discoverer of this class of bugs. No direct and in-depth coverage of Welsh.	✘ No
PayPal	Paypal paid Welsh. Not independent.	Mentioned but no detail	✘ No
AT&T	AT&T paid Welsh. Not independent.	Mentioned but no detail	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mathias Yohannes

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lambe

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only references currently in the article are databases and all I could find elsewhere were some mentions in routine match coverage such as [[50]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Lanet

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. The only references currently are databases which provide zero credence to notability, and I was unable to find anything better elsewhere. It appears that the subject may have written a book at some point, as evidenced by [[51]], but I'm not seeing a WP:NAUTHOR pass here either. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lanet seems to have worked as a journalist after the Olympics [52], [53]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some field hockey coverage here [54] with a brief obituary "necrologie" near the middle of the page, under the "bloc-notes" section [55]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a search at the BNF (above), there isn't enough coverage found to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

AfDs for this article:

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

The 2017 AfD was snowed in favor of retaining the article. I believe this was incorrect. The subject fails ANYBIO. The subject has not received a well known honor nor has the person made a widely recognized contribution to the field. The claim to fame is basically “Muslim adult performer.” This performer post-dates Mia Khalifa’s hijab scene, so Nadia Ali is not any sort of “first,” in the field. Even if she were, what exactly is her contribution here? There were remarks in the first AfD that she was threatened and it got coverage. A woman was threatened online? Hardly a man bites dog situation. If one wants to argue ANYBIO, how was adult entertainment changed by her brief time in the industry? It was not. Even then, ANYBIO (which I maintain she does not meet) is merely a likelihood, not a guarantee. There is substantial overlap between ANYBIO and WP:ENT, so this might be a little redundant, BUT she did not star in many adult films and as I mention in why I believe the subject fails ANYBIO, her short-lived career did not have a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Even the sources themselves state she did a small number of scenes. WP:EVENT would not consider her notable for any of the scenes had they gone viral.

The other argument is WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is such: There are two Daily Beast interviews and a quote of her all written by the same author (an actual notable performer). For the purposes of GNG, this would be a single source only if those interviews are considered sufficiently independent of the subject. The other sources are also interviews and press releases.

In the first AfD, someone listed a bunch of sources as a rebuttal. The problem is some run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the repetitive natures of those that don’t run afoul make me question the intellectual independence and if such a list was confusing existence with notability. Mpen320 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. jolielover♥talk 02:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Islam. - E. Ux 14:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/actress-threatened-after-hijabi-porn-is-unveiled-907jtv92n6p and other articles including interviews seem to show she is notable indeed. ~~Redirect to Pornography in Pakistan, if not enough.~~ [Edited-Forget this stupid redirect idea, please]- E. Ux 14:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject meets WP:N and there are multiple references discussing her, including The New York Times, Daily Pakistan, and more.[56][57][58] Centralknights (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is an op-ed, the India Today article was provided by AtMigration (which, I believe, supplies articles to multiple websites), the Daily Pakistan article isn’t bylined and The Times article is inaccessible. How does this meet WP:N? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Jansatta and The Daily Beast.[59][60] Centralknights (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Jansatta article isn’t bylined and the Daily Beast piece is just an interview, with no consensus on its reliability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Open to changing my vote if someone brings better WP:THREE sources. Until then, the subject fails WP:GNG per my analysis of the sources mentioned above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning Keep with references 1-3 listed here, and articles in the Daily Beast with a couple of paragraphs about the subject like [61] (ProQuest 1813269656) and [62] (ProQuest 1780576122, part interview). This one [63] pasted as a link above from The Times is a summary of Daily Beast interviews (I think it should count). I'm seriously considering Mpen320's WP:ANYBIO point though. One could argue that being one of the first Muslim porn actresses might not be notable, but there is coverage of the subject, and the ANYBIO argument can be subjective. Nnev66 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have essentially repeated what the previous editors mentioned. Those sources are op-eds, syndicated news, no consensus on reliability and The Times is inaccessible. This is without even considering the fact that they are interviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm explaining why I'm leaning Keep, hence my summary of the references. I think it's important to have references under consideration for GNG have numbers (i.e. not be pasted as links or with descriptions) so it's easier for editors to discuss them. The following in my opinion contribute to WP:BASIC: 1, 2, 3, 6/7 (I'm counting these together as one reference), 8. Note 8, The Times reference, is accessible by me so perhaps trying opening it in a different browser. This reference's content is based on a Daily Beast interview (primary source) but since it is using the DB interview as a basis for its content it's secondary. Nnev66 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time, please upload or share an image of The Times reference as it is not accessible on my mobile or desktop even after trying with multiple browsers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "Actress threatened after hijabi porn is unveiled" and there is a picture of Ali with the caption "Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States". The article starts off with a couple of paragraphs about “hijabi porn”. Here is the content about the subject from the article:

Nadia Ali, one of its stars, said she was “doing porn as a Pakistani woman for the liberal movement, bringing women in a scarf or a head wrap to the camera. Now it’s no longer behind closed doors.” Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States, told The Daily Beast website that she was a practising Muslim and sought to avoid explicit references to Islam in the titles of her films. “I’ve been told, ‘you’re not a Muslim, you’re a disgrace to Pakistan, Pakistan won’t accept you,’ but I do come from a Middle Eastern background and I am Muslim, not the way my parents are, but by practice,” Ali said. “For me, it’s about the Pakistani culture, not the religion,” she said. “This year I plan to do a lot of girl on girl and solo scenes to show the world that Middle Eastern girls of Pakistani descent really do get horny.” Ali and Mia Khalifa, a Lebanese adult film actress, say they have received death threats after performing dressed in a hijab. Nnev66 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think this discussion might need a bit more time to consider whether sources provided are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Hariri

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference now is a database and all I could find were a few sentences of coverage at [[64]], which claims that the subject died in Vancouver, but I couldn't find anything else to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Iran. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iran at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Wrestling, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassen Chaktami

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

Declined prod. Eliminated in first bout of Olympics. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Tunisia. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These to me are enough to indicate that there is likely enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. [65][66][67][68] – Ike Lek (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Ike Lek. Svartner (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Platner

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

Oyster farmer and US Senate candidate. His initial campaign launch received a ton of media coverage, but that's not proof of enduring notability. If he loses the Senate race, will he still be getting this much media attention? Will people still be searching his name in 10 years? Previous discussions have mostly found that being a major-party Senate candidate doesn't automatically make someone notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hovde. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Curry for an example of a candidate who generated a ton of media coverage when he first announceed his campaign, but that coverage quickly dried up and his page was deleted. I'd support a redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article just over an hour ago and was easily able to populate it with well-sourced content from several full articles devoted entirely to the subject, from major sources like NBC News [69], Politico [70], The Boston Globe [71], and The Guardian [72]. This is not passing coverage but real, biographical content and analysis. Frankly I'm just getting started given the amount of significant coverage this figure is receiving. See also e.g. The New York Times [73], ABC News [74], The American Prospect [75], The Nation [76], as well as local news WGME [77] and Bangor Daily News [78]. Reference to the other AfD discussions in the nom appear to be WP:OTHERSTUFF rather than testament to a consensus on the enduring significance of U.S. senate candidates. Judging by core P&G alone, this figure clearly passes the threshold of WP:GNG, and the purpose of the encyclopedia is well served by compiling this biographical information, which our readers will be very reasonably expecting to find here. Note that per WP:POLITICIAN, an unelected candidate for political office ... can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article now has 12 sources, all significant coverage. Generalrelative (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a while back I did a small WP:BEFORE on the subject and found this coverage of the individual not relating to campaign: [79], [80]. Probably not enough but just making a note here Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect I created and draftify the attempt at an article. I agree he's not notable. This coverage will pass if he loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure a viral video is enough to show notability, sure he's cool now, but that doesn't give us notability as explained by the nom. Coverage is all rather recent, mostly around the campaign or the video. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominating this an hour after the stub was created is demolishing the house while it's still being built a wee bit. Keep for now, as the RS added since shows sigcov; if coverage isn't sustained, then put it up again in the future. In the meantime, I'm leaning WP:TOOSOONDEL. Nil🥝 03:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as suggested by the nom (which is common with many candidates for office). I'm not seeing any indication of military notability from the very sparse information about his service (many, many people did multiple tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq). Intothat darkness 14:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like some people view the fact that candidates for office are not inherently notable to mean that candidates for office can't be notable. Platner easily passes the WP:GNG with significant coverage in local and national outlets, and even the occasional international outlet (Jerusalem Post). Adding to the source list above, he's received in-depth coverage from Reuters, The New Republic, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, Maine Morning Star, and Portland Press Herald. Some of the sources even remark on the unusual amount of coverage for a candidate: "Who is Sen. Collins challenger Graham Platner and why is he everywhere right now?" (WBUR), "Maine oyster farmer’s bid to unseat Susan Collins immediately gains national attention" (Portland Press Herald). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Roberts (album)

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

No serious indication of notability in my WP:BEFORE search or the sources. Should probably redirect back to the artist given it is a self-titled album. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 04:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts: Falls short of WP:NALBUM – has minimal coverage, and didn't chart or receive certifications AFAICT. Support an {{R from album}} as an AtD. Nil🥝 04:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts - As a longtime metal history geek I can attest that this album often appears in listcicles of the worst album covers ever, but that is not the type of coverage needed here for notability. The AllMusic review (already cited) definitely helps but we need multiple perspectives and I can find nothing else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kane Roberts. My quick BEFORE search didn't found sufficient references containing significant coverage about the topic for standalone article. So redirect as per WP:ATD. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Leigh

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

Healthcare professional and congressional candidate. Don't see any argument for notability, be it based on her past positions or the news coverage she's received. I'd support a redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois#District 7. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a citation to a news article is accepted as proof of a candidate's viability. Given that this candidate's announcement was made only two weeks ago, and that a number of "what to watch for" election articles are expected to publish post-Labor Day, I'd recommend keeping the page live for now. If relevant updates to the article aren't made by end of September, removal would be more appropriate. Tomciav (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Nagovitsina

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

I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources PadoqueYT33 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sustained significant coverage beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Altenmann >talk 14:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collins (baseball)

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

This person doesn't meet the notability criteria, in part because he doesn't appear to have existed. The only "Collins" on the 1892 St. Louis Browns was Bill Collins. There is no player known only as "Collins" from the era. There is another player on the 1892 Browns whose first name isn't known ("Leonard") but his stats don't jibe with this "Collins" guy's stats. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was in fact Bill Collins (catcher), who played September 12, 1892. His article was updated well after this article was created, so this one is now obsolete. Wizardman 00:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, and not a viable redirect name now that we know his full name. Meters (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valuable content to preserve and not a viable redirect to anything. Geschichte (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a much better article on the same person, and this isn't a viable redirect. Iminscotland (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]