Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Central Asia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

Points of interest related to Asia on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Purge page cache

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Asia

Battle of Diyarbakır (1511)

Battle of Diyarbakır (1511) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:RS Iranian112 (talk) 16:40, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. I would like to note that the sources that are cited in the article fail WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N. S. Raju

N. S. Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, not in coverage, a big article stands on only two sources, looks like unsourced article. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Asia, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreeing with the nominator. Taabii (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Googling him doesn’t bring up anything that looks notable.Gedaali (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Despite the nominator being a sockpuppet, the article appears to have been generated by LLM, is based on only two sources, and has no parallel on te.wiki. To make matters worse, there is a namesake professor of microbiology at the University of Mysore. Svartner (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muttum Viliyum

Muttum Viliyum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable with single source. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Islam, Asia, India, and Kerala. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:The subject is a dying traditional Muslim orchestral art form of Kerala with clear cultural and historical significance. Agree to the fact there are lack of reliable online sources. But offline resources such as publications from the Kerala Folklore Academy, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi, and works by scholars like M. V. Vishnu Namboothiri further document and study such regional folk tradition. I cannot provide any links for that here since it is only available offline. Meets GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I could find no Malayam Wikipedia article for what Google Translate says are the Malayam translations of "Muttum Viliyum" (ml:മുട്ടും വിളിയും) and its alternate name, "Cheenimuttu" (ml:ചീനിമുട്ട്). That Wikipedia has 87,169 articles so I would have expected to find something if this art is very notable (and if I was searching the Malayam Wikipedia correctly). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sompura Brahmin

Sompura Brahmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, unsourced, stands on single source which is unreliable. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Religion, Hinduism, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis is the source unreliable? Jahaza (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see Caste Sources, thank you. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: On looking at the condition of the article which is irreparable. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, but the remaining "delete" !vote may allow this discussion to continue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are part of a series of disruptive AFD nominations by a blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wants to seriously pursue this but I don't think we should be rewarding this behavior by keeping these AFDs going per the spirt of WP:SKCRIT. I also note that there are issues with unrecognized source deprecation. An essay hosted in user space is questionable. We would need something clearly with community backing; preferably an RS noticeboard ruling to definitively say the source is unreliable. Given the actions of the blocked editor here, I am not willing to accept that the article is unverified or in an "irreparable" state.4meter4 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an extant delete !vote from a user in good standing, so can't be speedy kept at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madval

Madval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, not in coverage, stands on unreliable single source. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Hinduism, Asia, India, Goa, and Maharashtra. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- to Dhobi seems a possible ATD if more sources can associate these two terms more definitely, though hits are scarce specifically about the subject asides from repeat like articles quoting Wikipedia, my searches so far seems to turn up more for the Dhobi s , found this to support the association/relevance between the two terms. If more sources like this can be found, please do add here to help strengthen this vote.Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, its sourcing, or the proposed redirect. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I have updated the article with information from the Konkani Encyclopaedia. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guru (community)

Guru (community) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, stands on unreliable sources, Fails GNG, First source does not about Guru community. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Religion, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis is the source unreliable? Jahaza (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see CasteSources, thank you Dirty Dolphish (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, beyond noting that concerns about the reliance on potential non-RS have been tagged in the article since 2020. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are part of a series of disruptive AFD nominations by a blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wants to seriously pursue this but I don't think we should be rewarding this behavior by keeping these AFDs going per the spirt of WP:SKCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an extant delete !vote from a user in good standing, so can't be speedy kept at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4 Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Khan Gakhar

Sarang Khan Gakhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail in significant coverage. Only one reference exists in which just a casual mention was found. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Asia, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If a Wikipedia article contains just a single source, or in certain instances is entirely without sources, it does not necessarily imply that the subject lacks notability (particularly when it is not a BLP situation). Prior to proposing the article for AFD, we ought to investigate coverage regarding the subject ourselves, further details can be found at WP:BEFORE. Regarding this specific subject, it is highly notable. Significant references can even be located with a straightforward search on Google Books. Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you’ve provided are from 100 plus years ago. Per WP:RAJ we cannot use such sources for this topic. There are no modern academic sources which seem to discuss this individual in detail hence the article likely fails notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Ixudi, If you have carefully read Sitush’s essay, you will find that all these points have been written specifically in relation to the caste system in India. They do not concern other matters. This means that the references I have presented are considered unreliable only with regard to the caste system in India (according to Sitush's essay). For other subjects, they remain reliable. Best Baqi:) (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A 100 plus year old text written by a non-historian will NEVER be reliable for the purposes of editing an history-related article. Lepel Griffin, the author of the text you cited, was NOT a historian or a trained academic but an administrator. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).

  Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the subject of the article lacks significant coverage in modern academic sources. Unable to establish notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be a lot of histories, even contemporary ones by historians, covering him in google books. Note that he is the Gakhar chief "Sarang Khan" and many more references come up under the name Sarang Khan without the Gakhar at the end. Just take a look at first seven pages of hits searching "Sarang Khan" Gakhar. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage for meeting GNG. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, but with opinions expressed by legitimate editors for both "keep" and "delete" I don't think this will stop the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per the sources NYC Guru (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article relies on single source and lacks significant coverage. Hitesh Thakrani (talk)

Asian Hall of Fame

Asian Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

Yangwei Linghua

Yangwei Linghua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn's have enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which is needed to show notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Entertainment, Asia, and China. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nearly all coverage of the subject is in Chinese. She's the lead singer for Phoenix Legend, which is a very popular musical duo in China and has been for over twenty years now. You can read an interview here that talks about them and their career, and there's a few articles on Sina that talks about them as well. As for Linghua herself, searching her name in Chinese pulls up hundreds of articles

I will also try to do some work on the article when I get the chance. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, Linghua was a main competitor on Riding the Wind 2025 [zh] (the sixth season of a popular music competition show on Mango TV) And while not the most reliable source, Baidu Baike has a nice list of every single released by Linghua as a solo artist, which you can find sources for their existance elsewhere. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. The sources found by Microplastic Consumer (talk · contribs). Thank you!
  2. Fan, Wenting 范文婷 (2015-11-14). "玲花新歌太洗脑！1岁女儿都会唱了" [Linghua's new song is so catchy! Even her 1-year-old daughter can sing it] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "凤凰传奇组合的杨魏玲花和曾毅，两人“分道扬镳”各寻搭档，并同时出了新歌。尤其，玲花的新歌《出去玩》由张惠妹的御用创作人阿怪监制，与歌手曹格、新秀SNH48李艺彤合作，歌曲十分洗脑，玲花称连她一岁四个月的女儿都会唱了！ ... 没了曾毅的伴唱，玲花选择强强联合，与创作型歌手曹格结成新搭档，并与新秀SNH48李艺彤一起。在侗寨采风过程中，收获快乐和笑声，甚至产生再来旅行玩耍的想法，于是创作新歌《出去玩》，该歌旋律明快，歌词简单明了直中人心，"

     From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend's Yang Wei Linghua and Zeng Yi have parted ways, each pursuing their own partners and releasing new music. Linghua's new song, "Go Out and Play," is especially catchy, produced by A-Mei's regular songwriter, Aguai, and features singer Gary Chaw and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. Linghua claims even her one-year-four-month-old daughter can sing it! ... Without Zeng Yi's backing vocals, Linghua chose to join forces, forming a new partnership with singer-songwriter Gary Cao and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. The field trip to the Dong village brought joy and laughter, and even inspired her to travel and play again. This led to the creation of a new song, "Go Out and Play." The song boasts a bright melody and simple, clear lyrics that hit home."

  3. Li, Hsin-tung 李鋅銅 (2014-06-25). "力挺陸大媽 鳳凰傳奇嗆美媒 廣場舞被批喧鬧 玲花指惹火大媽後果嚴重" [Standing up for Chinese 'dama': Phoenix Legend fires back at U.S. media. Square dancing criticized as noisy, Linghua warns that angering the 'dama' has serious consequences]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "「鳳凰傳奇」主唱玲花覺得自己是「躺著也中槍」，超級不爽，於是在22日發布的微博中調侃《華爾街日報》，並力挺中國大媽。... 她還追溯八國聯軍的歷史，說美國大兵曾經在中國北京搶東西，到現在東西還沒還呢，這不僅僅是擾民行為， ... 「鳳凰傳奇」是大陸知名的男女二人音樂組合，成員包括女聲主唱楊魏玲花和男聲和聲、說唱曾毅。被認為是2005年後大陸較具影響力的歌手組合之一，出道以來共發行5張原創專輯。"

     From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend lead singer Ling Hua felt incredibly upset, feeling like she was being "shot in the face even when lying down." She mocked the Wall Street Journal in a Weibo post on the 22nd and offered her support for the Chinese dama. ... She also traced the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance, saying that American soldiers once looted items in Beijing, China, and still haven't returned them. This isn't just a nuisance. ... Phoenix Legend is a well-known mainland Chinese duo, consisting of lead vocalist Yang Wei Linghua and backing vocalist and rapper Zeng Yi. Considered one of the most influential singing groups in mainland China since 2005, they have released five original albums since their debut."

  4. Peng, Lizhao 彭立昭 (2012-04-29). "杨魏玲花"凤凰传奇"的爱情传奇" [The Romantic Story of Yangwei Linghua from Phoenix Legend]. People [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "杨魏玲花是著名歌唱组合“凤凰传奇”的主唱，来自大草原的她声音高亢激昂，穿透力极强，在内地歌坛掀起了一轮又一轮的狂潮。玲花的丈夫徐明朝是音乐主编、著名乐评家和词曲作家，两人从相识的第一天起，就结下了不解之缘，2011年3月，他们携手走入婚姻殿堂。他们的爱情就像玲花在歌里唱的那样：... 就在玲花对进军春晚充满了希望时，一件意想不到的事情发生了：有人爆料《月亮之上》涉嫌抄袭英国歌曲《All Rise》……玲花觉得很委屈，她知道这是一首明明白白的原创歌曲，怎么就成了抄袭作品呢？为了弄清楚事情真相，春晚专家组对《月亮之上》与《AllRise》进行了全方位的鉴定，最终认为并不构成抄袭。"

     From Google Translate: "Yang Wei Linghua is the lead singer of the renowned singing group "Phoenix Legend." Hailing from the prairie, her voice is soaring, passionate, and penetrating, creating waves of sensations on the mainland music scene. Linghua's husband, Xu Mingchao, is a music editor, renowned critic, and songwriter. From the first day they met, they bonded, marrying in March 2011. Their love is just like what Linghua sings about in her song: ... Just when Linghua was full of hope for a spot on the Spring Festival Gala, something unexpected happened: someone reported that "Above the Moon" was suspected of plagiarizing the British song "All Rise." Linghua felt deeply wronged. She knew it was a clearly original song, so how could it be considered a copy? To clarify the matter, the Spring Festival Gala expert panel conducted a comprehensive evaluation of both "Above the Moon" and "All Rise" and ultimately determined that they did not constitute plagiarism."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yangwei Linghua (simplified Chinese: 杨魏玲花; traditional Chinese: 楊魏玲花; pinyin: Yángwèi Línghuā; Mongolian: Үүлэнхуар Üülenkhuar) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phoenix Legend. The voters above have uncovered sources that are reliable but most are actually about Phoenix Legend, indicating that Yangwei Linghua has achieved little independently outside the group, with the exeption of one solo song after they split in 2017. I can find nothing about any further solo activities, but I am probably restrained by language issues so that's why I recommend redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Anything known about her biography, including her solo work, can be added to the group's article, which by the way is badly out-of-date. This same argument could possibly apply to her groupmate Zeng Yi (singer) if anyone wants to inspect his article for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking through some sources, Zheng Yi had some business ventures in China and has been attracting controversy lately (alongside a larger solo career), if anything, I would say he is likely the more notable of the two. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phoenix Legend per WP:ATD. Not independently notable from the band. The sources are not about her predominantly but about that group.4meter4 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided here between editors advocating Keeping it and those arguing for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Proposed deletions

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

Nazia Akhter Juthi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nazia Akhter Juthi
• Articles for deletion/Nazia Akhter Juthi (2nd nomination)

Nazia Akhter Juthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO. Received the National Sports Awards by the Bangladesh government.4meter4 (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @4meter4 even if the sources don't have significant coverage of her? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Asif Adnan

Asif Adnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:RELPEOPLE, subject does not appear to be notable. Coverage currently available is almost entirely limited to allegations of militancy/extremism, based on law enforcement press briefings. Such coverage alone does not seem sufficient to demonstrate significant, independent, and reliable sourcing required as per WP:GNG. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no significant in-depth coverage about the subject, and no evidence of notability. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This runs afoul of WP:CRIME; not meeting any of the criteria for perpetrators. There's nothing here to suggest notability beyond alleged criminal allegations of terrorist activity, and that is insufficient for notability based on our guidelines for criminal perpetrators.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avraal Sahir

Avraal Sahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Connected sources/press releases which are full of puffery, failing to demonstrate independent notability of the subject. No source for the babisas award and I am not sure whether winning this award makes the subject notable for Wikipedia or not. The AfC had been declined twice before the writer moved the page to mainspace themselves. Rht bd (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State of Bengal

State of Bengal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 1,500+ word entry about him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO.[1] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Worldbruce. Mccapra (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist seems to be notable enough in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability. Worldbruce's comment on the artist being in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is also a strong argument. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per point 3 of WP:ANYBIO. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the ODNB entry by itself would be enough to establish notability, and his obituary in The Independent (ref [2],[6]) qualifies as significant coverage. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deeder Zaman

Deeder Zaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Sources used are closely associated and some are trivial mentions. Rht bd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Fairly notable for his work with the Asian Dub Foundation and political activism [2]. Svartner (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Khayyam

Amina Khayyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Rahman

Lucy Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem
• Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Naila Nayem (5th nomination)

Naila Nayem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable works to be mentioned in significant independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Fashion, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lemis

Lemis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify – so far no SIGCOV in my searches so far, did check in to its other language available, unsure if any of these are SIGCOV as not as familiar in that language's local news, however based on a 1st impressions seems to stil not be enough to suggest notability, to be fair the brief websearch does have a lot of hits on the subject, so not opposed to drafitify as possible ATD.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several notable news articles (1, 2, 3, 4, ) justify the notability. --Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Article 2, 3, and 4 contain the same information of publishing of a new music on Youtube, full of puffery and qoutation of the artist indicating these are paid news or press releases. The Thikana news contains different story but still promoting the subject. Clearly, none of these are independent of the subject, hence unreliable and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. Rht bd (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Ansar with Khansar

Suzana Ansar with Khansar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent reliable in-depth coverage. Rht bd (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Suzana Ansar; Not independently notable per WP:GNG nor WP:NSONG. λ NegativeMP1 23:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Suzana Ansar#Discography: Assuming her main article survives it's AFD, redirect. Struggled to find any sigcov for the album alone. Nil🥝 11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Ansar

Suzana Ansar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No in depth coverage in independent reliable source. Sources used in the article are closely associated with the subject and some are trivial mentions. Rht bd (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several news articles and articles in many wiki languages. It seems User:Rht bd selected several female Bangladeshi musicians to nominate Afd with the same reasons ("no significant coverage" or "no independent coverage"). Although all of them have proper sources. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which reference of the article at present do you think is reliable, significant and independent in nature that makes the subject notable for Wikipedia? Rht bd (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shusmita Anis

Shusmita Anis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent source. Rht bd (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srabonti Narmeen Ali

Srabonti Narmeen Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent source. Rht bd (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairooj Maliha

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Fairooj Maliha
• Articles for deletion/Fairooj Maliha (2nd nomination)

Fairooj Maliha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant work other than being champion of a reality show. Got coverage for only one event. WP:1E. Rht bd (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 16:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubayyat Jahan

Rubayyat Jahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreliable promotional sources, probably paid or press releases. No significant independent coverage. Rht bd (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, News media, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Islah Abdur-Rahman

Islah Abdur-Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very poor non-independent sources failing to establish notability. Rht bd (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am looking for sources, and will add them as I find them. I note that he won the Best Video Channel award at the 2019 Asian Media Awards for the Corner Shop Show. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Destinyokhiria 💬 21:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no substance to this Delete vote so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's very much borderline, as the subject appears to have received a decent amount of coverage after being arrested on Hajj in Saudi Arabia for saying a pro-Palestine prayer, see here, but it appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E failure as that's all I could find in reliable sources. His acting and such appears to have only been covered in extremely local blogs/papers without evidence of strong editorial standards such as this, alongside a couple of primary-source interviews already in the article. On the whole I'd say he fails GNG by a whisker. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameem Akhtar

Shameem Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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 [3], [4], [5]. Akhtar also received the Shilpakala Padak award in 2020 [6] - 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]

Rina Brown

Rina Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable film. Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Rht bd (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [edited See below].Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 2017: a reasonable alternative to deletion, the standard one for released films with notable cast and verifiable information. The more standard target would be the director but her page has also been taken to Afd. - E. Ux 18:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eva_UX. Merge into List of Bangladeshi films of 2017. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you consider a merge of Rina Brown into the director's article? It would not be unprecedented. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book Ethical Encounters: Transnational Feminism, Human Rights, and War Cinema in Bangladesh (Elora Halim Chowdhury, Temple University Press, 2022) [7] ) begins with a description and analysis of this film, and there is further discussion of it later in the book. In two other books (Women's Transborder Cinema: Authorship, Stardom, and Filmic Labor in South Asia, University of Illinois Press, 2024 [8] and Bangladesh in Anglophone and Vernacular Literature: Cultural Imaginings of a Postcolonial Nation, Taylor & Francis, 2025 [9], the authors refer to the film and Chowdhury's analysis of it. The latter has a 6 line description of the film. There are also other articles about the film here [10] and here [11]. I have not yet searched using the Bangla form of the film's name, so there may well be more sources in Bangla. However, I think the fact that 3 scholarly books in English describe and analyse the film shows that it is indeed notable. The sources could be added to the article to provide more information about the theme, plot and characters, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 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) 16:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

●changing to Keep. per RebeccaGreen. Thank you!--- E. Ux 09:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources listed above appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per RebeccaGreen. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singia Junction railway station

Singia Junction railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

• 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]

Brunei

Cambodia

China

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

Nahida (Genshin Impact) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Singapore. jolielover♥talk 10:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrequited Love

Unrequited Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This series may be not have enough notability to be included here, there's only a reference, no awards, searching google also give nearly no results. -Lemonaka 06:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Lemonaka 06:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Zhang, Xiaoqi 张晓琪, ed. (2018-12-06). "电视剧《暗恋·橘生淮南》开机 胡冰卿饰洛枳圆校园梦" [TV Drama 'Unrequited Love: Orange Born in Huainan' Begins Filming. Hu Bingqing Plays Luo Zhi, Fulfilling a Campus Dream] (in Chinese). China Media Group. Archived from the original on 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "青春校园情感成长剧《暗恋·橘生淮南》近日在厦门正式开机。该剧根据八月长安同名人气小说改编，新锐导演李木戈执导，新生代演员胡一天、胡冰卿领衔主演，主要讲述洛枳与盛淮南长达十五年从暗恋到相恋的青春成长故事。"

     From Google Translate: "The youth campus coming-of-age drama "Unrequited Love in the South" recently officially began filming in Xiamen. Adapted from the popular novel of the same name by August Changan, the series is directed by emerging director Li Muge and stars rising generation actors Hu Yitian and Hu Bingqing. The series tells the story of Luo Zhi and Sheng Huainan, a young woman whose secret crush develops into a romantic relationship, spanning fifteen years."

  2. "《暗恋橘生淮南》：作者亲自操刀，也不能保证改编可靠" [Unrequited Love: Orange Born in Huainan: Even with the Author Personally Involved, a Faithful Adaptation Isn't Guaranteed]. The Paper (in Chinese). 2019-06-11. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "网剧版《暗恋橘生淮南》早在2017年就拍摄完成了，算是一部积压剧。它的整体制作气质，也充斥着一股浓浓的“积压”的味道，制作粗糙、妆容夸张、滤镜太厚、服化道不接地气。食之无味，弃之也不可惜。"

     From Google Translate: "The web series version of "Unrequited Love in the South" was completed as early as 2017, making it a backlog. Its overall production quality is replete with a strong sense of backlog, with crude production, exaggerated makeup, overly thick filters, and unrealistic costumes and props. It's a tasteless drama, but it's worth discarding."

  3. "导演质疑豆瓣评分，胡一天版《暗恋·橘生淮南》为何口碑崩塌？" [Director Questions Douban Rating: Why Did Hu Yitian's Version of Unrequited Love Suffer a Reputation Collapse?]. Jiemian News (in Chinese). 2021-01-31. Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "这版《橘生淮南》，是继去年企鹅影视领衔出品，八月长安亲自担任编剧，朱颜曼滋、赵顺然两位新人演员领衔主演的“第二版本”。相比起前者，这版无论是在制作规格、还是演员阵容上，都有了更为明显的提升。"

     From Google Translate: "This version of "Oranges Born in Huainan" follows last year's Penguin Pictures production, written by August Changan himself, and starring newcomers Zhu Yanmanzi and Zhao Shunran. Compared to the original, this version boasts significantly improved production standards and cast."

  4. Luo, Pan 罗攀 (2021-01-22). "《暗恋橘生淮南》开播 多方位青春情感剧引共鸣" [Unrequited Love Premieres: Multi-Dimensional Youth Romance Resonates with Viewers]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "《暗恋橘生淮南》是一部“多酸涩、高甜、适度虐”的青春剧集。该剧以“暗恋”角度切入，在描写男女主甜涩互动的同时，也塑造了一批生动活泼年轻群像。剧中没有“功能性”极强的脸谱化角色，男主角盛淮南作为“全能学霸”少年感十足，女主角洛枳则聪慧淡然，又异常坚定。"

     From Google Translate: ""Unrequited Love" is a youth drama with a touch of bittersweetness and a touch of cruelty. The series explores the story of a secret love, depicting the sweet and bitter interactions between the male and female protagonists while also creating a vibrant and lively cast of young characters. The series lacks overly functional, stereotypical characters. The male protagonist, Sheng Huainan, exudes a youthful aura as a versatile academic, while the female protagonist, Luo Zhi, is intelligent, calm, and remarkably determined."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Unrequited Love (simplified Chinese: 暗恋·橘生淮南; traditional Chinese: 暗戀·橘生淮南) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources identified by Cunard show notability. Thank you. - E. Ux 20:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QQLive

QQLive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and China. jolielover♥talk 09:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Feng, Liju; Yang, Jie; Zhou, Wenli (November 2009). "Research on active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICNIDC.2009.5360863.

     The abstract notes: "Based on the analysis of QQLive protocol, an active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system was presented by the in-depth study of characteristic message and characteristic payload in the communication process of QQLive. The system acquires the channel list and program information, at the same time monitors the viewing user information by forging the client to send message to the server. Theoretical analysis and experiments demonstrate that the active monitoring based method has higher controllability and accuracy in comparison with the passive monitoring based method. The active monitoring based real-time information acquisition system provides an important data foundation to the content detection and user behavior analysis of P2P streaming media."

     The aritcle notes: "QQLive is large-scale video broadcast software developed by Tencent. It uses advanced P2P streaming media playing technology, the more users the more fluent playing and more stable. ... The communication process of QQLive will be described in detail, which has provided an important basis for the real-time information acquisition system design."

  2. Yang, Jie; Li, Yin-zhou; Dong, Chao; Ma, Zheng; Cheng, Gang (October 2012). "The impact of typical applications on network traffic". The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications. 19: 98–103.

     The article notes: "Many researches showed that the usage of P2P applications is growing dramatically and typical P2P streaming applications such as PPLive, PPStream, and QQLive become very popular. ... QQLive (a commercial video-streaming application that is delivered through P2P) ... PPStream and QQLive belong to P2PStream. ... So we can know that HTTP, PPStream, HTTPFlash, QQLive and Thunder play an important role in network traffic. ... QQLive has the lowest correlation coefficient both on Thursday and Sunday, and the values are 0.991 and 0.986, which remain considerably high. "

  3. Wang, Jingqun 王敬群; Yang, Wang 杨望; Ding, Wei 丁伟 (2010). "部分应用软件使用UDP协议调查" [Investigation on the Use of the UDP Protocol by some Application Software] (PDF). 第十二届海峡两岸信息（资讯）技术（CSIT2010） [The 12th Cross-Strait Information Technology Conference (CSIT2010)] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The article notes: "QQLive:QQLive 是一款由腾讯开发的网络电视软件。对抓包结果分析可知，QQLive 可以同时兼容TCP 和UDP 方式，但以UDP 协议主。软件启动后，UDP 较少（低于5%），正式播放后，UDP 逐渐增多，最终所占比率大于 80%，其中包含使用 UDP 封装的QICQ，STUN 应用层协议和没有应用层的UDP协议。图6为其中的一次抓包结果。"

     From Google Translate: "QQLive: QQLive is an online TV application developed by Tencent. Analysis of packet capture results shows that QQLive is compatible with both TCP and UDP, but primarily uses UDP. After the software is launched, UDP traffic is relatively low (less than 5%). After live streaming, UDP traffic gradually increases, ultimately exceeding 80%. This includes QICQ using UDP encapsulation, the STUN application layer protocol, and UDP without an application layer. Figure 6 shows the results of one such packet capture."

  4. Zhang, Renfei; He, Side; Jia, Yanyan; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Leilei (2012-04-06). "Traffic Analysis of Popular Peer-to-Peer IPTV VoD Systems". ICEICE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering. Vol. 3. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 958–962. Retrieved 2025-08-24.

     The abstract notes: "In order to gain insights to the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics of the VoD systems of the four most popular P2P IPTV, namely PPTV, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live, this paper develops and deploys a passive network measurement with a sniffer tool in the experiment test bed designed, then analyses the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics. The key findings include: 1) PPTV uses TCP protocol with port 80 to send the video streaming, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live use UDP protocol with Non-well-known port to send and receive the video traffic, 2) The download rate of PPTV, PP Stream and Kankan is periodic, QQ live does not show any obvious pattern, 3) CCDF of the download-peers lifetime of PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live follow a Weibull distribution."

  5. Wang, Wenxian; Chen, Xingshu; Wang, Haizhou; Zhang, Qi; Wang, Cheng (2014-03-19). "Measurement and Analysis of P2P IPTV Program Resource". The Scientific World Journal. Vol. 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/101702. ProQuest 1561736104.

     The article notes: "PPTV and QQLive only offer 6-level popularity. Thus, we must normalize the number of viewers according to the number of online viewers of various IPTV applications. In June 2010, the maximum viewers of PPStream, UUSee, PPTV, and QQLive are about 20.0, 2.0, 11.0, and 6.6 million, respectively. ... While hierarchy depth distribution of QQLive is quite different from that of other applications, its 4-hierarchy programs account for 57.22%. Thus, its programs are prone to used short name."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of protected areas of China

List of protected areas of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list is one of the largest pages we have and it's 100% uncited. I couldn't even check how many bytes it was with the page size tool because it crashed my browser. Usually with pages like this I would do some work on it and remove unreferenced material, but this is such a massive page (and topic) that I feel like the page should just be nuked per WP:TNT. If someone wants to actually make a good list about this topic, it would genuinely be more helpful to start from scratch than to try to salvage this list. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and China. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the entire page's contents were duplicated in November. I just deleted that so the size should be more manageable, now at 296k bytes. I share your concern about the lack of sources but I think this is still a good starting point and starting from scratch would certainly not be easier. It may be best to split a section to List of national nature reserves of China and the first section to List of national parks of China. Unfortunately I'm not finding many sources in English but I made a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China for assistance. Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I looked at Google translations of the Chinese versions of List of national nature reserves of China (zh:中华人民共和国国家级自然保护区列表) and List of national parks of China (zh:中华人民共和国国家公园). I note that the Chinese-language nature reserve article states there are 473 at the national level and over 12,000 at all levels. These list articles may provide some references if needed for any sublists if that's the direction folks take. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Draftify: According to this 2024 government announcement, China has more than 11,000 natural protected areas. Even dividing into articles for its 22 provinces, this is still going to be a big list. However, there is at least one scholarly secondary source on the topic, including: Binbin V. Li and Stuart L. Pimm. "How China expanded its protected areas to conserve biodiversity". Current Biology, vol. 30, no. 22 (2020): R1334-R1340. ISSN 0960-9822 doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.09.025. Rublamb (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We do have similar lists for most countries. ZH wiki at a glance seems to split the lists by type of park (ex. national, wetland, national forest...), so that would be an option to resolve the sizing issues. Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US–China strategic engagement

US–China strategic engagement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In addition to being highly essay-like, non-encyclopedic in tone, and lacking WP:RS, it could be considered a WP:POVFORK of China–United States relations. Amigao (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

007 working hour system

007 working hour system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I think there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support mentioning the 007 working hour system on Wikipedia. But there probably is insufficient coverage to support a standalone article as the sources I found largely provide passing mentions of the subject. The 007 working hour system has been called "an exaggeration" (Cheuk 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCheuk2021 (help)), "a joke" (Dai & Tao 2019 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaiTao2019 (help)), and a way for "mocking the system" (Mukherjee 2025 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMukherjee2025 (help)). The 007 working hour system usually is discussed alongside the 996 working hour system. Possible merge targets are 996 working hour system and Labor relations in China. Here are sources I found about the subject:
  1. English-language sources:
     1. Pak, Jennifer (2025-08-14). "Work weeks are getting more intense for AI startups. As the AI arms race heats up, the U.S. and China are leaning into longer work weeks. Marketplace's Jennifer Pak takes us behind the scenes of China's '007' work schedule". Marketplace. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        This is a 26-minute video. The article notes: "The new tech trend is the “007” workweek, which does not look like the lifestyle of an international Playboy spy at all. It entails working midnight to midnight, seven days a week — no martinis involved. Marketplace’s China correspondent Jennifer Pak gave us a behind-the-scenes look at the “007” work schedule."

     2. Dai, Sarah; Tao, Li (2019-01-29). "China's work ethic stretches beyond '996' as tech companies feel the impact of slowdown". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-04. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "For Ding, the Shenzhen tech worker, it may not be that bad after all. “Though I feel mentally and physically tired all the time, we are paid better than most others in the industry, so we don’t deserve to complain about longer working hours,” he says. He may have spoken too soon. A joke circulating on Chinese social media refers to a new work ethic – “007”, that is “00.00am to 00.00pm”, seven days a week."

     3. Su, Xiaobo (2024). Unhomely Life: Modernity, Mobilities and the Making of Home in China. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-394-17630-4. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The grinding 9-9-6 work culture is widely used in some of China's most prestigious IT corporations. To borrow the words of Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba (one of China's largest IT corporations), this culture represents a fortune bestowed on those who work hard and earn high salaries. The condition in some corporations is even worse, due to a new work ethic coded as 007, which means working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week, and resting only on rota-tions. Both work cultures overtly defy the Labor Law enacted in 1995."

     4. "China's youth are rebelling against long hours". The Economist. 2024-05-16. Archived from the original on 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Attitudes began to slowly change in 2019 after Jack Ma, a co-founder of Alibaba, celebrated the “blessing” of what he called the “996” work week—working from 9am to 9pm, six days a week. That set off a wave of online griping. Before long workers began to speak of “007” shifts—24 hours a day, seven days a week."

     5. Master, Farah; Yu, Sophie (2025-04-08). "In China, whispers of change as some companies tell staff to work less". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2025-07-24. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Recent years have even seen the emergence of a new term "007", referring to being either at work or on call all day every day."

     6. Mukherjee, Vasudha (2025-06-04). "No more 70-hour work weeks? China clamps down on 996 overtime culture". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "Workers began mocking the system with phrases like “007”—working all day, every day."

  2. Chinese-language sources:
     1. Cheuk, Pak-on 卓柏安 (2021-05-31). "996、886、715、007｜內地瘋傳4組數字　工作制背後加班加到入ICU" [996, 886, 715, 007: Four Viral Work Schedules in Mainland China. Overtime So Extreme It Sends Workers to the ICU]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes "至於最後的007實在太過誇張，相信並非真實存生的工時制度，現實上亦都無法實現。007更多是指向一些工作幾乎需要全天候待命，甚至是極度熱愛工作及銷售經紀類工作從業員對自己工作狀態的形容，007亦形容一些十分「困身」、壓力大、需要長時間跟進的工作。"

        From Google Translate: "As for the final 007, it's an exaggeration. It's believed to not be a real-world working schedule and is unrealistic. 007 more often refers to jobs that require near-round-the-clock availability, even for those who are extremely passionate about their work, such as sales agents. 007 also describes jobs that are extremely demanding, stressful, and require long hours of follow-up."

     2. Ke, Jinding 柯金定, ed. (2019-04-16). "007公司是什么梗 007工作制具体规定是什么" [What's the Deal with '007 Companies'? What Are the Specific Rules of the 007 Work System?]. Minnan Net (in Chinese). Fujian Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "007公司是什么梗一种比996更狠的弹性工作制。从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。俗称24小时"

        From Google Translate: "What is the 007 company? A more flexible working system than 996. From midnight to midnight, 7 days a week without rest. Commonly known as 24 hours."

     3. Miss Lychee 荔枝小姐 (2021-01-20). Wu, Ling-chen 吳玲臻; Lin, Hsin-ping 林欣蘋 (eds.). "23 歲女孩過勞致死、「007」工時成常態——中國互聯網產業「用命換錢」的血汗紀實" [23-Year-Old Woman Dies from Overwork, 007 Becomes the Norm. How China's Tech Industry Turns Human Lives into Profit]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-07-22. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "我與還在互聯網打拚的朋友求證，對方表示 007 的狀況確實已經相當普遍，有人平均下班時間是半夜 2-3 點，早上 10 點前要抵達公司，而且週末跟國定假日幾乎都沒得休息。"

        From Google Translate: "I checked with a friend who's still working in the internet industry, and he said the "007" situation is indeed quite common. Some people leave work at an average of 2-3 a.m., arrive at the office by 10 a.m., and barely get any time off on weekends or national holidays."

     4. Liu, Yuanju 刘远举 (2021-09-02). Zhu, Xuesen 朱学森 (ed.). "新京智库："996、007"时代要结束了 背后有这些原因" [Beijing News Think Tank: The Era of '996' and '007' Is Coming to an End. Here's Why]. Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Sina Corporation.

        The article notes: "近日，人社部和最高法联合发布超时加班劳动人事争议典型案例，为企业“划红线”，这意味着明确“996”和“007”工作制度是违法的。... 而所谓“007”，则是指从0点到0点，一周7天不休息。"

        From Google Translate: "Recently, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People's Court jointly released typical cases of labor and personnel disputes involving excessive overtime work, drawing a red line for companies. This means that the "996" and "007" work systems are illegal. ... The so-called "007" refers to working from midnight to midnight, seven days a week without a break."

     5. "科企行3組數字制 「007」最苛刻" [Tech Companies Adopt Three Work Schedules: '007' Is the Harshest]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2024-11-11. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

        The article notes: "更苛刻數字則有「007」，所指是凌晨零時起上班至翌日零時下班，每周工作7天，即全天候工作，24小時候命，確保員工每天每秒都在工作；這與大家聽慣聽熟的「247」相同。"

        From Google Translate: "Even more demanding is the "007" work schedule, which means starting at midnight and finishing at midnight the following day, seven days a week. This means working around the clock, ensuring employees are working every second of every day. This is similar to the familiar "247" work schedule."

     6. "996和007是违法不是奋斗，过度加班是对员工的盘剥" [996 and 007 Are Illegal, Not Hard Work. Excessive Overtime Is Exploitation of Employees]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). 2021-03-12. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17 – via Phoenix Television.

        The editorial notes: "不管是996，还是007，都是违法行为。对违法行为纵情美化，不是糊涂，就是别有用心。"

        From Google Translate: "Whether it's 996 or 007, both are illegal. Unbridled glorification of illegal behavior is either foolish or has ulterior motives."

  Cunard (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Merge to 996 working hour system. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE if inclusion in a larger article would provide useful additional context then it can be included there rather than in a stub. This would resolve the greater incredulity needed issue and we can revive the article if (somehow) this becomes a thing that is having a real world impact rather than what appears to be absurd hyperbole about employer expectations Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the sources that say 007 came about due to Work from Home (WFH) during the Covid pandemic and people living at the office 24/7? I think people are fixating on mostly the humorous aspects. Labor unions point to types of 007 as a possible loophole for employers to drive an oil tanker through. I think it need an article. Septagram (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see a lack of serious inquiry and evidence from press outlets claiming an actual 168 hour work week. Do you believe that people are really at the workplace for 168 hours? The article won't even say for sure. Context is important, and the 996 article will provide it in a way that this article never can. Oblivy (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This might be better covered in an article on Labor practices in China. The issue here is the term is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Another possible way to cover this would be in a subsection in an article on the 1995 Labor Law referenced in the sources above. Criticisms of the law, or flouting of the law could be a reasonable part of that article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yangwei Linghua

Yangwei Linghua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn's have enough significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which is needed to show notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Entertainment, Asia, and China. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 21:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nearly all coverage of the subject is in Chinese. She's the lead singer for Phoenix Legend, which is a very popular musical duo in China and has been for over twenty years now. You can read an interview here that talks about them and their career, and there's a few articles on Sina that talks about them as well. As for Linghua herself, searching her name in Chinese pulls up hundreds of articles

I will also try to do some work on the article when I get the chance. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, Linghua was a main competitor on Riding the Wind 2025 [zh] (the sixth season of a popular music competition show on Mango TV) And while not the most reliable source, Baidu Baike has a nice list of every single released by Linghua as a solo artist, which you can find sources for their existance elsewhere. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. The sources found by Microplastic Consumer (talk · contribs). Thank you!
  2. Fan, Wenting 范文婷 (2015-11-14). "玲花新歌太洗脑！1岁女儿都会唱了" [Linghua's new song is so catchy! Even her 1-year-old daughter can sing it] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "凤凰传奇组合的杨魏玲花和曾毅，两人“分道扬镳”各寻搭档，并同时出了新歌。尤其，玲花的新歌《出去玩》由张惠妹的御用创作人阿怪监制，与歌手曹格、新秀SNH48李艺彤合作，歌曲十分洗脑，玲花称连她一岁四个月的女儿都会唱了！ ... 没了曾毅的伴唱，玲花选择强强联合，与创作型歌手曹格结成新搭档，并与新秀SNH48李艺彤一起。在侗寨采风过程中，收获快乐和笑声，甚至产生再来旅行玩耍的想法，于是创作新歌《出去玩》，该歌旋律明快，歌词简单明了直中人心，"

     From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend's Yang Wei Linghua and Zeng Yi have parted ways, each pursuing their own partners and releasing new music. Linghua's new song, "Go Out and Play," is especially catchy, produced by A-Mei's regular songwriter, Aguai, and features singer Gary Chaw and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. Linghua claims even her one-year-four-month-old daughter can sing it! ... Without Zeng Yi's backing vocals, Linghua chose to join forces, forming a new partnership with singer-songwriter Gary Cao and rising star Li Yitong from SNH48. The field trip to the Dong village brought joy and laughter, and even inspired her to travel and play again. This led to the creation of a new song, "Go Out and Play." The song boasts a bright melody and simple, clear lyrics that hit home."

  3. Li, Hsin-tung 李鋅銅 (2014-06-25). "力挺陸大媽 鳳凰傳奇嗆美媒 廣場舞被批喧鬧 玲花指惹火大媽後果嚴重" [Standing up for Chinese 'dama': Phoenix Legend fires back at U.S. media. Square dancing criticized as noisy, Linghua warns that angering the 'dama' has serious consequences]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "「鳳凰傳奇」主唱玲花覺得自己是「躺著也中槍」，超級不爽，於是在22日發布的微博中調侃《華爾街日報》，並力挺中國大媽。... 她還追溯八國聯軍的歷史，說美國大兵曾經在中國北京搶東西，到現在東西還沒還呢，這不僅僅是擾民行為， ... 「鳳凰傳奇」是大陸知名的男女二人音樂組合，成員包括女聲主唱楊魏玲花和男聲和聲、說唱曾毅。被認為是2005年後大陸較具影響力的歌手組合之一，出道以來共發行5張原創專輯。"

     From Google Translate: "Phoenix Legend lead singer Ling Hua felt incredibly upset, feeling like she was being "shot in the face even when lying down." She mocked the Wall Street Journal in a Weibo post on the 22nd and offered her support for the Chinese dama. ... She also traced the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance, saying that American soldiers once looted items in Beijing, China, and still haven't returned them. This isn't just a nuisance. ... Phoenix Legend is a well-known mainland Chinese duo, consisting of lead vocalist Yang Wei Linghua and backing vocalist and rapper Zeng Yi. Considered one of the most influential singing groups in mainland China since 2005, they have released five original albums since their debut."

  4. Peng, Lizhao 彭立昭 (2012-04-29). "杨魏玲花"凤凰传奇"的爱情传奇" [The Romantic Story of Yangwei Linghua from Phoenix Legend]. People [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-08-17. Retrieved 2025-08-17.

     The article notes: "杨魏玲花是著名歌唱组合“凤凰传奇”的主唱，来自大草原的她声音高亢激昂，穿透力极强，在内地歌坛掀起了一轮又一轮的狂潮。玲花的丈夫徐明朝是音乐主编、著名乐评家和词曲作家，两人从相识的第一天起，就结下了不解之缘，2011年3月，他们携手走入婚姻殿堂。他们的爱情就像玲花在歌里唱的那样：... 就在玲花对进军春晚充满了希望时，一件意想不到的事情发生了：有人爆料《月亮之上》涉嫌抄袭英国歌曲《All Rise》……玲花觉得很委屈，她知道这是一首明明白白的原创歌曲，怎么就成了抄袭作品呢？为了弄清楚事情真相，春晚专家组对《月亮之上》与《AllRise》进行了全方位的鉴定，最终认为并不构成抄袭。"

     From Google Translate: "Yang Wei Linghua is the lead singer of the renowned singing group "Phoenix Legend." Hailing from the prairie, her voice is soaring, passionate, and penetrating, creating waves of sensations on the mainland music scene. Linghua's husband, Xu Mingchao, is a music editor, renowned critic, and songwriter. From the first day they met, they bonded, marrying in March 2011. Their love is just like what Linghua sings about in her song: ... Just when Linghua was full of hope for a spot on the Spring Festival Gala, something unexpected happened: someone reported that "Above the Moon" was suspected of plagiarizing the British song "All Rise." Linghua felt deeply wronged. She knew it was a clearly original song, so how could it be considered a copy? To clarify the matter, the Spring Festival Gala expert panel conducted a comprehensive evaluation of both "Above the Moon" and "All Rise" and ultimately determined that they did not constitute plagiarism."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yangwei Linghua (simplified Chinese: 杨魏玲花; traditional Chinese: 楊魏玲花; pinyin: Yángwèi Línghuā; Mongolian: Үүлэнхуар Üülenkhuar) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phoenix Legend. The voters above have uncovered sources that are reliable but most are actually about Phoenix Legend, indicating that Yangwei Linghua has achieved little independently outside the group, with the exeption of one solo song after they split in 2017. I can find nothing about any further solo activities, but I am probably restrained by language issues so that's why I recommend redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Anything known about her biography, including her solo work, can be added to the group's article, which by the way is badly out-of-date. This same argument could possibly apply to her groupmate Zeng Yi (singer) if anyone wants to inspect his article for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking through some sources, Zheng Yi had some business ventures in China and has been attracting controversy lately (alongside a larger solo career), if anything, I would say he is likely the more notable of the two. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phoenix Legend per WP:ATD. Not independently notable from the band. The sources are not about her predominantly but about that group.4meter4 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided here between editors advocating Keeping it and those arguing for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Circassian invasion of Abkhazia

Circassian invasion of Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating this page for deletion due to misinformation, biased writing, and sources that do not support the information presented in the article.

Firstly, the legendary person named Inal most likely existed, but this is generally accepted only through oral tradition and not recorded in written sources. Therefore, events attributed to him should not be considered historical facts.

The main account about Inal comes from the Kabardian folklorist Shora Nogmov. According to the legends collected by Nogmov, Inal united the Circassians under one rule, and then the princes in Abkhazia, called 'Asha' and 'Shasha' (Anchabadze and Sharvashidze), became his allies. There is no historical event involving a war with the Megrelians.

The person "Özdemir" added to the infobox is mentioned only in Nogmov’s account. He is described as someone who rebelled against Inal and was killed during a battle. That is the only information about him. Nogmov also writes that Inal died while he was negotiating peace with Abkhazian lords, which is why his grave is said to be there.

Information about Inal is not recorded in external sources, so Georgian sources do not mention him at all. Therefore, phrases like "According to historical records..." are incorrect.

Many of the claims in the article, including numbers of soldiers in battles, are said to come from Amjad Jaimoukha's The Circassians: A Handbook, but these informations are not in the book. The sources cited do not support the information, which might seem as intentional.

The source The Legendary Circassian Prince Inal by Vitaliy Shtybin does not contain any of the claims presented in the article. For example, statements like "Some sources suggest that the Georgian commanders suffered heavy casualties" are not found, and it does not even mention Inal fighting Georgians. The existence of Smith, John’s The History of the Caucasus is not verifiable online. Even if it exists, sources about Inal is obvious. These sources mainly consist of 19th-century folklorists and researchers recording legends about Inal among the Circassians.

The website PRENSLERİN PRENSİ İNAL NEKHU (PŞILERİN PŞISI İNAL NEKHU) claims that Inal fought the Megrelians in 1433-1434. This information is very unclear and unreliable, because there is no source provided to confirm it. Since the information about Inal comes from oral sources, giving any specific dates without evidence is unscholarly. The date mentioned in this unreliable source also does not match the timeline given in the article. This may be because the source interpreted the events in a way that conflicts with the historical context of Imereti and Guria in the second half of the 15th century.

The source Абхазия : история без фальсификации quotes Nogmov, but it does not confirm any events mentioned in the article.

The sentence "...some details remain debated among historians" is misleading because no historian debates such an event.

It seems that the person who wrote the article copied the sources from Inal the Great page without checking the sources. The entire page was written this way, and I believe it spreads misinformation on Wikipedia. Therefore, I request that this article be clearly reviewed.

Also, the user who wrote the article removed the Unreliable sources template in the revision made at 11:01, 4 May 2025. Liptink0 (talk) 08:37, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Georgia (country). jolielover♥talk 10:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Queen Tamara (1939)

Order of the Queen Tamara (1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Georgia has not been an independent country since 1800, but there are still descendants of its old royal family playing fantasy feudalism by creating awards to give out to their supporters. Current and historic orders and honours are generally notable, but I don’t see how this one is. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete impossible to WP:V claims and no WP:SIGCOV. Article appears to be created by SPA for reasons noted above. Nayyn (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any good sources covering this order. Looks like was written by a SPA sockpuppet covering people who cosplay as royals. Cortador (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Georgia has not been an independent country since 1800... I think you should probably go to Georgia and tell them that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Nikvashvili

Gia Nikvashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only WP:PASSING and WP:PRIMARY sources, therefore fails WP:GNG. Maltese futsal is not notable. Geschichte (talk) 15:49, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand exactly what you want. It is a living person, I have included multiple references from various sources. Zoran Stojanovic (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of significant coverage. Please see WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep – It does appear to be a lot of passing coverage, but there is so much passing coverage, I'm inclined to believe there might be enough out there. On a side note, @Geschichte: this feels a bit bitey. The article hasn't even existed for a day, and calling Maltese futsal not notable is unnecessary, and seems pretty rude considering that it appears to be the article creator's main editing focus. There are definitely some things related to Maltese futsal that meet WP:GNG, regardless of if a particular player does. – Ike Lek (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'd like to chime in to back up Ike Lek that Maltese futsal, and many other generic sports things like that, are likely to be notable, regardless of the notability of individual players. Futsal is a big sport in Europe, including Malta. I've no opinion on whether this player is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, so much coverage that I think it passes GNG at this point.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I gave my best to promote Maltese futsal on wiki. The articles aren't the greater, but it is a good start. Hopefully someone will upgrade them. Futsal is a popular sport in Malta and it isn't played only within FMA. There are many amateur leagues not sanctioned by the association. Some 20 years ago, there were over 60 teams divided in around 10 groups within 4 divisions. 3 Zoran Stojanovic (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the alleged significant coverage? I even searched in Georgian and found little. La Gazzetta covers Giga Nikvashvili in detail, but that's a completely different person to Gia Nikvashvili. The coverage in Malta for the futsal player of this name seems to all just be trivial mentions in match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having searched both Maltese and Georgian news sources, I couldn't find one article that addresses Nikvashvili in detail. Even having 10 trivial mentions is no substitute to having 2 or 3 strong sources showing significant coverage of the subject and WP:SPORTBASIC clearly says that every biography should have, as a bare minimum, one decent source. This has none. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Don't see any evidence of independent WP:SIGCOV, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, routine match coverage and database sources. Fails WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 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!} 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Hong Kong related deletions

Tang Kam Man

Tang Kam Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hong Kong at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Cycling – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hong Kong at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Cycling, where the person's name is listed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  I expanded and sourced the article using articles from the South China Morning Post, Wah Kiu Yat Po, and Ta Kung Pao. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tang Kam Man (traditional Chinese: 鄧錦文; simplified Chinese: 邓锦文) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I had a feeling you'd be able to save this, Cunard :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable upon expansion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hantec Financial 1

Hantec Financial 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined 4 times for notability issues at AfC, then finally rejected with no indication of notability. Author moved to mainspace.

I see no indication this company meets WP:NORG qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The author is a paid editor and should never have moved this into the main space past AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no indication of passing WP:NCORP paid marketing promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. jolielover♥talk 15:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NCORP and creator needs blocked for the bludgeoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed, fails NCORP and should be removed. I note there is a related article Hantec Markets which looks like the same company and could be merged, but that article is poorly referenced and still not meet NCORP and probably should also be removed. -- Sargdub (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hantec Group (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created an article about Hantec Group, the parent company of Hantec Financial and Hantec Markets. The parent company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the Economic Daily News [zh], the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Sing Tao Daily, and the South China Morning Post. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with this. qcne (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hong Kong post offices

List of Hong Kong post offices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

  WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I randomly looked through around 1/3 of the countries under Category:Post office buildings by country. The articles using this category are about individual post office locations. There three of these articles for Hong Kong. I could not find other list articles for other countries. However, there are list articles for the USPS by state. @Let'srun, I understand your point regarding WP:OSE but there is relevance when considering if a nonprofit governmental agency and with a building that is frequently a community landmark falls under WP:NOTPRICE. A key may be that WP: NOTPRICE says "Listings to be avoided include...". It does not say these are forbidden. That is because sometimes this content is informational and encyclopedic, rather than promotional. For example, articles regularly include a list of all locations of a multi-campus university and schools and churches are sometimes listed in articles about cities or counties. Rublamb (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Post offices are generally a place where business is conducted, and while I get what you are saying I don't think the government association matters. As it stands, this list is only in service of "conducting the business of the topic of the article", and is promotional in nature. If this list is deleted, I would likely nominate those USPS articles next, but don't wish to overwhelm AfD and want to see what kind of consensus is found here first. I also don't those examples you listed as being relevant here. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     The book notes:

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

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

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

     From Google Translate:

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: WP:NOTPRICE says:

  A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and ___location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

  This list is not being used as "a resource for conducting business". It is being used to document Hong Kong's post offices which have been discussed as a group by academic sources (Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists). The list does not include "product pricing or availability information". The list includes encyclopedic information about each post office such as its English and Chinese name, its ___location, its year of establishment, its year of closing, and a photo. The list is not being used as "a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products". Cunard (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hongkong Post. Majority of these list entries are merely sourced from Hongkong post to prove they exist, which itself violates WP:NOTDIR. There are a few references that would be ideal on the parent article, to use for the small number of list entries that are indeed notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No opposition to a redirect as suggested. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cunard's typical disruptive wall-of-text is completely insufficient to demonstrate notability. While the general topic of the postal system in Hong Kong might very well be notable, a directory-like listing of the ___location of each one most certainly is not, and its existence flies in the face of WP:NOT. Most of the entries here are unsourced, further violating WP:NOR. One of the few exceptions, picked at random, that is sourced contains the oh-so-encyclopedic content of " This post office closed during World War II, reopening on 14 February 1942. It moved to a new building in 1986. ". Wow. Let me say that again. WOW. It closed briefly during WWII, and it later moved locations in the '80s. The few other entries with commentary are pretty much the same level. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia's standards. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: As part of my review of this AfD, I went through and found sources for each entry, unless noted as citation needed. As per MOS for lists, the citation is included in the text above the table, rather than being repeated over and over again. Regardless of whether or not you find the added info useful, dates of operation and the notes column are not directory information and show a direction of expansion for this article. Rublamb (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are primary, but it's not even all that relevant. The problem is that this is a directory of post office locations and essentially nothing more. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minuscule amount of encyclopedic information that might actually be here (like singling out the oldest post office) can go in a history section of the main article about the HK postal system. The notability of the system itself, along with its history, does not justify a list like this. And there are no sources that justify the existence of this list. This is WP:COMMONSENSE territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there are two scholarly articles that discuss post offices in Hong Kong as a group. That is what is so crazy about this one, it meets notability for a stand-alone list. Rublamb (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most of these are not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep WP:NLIST says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable". Since the grouping has, as noted above by @Cunard and reiterated by @Rublamb, been the subject of multiple independent scholarly discussions, it meets this requirement. No individual notability needs to be shown for each post office unless it has a standalone article. Oblivy (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep. The sources identified by Cunard do indeed demonstrate that the post offices of Hong Kong have been discussed in WP:SIGCOV in way that is not trivial or reflective of a directory. As such it meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. Note that this would not be true of post offices in every city, and this list isn't a precedent for similar lists in other locales. The sourcing would need to be there to justify other lists of this type.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Indonesia

Clerence Chyntia Audry

Clerence Chyntia Audry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTRESS Ckfasdf (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No notable roles so fails WP:NACTRESS. She was married to the drummer for Noah, a popular band in Indonesia. The media coverage of her death didn't even mention she was an actress. It was entirely focused on her connection to him and his reaction to her death. 4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Carla

Amel Carla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTRESS, but was blocked by a likely banned user editing from an IP address Ckfasdf (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Krohn

Annie Krohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTRESS, but was blocked by a likely banned user editing from an IP address Ckfasdf (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Dahlan

A. B. Dahlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:ENT, but was blocked by a likely banned user editing from an IP address Ckfasdf (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and needs more sources to establish notability. Mehru13 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Zakaria

Sulaiman Zakaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NPOL. the subject was only a member of a legislative body at the regency level whereas NPOL states only Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable. Additional note: This article was created by a suspected sock of a banned editor who is known for making articles about the Zakaria family from Bengkalis Regency. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regency is a local level of government in Indonesia, comparable to city or county councils rather than states or provinces — but politicians at local levels of office are not at all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show much, much more GNG-worthy media coverage than this is citing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Ahmad

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Abdul Karim Ahmad (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Abdul Karim Ahmad (3rd nomination)

Abdul Karim Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a recreation of a deleted article that was previously removed through the AfD process. I initially tried G4, but another editor blocked its use. The creator of this article is currently under SPI, and if confirmed, the article can be speedily deleted under G5. The subject itself fails GNG and WP:NPOL. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Islam, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 16:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article claims he was a member of the national House of Representatives, but the associated news article suggests instead he was a member of the Regional People's Representative Council. As Indonesia was no longer a federal state in the period he served, holding the equivalent of a provincial councillor position would not seem to meet WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: Yes, and that was also one of the reasons cited for deletion in the previous AfD. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails SIGCOV and not every members of Indonesian National House of Representatives are met GNG. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 07:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Rana

Dian Rana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, also borderline self promotion or COI. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on the same subject was speedy-deleted on id.wiki under A7 and salted due to multiple recreation. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, note that the article's creator has an editing history focused solely on this article, which raises a COI concern. Also, the article was previously rejected multiple times during the AfC process before the creator eventually published it himself. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) through multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, including Liputan6, Tempo, Merdeka, TVOne, and international publication Rest of World. These are not trivial mentions but substantial profiles covering the subject's public engagement and role in documenting the development of Indonesia's new capital.

While the article may have been initially drafted with assistance, it has since been entirely rewritten and supported with verifiable sources. It is not promotional in tone and has been reviewed carefully for neutrality.

Therefore, the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be kept. Nusantarakita (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, COI, multiple deletion on idwiki. Contributor(s) also suspected abusing multiple accounts. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 09:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Proposed deletions

• Flag of King Sisingamangaraja (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Japan

Yuna Nakagai

Yuna Nakagai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined PROD. WE League player with only four appearances. Even ja.wiki lacks coverage, and the sources provided are just trivial mentions about transfers and a festive game. Svartner (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Svartner (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of career and coverage. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mihon

Mihon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. The article is sourced almost entirely to primary/self-published material. The only third-party mentions located focus on Tachiyomi (the upstream project) rather than this fork. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Webcomics, Products, Technology, Software, Websites, and Japan. LvivLark (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – merge into Tachiyomi, provided it is WP:DUE. ~~~~

Editor1769 21:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Near (programmer)

Near (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BIO1E. All coverage of near is in the context of their tragic death, besides this single piece from Vice [12], which is good, and two not-sigcov pieces (references 8 and 9) about them selling a bunch of video games in 2012. 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG. That is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article shows Near worked on various notable projects before being driven to suicide, so not just 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They did not receive any coverage for it besides the one Vice piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG. Plenty of emulator developers are out there, who also don't have coverage. Also Near was nonbinary, not a he. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't aware of that, corrected my wording above, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'd like to particularly point out Vrxces's arguments below on the nature of 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, even apart from this specific AFD, this isn't true - if someone only received coverage when they died, even if the pieces on their death cover their earlier life (as almost all 1E people have some other coverage of their life), that is still a 1E case. This one is more complicated because Vice piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your hypothetical but that's more an issue due to WP:SUSTAINED I think - at any rate, there is some significant coverage (albeit not strong) suggesting the person's death is not the primary and only significance of their inclusion on the site. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - however, it's clear more references are missing. This may well be because of Near changing their pseudonyms several times along the years. Looking on search engines for "Near" would return near nothing since it's a pseudonym they only used for about a year before their suicide. I also agree with Sarek that they were part of many projects of notability within the emulation community, most of them with their own Wikipedia pages nowadays. Retroarch, one of the biggest "projects" in the community was started as an alternative to bsnes' frontend. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, are there sources for this? If not, it does not help. Near would not inherit the notability of things they worked on unless the sources are about them as well. If there are more sources and they are provided, then sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This does not fall under WP:1EVENT, which states that "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", due to the coverage from Vice that happened prior to that tragic death. While Near would possibly not have been notable if not for their death, this does not mean the article is inadmissible due to that, as far as I know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...that's not a quote from 1EVENT? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant WP:BLP1E. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, this article surely does not fall under BLP1E, since Near is no longer living. I probably could have made my nomination clearer, but 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG (I have now added this to the nom). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure how it would not equal GNG passing. The earlier coverage makes Near pass WP:SUSTAINED, while that and the news coverage of their death makes them pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think I see the issue here and it's that the "one-event" rule and general notability are their own exercises. There is no need to illustrate that, but for the sourcing during the one event, the remaining sources have to establish their own standalone general notability. General notability is construed from the sourcing as a whole, which can be seen to have significant coverage, including from the Vice article'. It's also overlooked that coverage about the death also includes some coverage of Near's contributions to the emulation scene. So this is quite a way away from the policy intent of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E which is meant to curb non-notable articles for someone who is only known for, or involved in a single thing, at a single point in time. I understand the basis of the nomination because the non-death sourcing could be much better, but it isn't in an unsalvageable state for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi Nishida

Hiromi Nishida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable actress, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fumina Shibayama

Fumina Shibayama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD: Both the Japanese and English Wiki uses primary sources. per my WP:JAPANBEFORE, both Japanese and English name search has no hits on GNews. Ultra-Soccer only has passing mention. Gekisaka also has passing mentions. This fails WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging these people: @Svartner: (Who PROD this article). @Arutoria: (who contested the prod). Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:  "柴山史菜"
In books/documents  Google Books Internet Archive  · WorldCat refseek
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive BASE  · Persée
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr

Keep. I added some secondary source.

Not sure why this would be considered to be deleted. But she has a pretty successful football career as a Japanese woman, considering she was in both U15 and U18 Japan national team.

Women football still received considerably less media coverage and therefore naturally has less news source. If we use this standard, a lot of professional women players would be deleted from Wiki, once again reinforcing the Gender bias on Wikipedia. Arutoria (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources you added are just WP:PASSINGMENTION and/or Announcements by her team. Source 1 although has two paragraphs of info is an WP:INTERVIEW of her classmate about her. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, the sources show only a few transfers reported without major repercussions. As I mentioned earlier, there are several abandoned WE League player stubs that were created en masse a few years ago. Svartner (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chisato Inoue

Chisato Inoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, Ja Wiki is primary souces, A WP:JAPANBEFORE search yields only press releases by United Chiba, passing mentions and unrelated stuffs. The best source is maybe this Chiba Nippo article, which is paywalled but maybe an interview Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Spiderone:, @Svartner: (Who tried to PROD this) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I hadn't seen that this one had already been PRODed. There are a number of abandoned stubs of WE League players, and some even according to ja.wiki sources do not have WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails GNG and NSPORT. A Google search of Chisato Inoue turns up more results for Lycoris Recoil due to the main characters' names. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - couldn't find any independent sources aside from that interview mentioned by nom Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Senju

Hikari Senju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Coverages are mostly limited to the company which he founded but not him. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Japan. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Omneky – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. The coverage is minimal. Excelse (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ace File

Ace File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC WP:BAND LvivLark (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Japan. LvivLark (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. The group is only notable for a single ending song from a little-known anime. Svartner (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ja Wiki is unsourced. Most likely it is also not notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Horiagency: Doesn't appear to reach WP:NBAND notability. Nil🥝 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micronics (game developer)

Micronics (game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was AFD'd in the past and the article's notability problem still stands. Two shortened footnotes did not link to any readable material, two unreliable websites including Giant Bomb as sources and three sources reporting on said titles' sales where the subject was NOT mentioned in any way due to contract development led to their involvement not being well known. One source about Ikari Warriors for the NES that is a short summary of a YouTube video. Doesn't pass WP:ORGSIG at its current state. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The sources include reliable sites and books, and Giant Bomb is merely one of many sources provided for the company's name, not for any specific, unverifiable information about it. It was a common practice in Japanese game development at the time (see the controversy regarding audio credits attribution in early Capcom games such as Street Fighter, or the whole situation with Xevious' developer name being hidden) not to give proper credits to developers or even development studios, but that doesn't have to follow us into the modern era now that this information is actually known. Websites such as Hardcore Gaming 101, that I think go about as in-depth as you one in topics such as gaming, have covered this company and could be added as sources if necessary. Why the sudden urge to delete? The article could merely be improved with additional sources (including in the Japanese language) if desired, but the notability of the article in the context of Famicom history seems evident to me. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in these source provide notability to the games mentioned, but not the studio behind them that is not mentioned in said sources. Independent non-inherited notability is the key here, of which this particular developer has next to none. The Ikari source isn't reliable either. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding something slightly skewing on the side of Delete. Whenever you're covering a game studio in a retrospective, like Hardcore Gaming 101 does, of course discussion of the individual games (and usually only the most-known of them) will be the majority. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a sufficient argument. I do not see this significant coverage that supposedly exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sourcing is not strong. Databases and blogs are helpful resources for readers but for Wikipedia they are user-generated research and not in themselves any indicia of notability. If you actually read the Kent book [13] you may be surprised to find Micronics are not mentioned at all; it's being cited on the inference that games they were involved in sold well for their publisher. So there really isn't anything here for now. The article itself says it all, really: Owing to the secretive nature of the company, often working without credits attribution, little is known about the exact number of employees and capital throughout most of its existence. Because there aren't any strong sources, there isn't really much to merge, but that is an WP:ATD option. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Editing articles on retro games for as long as I have, there seems to be a lot of these companies from the 1980s and 1990s, especially Japanese ones, that developed a lot of widely-reviewed and known games but what goes on behind the scenes and the company is unknown. Manley & Associates, Eastridge Technology, Radical Entertainment (in their NES and SNES days), Sunsoft (sorta), Bits Studio, Bits Labratory (who did the Ghostbusters NES game and helped SquareSoft with King's Knight), Imagineering Inc., and Gray Matter. It really sucks and is an awkward situation, kind of like all those actors and actresses that get a LOT of supporting roles in several notable movies and TV shows, but barely any sources exist that are entirely about them. You would think, with how often Micronics ported Capcom arcade classics to the NES, info about them would be reported better than this. The reason my Delete isn't that strong, however, is that the best thing I could think of would be to include perspectives about their NES ports of games like 1942, as those do get a lot of coverage, particularly criticism, from journalists. This might just be because we're all living in the West and thus old Japanese sources are much harder to find, but given what we've seen, it's not satisfactory. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To add, an Archive.org search using the Japanese name of the company only gave me a passing mention in one late 1980s Japanese magazine. Far from satisfactory. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Kawamura

Maki Kawamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP tagged for issues since 2006. The one external link doesn't have any content on the subject. Fails WP:NOTPROMO/ WP:NOTRESUME in addition not meeting BLP policy. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG or a relevant WP:SNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. 4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even searching for the Japanese terms, there's simply not much coverage of her, as such failing the notability guidelines. LightlySeared (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the improvments to the article, keep per HEY. Also, my Japanese isn't nearly as good as I thought, apparently. LightlySeared (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the ja.wiki article makes clear, she was principal dancer in Japan’s national ballet. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra Evidence? Also, for our purposes we still have to overcome the WP:NOT and WP:BLPSOURCES issues which go beyond notability concerns. Keeping actually requires editing in this case.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are eleven sources in the ja.wiki article. This one shows that she was principal dancer at the Japanese National Ballet. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s also [14], [15] and [16]. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are various offline sources on the Ja Wiki. 2 are from Iwate Nippo. One is from The Nikkei, One is from Yomiuri Shimbun and one is from Iwate Broadcasting Company I cannot confirm it so, I just want to point it out.There is also one source from a Dance Magazine Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional deletion rationale. I'd like to point out that currently the text of the article makes no claim of encyclopedic importance. The accomplishments mentioned are not major awards or prizes, and merely being in a ballet troupe at a national theatre isn't encyclopedic either. The article as written can be speedy deleted per WP:A7. So again we need the article text to be modified if we are to keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn’t ’merely in a ballet troupe’ at all. She was principal dancer in Japan’s national ballet, so achieved the highest status in her discipline in her country. Mccapra (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra Our article doesn't say that. Follow the line of thinking here. The Japanese article makes that claim that she is a principle dancer the english encyclopedia does not. Currently our article focuses on trivial pre-professional awards and being in the company (ie not a principle dancer/but in the Corps de ballet) at the National Theatre. That is not an encyclopedic claim. You could make an encyclopedic claim and source it per BLP policy to assist in rescuing the article, but we cannot keep a BLP under A7 without there a) Being an existing textual encyclopedic claim present in the article B) A source to verify the claim. Neither components exist in our article at present. A7 is about a basic competency issue not a notability issue, and we can't leave BLP articles unreferenced per BLP policy. It requires editing the article to solve it. 4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources in the ja wiki article support the claim that she was principal dancer. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra That's completely irrelevant to WP:A7. The Japanese article can make all the claims it wants with all the sources it wants. It has no baring on A7's application towards this article; particularly as this is an unreferenced BLP. The English language article needs to have an encyclopedic claim in it to pass A7 and it needs a source per BLP policy. You could take a minute to make a claim and add a source. That would solve the problem. Further, in looking closer at the sources on the Japanese wikipedia, I can't find anything proving she is in fact a principle dancer. Granted; many of the sources are offline or have dead urls, but without something definitive shown here, this still fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE in my opinion. We need something we can see that someone here has actually accessed and looked at.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Mccapra Thank you for adding content and sources. I think A7 is no longer a relevant problem with the sources sufficiently demonstrating an encyclopedic claim. It would be prefereable to not use her employer's website though to source the article as it is both a primary source and not independent. It is reliable though. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree reviews from the Japanese press would be much better but I don’t know how to access them and my Japanese is extremely limited. Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and given the period she was performing in the sources are most likely behind paywalls. But to my mind we have at least something showing she meets WP:CREATIVE now and is mostly compliant with WP:BLP. It's a marked improvement and I'd be ok now with keeping this under an WP:SNG rationale. Thanks again for your work.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the issue here that sources and claims from the Japanese version of this article haven't yet found their way into the English version?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: no I’ve added them and the nominator now agrees we should keep this. Mccapra (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Issues remain, but notability has been shown. Bearian (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Linux

Miracle Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article only cites non-independent sources. When searching for more, I did find ostensibly independent sources, but all the web ones failed WP:CORPTRIV: many of them were just product line changes/announcements or other "trivial" coverage, while the Google Books results were primarily about Asianux with Miracle Linux just being a namedrop; thus, the subject does not meet WP:NCORP. (And yes, I did check Japanese sources by using Firefox's built-in translator, which isn't great, but allowed me to assess them.) OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. OutsideNormality (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / lean delete: I find some passing mentions (1 2) but I am unable to find any SIGCOV. Perhaps in Japanese. Likely delete. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was PROD'd so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wakkanai Centennial Memorial

Wakkanai Centennial Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find sufficient independent reliable sources that cover the subject substantially to satisfy the general notability guideline. WP:NBUILD is clearly not met, and still it requires us to use sources that cover features like this "significantly in-depth" and are reliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: A cursory search that was indepth did not yield useful materials. What came up were listings, etc.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Japanese is one of the hardest languages for me to search in. It does have a full page spread on page 55 of the Complete Guide to Japan's Observation Towers, which is in the Japanese wiki. There are lots of book hits but almost all of them are tour guides. I would be very surprised if this isn't notable, but I'm not the person to prove it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer - I don't believe there is a prohibition on guidebooks (if from a reputable publisher) from being used. Is there an exclusion somewhere I'm not aware of? DCsansei (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the extent of the material I would suggest Merge to Wakkanai Park#Monuments where it is not yet mentioned. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese or that the nominator is competent enough in Japanese to do so so I default to keep until a Japanese editor is able to do a WP:BEFORE. I will try to a search later but have been quite busy recently. Merge should be a last resort after a Japanese editor is able to complete a WP:BEFORE. DCsansei (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Mangoe. Mccapra (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vanderwaalforces: As nominator, can you please explain why you believe the article's three references are not sufficient to establish notability? Left guide (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Left guide Hello there. Notability needs to be establish for a subject, and to do that we need multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject providing in-depth non-trivial coverages. There were three sources used on the article as of my nomination; this from soya-stay.jp, this from Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and this from Gate to Hokkaido, then I did a cursory search and did not find sources that are useful to write an encyclopaedic entry.

  Source Analysis

  • Taking a look at https://soya-stay.jp/wakkanai/9-2/, and based on WP:IRS (WP:INDEPENDENT), an independent source is one with no financial, legal, or other close connection to the subject, and which can therefore be expected to cover a subject from a disinterested perspective. Soya‑stay.jp explicitly states that the project operates with the support of the Japan Tourism Agency's "Tourism Promotion Program for Foreign Visitors to Japan". That means it's part of a government‑supported tourism promotion initiative, a marketing effort to attract visitors, and per WP:IS that's a close affiliation with the subject matter (tourism in the Soya/Wakkanai area), so it would generally be considered non‑independent. The source isn't automatically unusable; it can be used to verify straightforward, uncontroversial facts (e.g., the tower’s height, opening date, etc) that are unlikely to be disputed, it can be used to provide official descriptions too, but not to establish notability. So, this one essentially fails the independence part of WP:GNG.
  • Taking a look at https://www.ctbuh.org/news/hokkaido-centennial-tower-set-for-costly-demolition-in-sapporo, I have no reason to rely on a source that have no editorial oversight; it secondly lacks a byline, and .
  • Taking a look at https://gate-to-hokkaido.jp/en/spots/2896/, I can immediately discount this as unsable in its entirety for not only being a listing, but for not passing any criteria for WP:GNG.

  That's all for the prenomination sources; so far, more sources have been added to the article, I can also see some here, I analyse them as follows;

  • https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/museums/detail/11774 does not provide the substantial coverage required for the subject to pass WP:GNG.
  • https://saihoku-minato.sakura.ne.jp/Wakkanai-park.html looks like a blog by https://saihoku-minato.sakura.ne.jp/saihoku.html, and whether or not my assumption is correct, the source, in itself, fails WP:RS for not having at least some sort of editorial oversight.
  • https://www.northerncross.co.jp/bunkashigen/parts/1168.html clearly fails the independent criteria; by the Hokkaido Government.
  • https://www.north-hokkaido.com/spot/detail_1048.html this is a listing.
  • https://w-shinko.co.jp/hoppo-kinenkan/ by Wakkanai Promotion Corporation, fails the independent criteria, does not provide the substantial coverage we need.
  • https://hokkaido-travel.com/spot/visiting/ho0654/ yet another listing.
  • http://ouenkitanodaichi.web.fc2.com/douhokuhtml/kinentou.html editorial oversight? why should we rely on this in the first place?
  • https://domingo.ne.jp/spot/233 yet another listing.
  • https://www.walkerplus.com/spot/ar0101s76198/ unreliable (editorial oversight?), no substantial coverage.

  That's all for references currently in the article. But I see some here that I should talk about;

  • https://hokkaido-digital-museum.jp/facility/%E7%A8%9A%E5%86%85%E5%B8%82%E5%8C%97%E6%96%B9%E8%A8%98%E5%BF%B5%E9%A4%A8/ this is a listing, and renders this source unreliable (no editorial oversight).
  • https://www.city.wakkanai.hokkaido.jp/kyoiku/kakusyushisetsu/shisetsuzyoho/kinenkan_shitei.html looks like a listing; does not provide the non-trivial substantial coverage we're looking for; it is also by Wakkanai City failing independence.
  • These are all listings: https://gate-to-hokkaido.jp/ja/spots/2896/, https://www.guidoor.jp/en/places/8423 and https://map.uu-hokkaido.jp/e/wakkanai-centennial-memorial-tower/.

  Now, it is imperative I mention that, some of these sources aren't entirely unusable, they just cannot be used to establish notability. Hope this helps. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unclear as to why both the Hokkaido Government and Wakkanai Promotion Corporation would not be independent - do they both run the tower? SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wakkanai Promotion Corporation isn't only non-independent, but also does not provide substantial coverage, just as I mentioned. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And on a separate note, I found this source (not currently cited in the article) published by Kadokawa Group. Its English browser translation says:

  In July 1978, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of Wakkanai City, it was built 170 meters above the hill of Wakkanai Park. Based on the reinforced two-story Kitakata Memorial Hall, the height of 80m above the ground. It is made of a reinforced concrete hollow-shaped memorial tower. In addition to exhibitions centered on "Mamiya Rinzo", the Kitakata Memorial Museum has local and Sakhalin-related materials. The Kaiki Centennial Tower has a glass observation deck 70 meters above the ground, and you can see the Soya Strait from the vast Sarobetsu field to the south, the view of Rishiri and Rebun to the west, and the island shadow of Sakhalin to the north. The 360-degree panorama unfolds at 240 meters above sea level, and you can enjoy the unique scenery of Wakkanai.

  Left guide (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I created this article and believe the subject is notable. The current version only has three references, but there are more sources that cover it in detail:

  1] https://www.northerncross.co.jp/bunkashigen/parts/1168.html

  2] https://hokkaido-digital-museum.jp/facility/稚内市北方記念館/

  3] https://www.city.wakkanai.hokkaido.jp/kyoiku/kakusyushisetsu/shisetsuzyoho/kinenkan_shitei.html

  4] https://gate-to-hokkaido.jp/ja/spots/2896/

  It has also been mentioned in Japanese news articles and other third-party cultural heritage websites (not listed here for brevity), so there’s enough coverage to meet notability. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 03:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On closer review, I found two additional secondary sources for the Wakkanai Centennial Memorial:

  1] https://www.guidoor.jp/en/places/8423

  2] https://map.uu-hokkaido.jp/e/wakkanai-centennial-memorial-tower/ Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 03:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Left guide, @Mangoe A quick update, I have expanded the article with a new paragraph describing the tower, citing additional reliable sources I was able to find on the web. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 04:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there's more than enough here to show notability - for instance there are sources from the local Wakkanai press as well (did a site search with the name), and there's nothing wrong with the book on observation towers in Japan it seems. There's also a book from 1978 discussing the Wakkanai centennial which discusses the construction of the tower. Doesn't work for Sapporo news since there is a tower with the same name in that city that is being torn down, so couldn't find anything. The usual problem at AfD is that there are few sources, and the ones which exist aren't very good, and we debate those - the problem here is I keep finding sources in a difficult language for English speakers, including academic works, I'm just not very good at parsing them. Since there's at least two good sources and a magnitude of possible other sources, this seems to be an easy keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer Trust me, it is time-consuming trying to look for sources normally, at least for me. Do you have access to these sources you're talking about, is there a way we could access it:; that is, the local Wakkanai press, the book from 1978, and the book on observation towers? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wakkanai Press I just did a site search with the Japanese name, the observation tower book is in the Japanese wikipedia, and the 1978 book was from a Google search. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Many thanks to the other editors who have dug up enough sources to demonstrate notability here. This only underlines the importance of a thorough WP:BEFORE search in the native language before nominating articles for deletion. I'm happy to confirm my presumptive keep pending a WP:NOENG-compliant search after reviewing the sources provided here. DCsansei (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between editors arguing for a Merge and those who advocate Keeping the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sufficient sources have been presented to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeo Koshi

Shigeo Koshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable director. The article was PROD'ed for this reason, which I endorsed because of it citing mostly unreliable sources (IMDb and the encyclopedia of Anime News Network, not sure about MUBI, but I know Rotten Tomatoes is reliable), but it was dePROD'ed by another user who claimed he meets WP:DIRECTOR. (Upon further inspection, that doesn't seem to be the case because I don't see the article meeting any of the 4 criteria mentioned there.) Couldn't find any reliable sources showing significant coverage of Koshi via a Google search. A Google News search showed nothing. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Comics and animation. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds, which is certainly his best-known work in the English-speaking world? He's directed odd episodes of lots of other series - he directed 125 episodes and a film for Doraemon, but that's a series with 2000+ episodes and 40+ films - but I can't find any coverage of him in English or Japanese other than appearances in lists of credits. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with Keep as well - I'd agree with the WP:CREATIVE argument below as Doraemon and Dogtanian are obviously notable. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR/WP:CREATIVE pass as he has verifiably written and/or directed and codirected notable productions. Expand and source with Jp sources. - E. Ux 09:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur that this is a clear WP:CREATIVE pass with multiple notable credits. DCsansei (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another attempt at consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes WP:DIRECTOR. Some google book sources in English covering portions of his work include [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. The best sources however, are likely in Japanese.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: As is my longtime practice, I would like at least three reliable sources added to the article, along with context. Nowadays, with the current situation, we need to be concerned about poorly sourced BLPs. Bearian (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anime and manga

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Anime and manga
• Articles for deletion/Anime and manga (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Anime and manga series that have not been released in United States

Anime and manga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Why do we need this article its unneeded as we already have articles on anime and manga Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Japan. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be a notable concept. [Or Merge, see below, edited 8/11] - Eva Ux 03:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mass media in Japan. Kinopiko ^talk 19:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 - Eva Ux 19:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But what about the term in Chinese? - Eva Ux 19:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article was originally about a Chinese term Dongman, and transformed into this, which just seems to be a portmanteau of anime and manga, which doesnt seem to be particularly notable. Looking at what links to this, I dont see much of a loss. Metallurgist (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Glossary of anime and manga This article really does seem to stand alone, especially in the comment in the "notes" section which does seem to run somewhat counter to the claims in the article itself. Nayyn (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean "does NOT seem", maybe? I can agree with that Merge too, as long as the Chinese term is mentioned after the merge. - E. Ux 15:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Glossary of anime and manga: No need for an independent article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is a consensus to Merge but no agreement on the target article. Also noting that the first AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime and manga, looks like some April Fools' nonsense and isn't a genuine AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Presumably because Anime and Manga are grouped together as a concept, to answer nominators question? If we take action here, we should probably also refer to the Anime and manga fandom article. IgelRM (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I would be against deletion as the nominator's rationale is unclear and not based on a WP policy. IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesnt have a separate article for anime fandom and manga fandom. Metallurgist (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Metallurgist: "The article was originally about a Chinese term Dongman, and transformed into this..." Logoshimpo (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scan for Korea-related AfDs

Korea

Laos

Malaysia

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah International Islamic University

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah International Islamic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly non-notable private university. I can barely find any WP:RS mentioning this university, the source cited on the article itself is the university's website. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Hun Narkphanit (talk) 18:44, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nomination. Despite a search, I couldn’t find any reliable sources to support notability. The topic appears to lack significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Editor1769 19:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have fixed this nomination to include elements that were previously omitted (it appears to have been copied and pasted from another nomination rather than implementing {{subst:afd2}} as is intended). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Singh (athlete)

Sadhu Singh (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference in the article is a database, and all I can find elsewhere are results on other people. Let'srun (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, Malaysia, and India. Let'srun (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to India at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirecting to India at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics would be better than outright deletion. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to India at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect : Although I could not find any in-depth coverage, it is established that the subject participated in the Olympics in 1948. However, since they did not win a gold or bronze medal, there is no significant coverage to demonstrate notability, and the subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to India at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics: as WP:ATD Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 05:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to India at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Athletics. RangersRus (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This doesn't have SIGCOV, but it does show a record he broke and give us info on where he is from if anyone else is looking. https://gpa.eastview.com/crl/san/?a=d&d=tocy19460209-01.1.8&srpos=4&e=-------en-25--1--img-txIN-"Sadhu+Singh"--------- – Ike Lek (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Ghanem

George Ghanem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Community consensus has shown that ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass to notability. Searching in google news ["George Ghanem" lebanon] yields nothing. Source 1 is not SIGCOV. Source 2 is primary. Source 3 doesn't appear to cover this person. source 4 appears to be about Qatari ambassador. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 appears to be mis-linked. Have you actually gained access to source 4, or are you just assuming it does not have SIGCOV? Ike Lek (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access on source 4? I am going on the article title. Open to it being possible SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access yet. I'm not claiming it is SIGCOV, just asking a clarifying question before I go through to trouble of trying to get access. Ike Lek (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a search brought up various press releases by the Government of Malaysia regarding aid programs and such, but no secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unable to find independent secondary coverage of subject, and per nom ambassadors are not inherently notable. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – could not find any secondary & independent sources with substantial coverage – Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Violates WP:NOTPROMO as it reads like a CV.

Editor1769 22:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Transport Information System

Integrated Transport Information System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm unable to locate significant sourcing for this project, very few sources and no inline citations aren't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge sparingly (a couple of sentences) to the Intelligent transportation system (ITS) which lists ITS activities in several countries. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 13 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) 17:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge- to the Intelligent transportation system , make sense to expand and improve the target's context. As for this topic, found this which is just passing mention, I cannot find any SIGCOV so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

• Wawa Zainal (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)

Mongolia

Jamgany Narantsogt

Jamgany Narantsogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. The added source is a blog. Need reliable sources to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Eliminated in first round. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Mongolia. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Being honored as "International Master of Sport of Mongolia" (which appears to be the equivalent of the Master of Sport of Russia, International Class – the highest Russian honor, but for Mongolians) would arguably satisfy WP:ANYBIO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are no articles for Jamgany Narantsogt (Жамганы Наранцогт) or "International Master of Sport of Mongolia" (олон улсын спортын мастер) in the Mongolian Wikipedia out of its 26,058 articles. It's an active project with about 100 edits per day so if Narantsogt was a big deal in Mongolia, I'd expect him to have an article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the Mongolian Wikipedia is that high-quality. They don't even have an article on their most recent Olympic flagbearer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @BeanieFan11, you're right! Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mongolia at the 1996 Summer Olympics#Boxing, where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mongolia at the 1996 Summer Olympics#Boxing, is possible ATD, however does the subjects name need be added in the actual target redirect article?Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal

Communist League (Nepal)

Communist League (Nepal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Uncited for years. Searches turned up zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redir to Nepal Red Communist Party. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No mention of this organization at Nepal Red Communist Party.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Redirect this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Jha

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha
• Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha (2nd nomination)

Aditya Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason for nomination: Appears to fail WP:N (notability guidelines). The article reads like a résumé and is promotional in tone (see WP:PROMO). It lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:RS) and contains many unsourced or unverifiable statements (WP:V).

• Delete — Article lacks notability and credibility Buddhimatta Buddhimatta (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD template on the article has a malformed link. If someone experienced with AfD tagging could correct it, that would be appreciated.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhimatta (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous AfD discussion in 2007. However, the issues identified then persist: the article still does not establish notability through substantial independent sources.

— Buddhimatta Buddhimatta (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Buddhimatta, I've edited this nomination slightly as it was incorrectly formatted. You don't need to vote on your own nominations, as we take the initial nomination as an obvious delete vote. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 09:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank u so much! Buddhimatta (talk) 10:03, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nepal, India, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a promotional article that relies on numerous poor or unreliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify: The nominator is correct that this is a promotional puff piece, however... The subject does pass WP:ANYBIO, because they are a Member of the Order of Canada. Some coverage is available, which makes the subject suitable for an article. I suggest paring it back to a very simple description of his work and the list of recognitions. MediaKyle (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify: as MediaKyle mentions, they are a member of the order of Canada, therefore, they do pass WP:ANYBIO. I also agree that it is very WP:PROMO, I've tried to trim some of the article down. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Jha (previous discussion). Receipt of the Order of Canada does not confer automatic notability; 8,647 people have been appointed since 1967, yet fewer than 100 have articles. Even members of the Order of Canada advisory council, such as Isabelle Mondou (Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage) lack entries (draft started). The article reads promotional, with personal details suggesting self-promotion. Retaining it risks setting a precedent for similar promotional submissions. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The article fails to meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Most coverage is either brief, routine, or promotional in nature, lacking in-depth, independent secondary sources. While the subject has received honors like the Order of Canada, this alone does not confer lasting encyclopedic notability without substantial coverage in reliable sources. The tone is also promotional, resembling a résumé more than an encyclopedic entry. -Setwardo (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify. Recipient of the Order of Canada. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The fact that a bad call was made in one other AFD discussion doesn't mean we should repeat that mistake here.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the point, but I don’t see the earlier AfD as a “bad call.” On the contrary, that outcome reflected concerns that remain relevant—if anything, more so today, given that nothing genuinely new or notable has emerged since then. Most of the sourcing still reads as promotional or subject-driven rather than the kind of sustained, independent depth required under WP:GNG. The Order of Canada is certainly notable, but per WP:ANYBIO it does not automatically override gaps in independent coverage. As MelisaaArcadia noted, 8,647 people have been appointed to the Order of Canada , yet only a fraction have Wikipedia articles. In my informal, most of those with pages already had notability before receiving the award, and some pages exist for reasons unrelated to the award.

  The prior AfD highlighted precisely these notability and sourcing concerns, and nothing substantial has changed—there is still no depth of independent reporting, and no new notability beyond promotion around their latest business venture, which in itself does not have any notability. In that sense, the earlier decision was a valid application of policy, not a mistake to be “corrected.” The fact that the article was re-nominated with essentially the same content is concerning. PS, I have taken this as a learning opportunity and appreciate all the points raised as I continue to understand how to contribute effectively to Wikipedia, and as such welcome your reply. Buddhimatta (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's some in-depth coverage there is about him in English publications. Toronto Star 2010, Toronto Star 2007, Globe and Mail, and admittingly fluffy Globe and Mail piece. There's in-depth coverage in other sources such as [22]. I'm having problems with Nepalese-language sources, but here's a 2008 BBC translation of a Kantipur (daily) article about him (ProQuest 460062718). Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pulling these sources together. I’m still convinced that they don't rise above promotional coverage. The Kantipur piece, for example, is largely based on Mr. Jha’s own statements rather than independent analysis, which raises concerns under WP:INDEPTH and WP:INDEPENDENT. Even the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail articles read more like business features or lifestyle profiles than the kind of sustained, critical coverage normally expected for WP:GNG. It’s also worth noting that business and lifestyle desks in major newspapers sometimes run PR-driven features or “profile” pieces, which can blur the line between reporting and advertorial. From a Wikipedia standpoint, per WP:RS and WP:INDY, we need significant coverage that is not only reliable but also genuinely independent of the subject. Taken together, the sourcing leans closer to visibility generated through promotion than to the type of in-depth, independent coverage that would establish lasting encyclopedic notability.Buddhimatta (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that unlike an attack page, which policy requires us to remove, promotional tone can and should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. WP:PROMO is a good motivation to stubify, but not to delete. Also note that while the Order of Canada honour does not confer automatic notability, the question is whether independent, reliable sources provide SIGCOV about him. Please focus on analyzing the sources. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting, Buddhimatta, that the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail run PR-driven features that aren't indicated as such? These are the two biggest and newspapers-of-record in (respectively) Toronto and Canada. To suggest otherwise indicates unawareness of what these two papers are. I receive both on my doorstep every day and are very familiar with them, and such aspersions about them are completely unwarranted and unnecessary! The Kantipur piece was echoed by the BBC - a highly respectable news organization! The issue with this article isn't notability - it's how poorly and promotially it is written; neither of those issues have any relevance at AFD. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not discounting the reputation of the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail. My point is specifically about the content of the coverage related to this subject: the articles largely report the subject’s own claims (e.g., starting and selling a company for $100 million) without independent verification or critical analysis. From a Wikipedia notability perspective, this does not provide the significant independent coverage (SIGCOV) required under WP:GNG.

Regarding the format, even respected newspapers sometimes publish interviews, lifestyle profiles, or feature pieces that are largely descriptive rather than investigative or analytical. The concern here is that the coverage reads more like a profile or self-reported résumé than in-depth reporting that would demonstrate lasting encyclopedic notability. Buddhimatta (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. The cited coverage is mostly routine, subject-driven, or profile-style, and does not provide the significant, independent, in-depth treatment required for lasting encyclopedic notability.

The Kantipur piece (via ProQuest, misidentified in the article as BBC) mentions only a single line about a future pledge to donate 3,000 laptops, with no evidence that the pledge was carried out in full—except for one wayback link claiming 15 laptops were provided (which appear to be toy laptops for children). The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail articles report the subject’s claims (e.g., starting and selling a company for $100 million independently) without independent corroboration. I could not find verification of this transaction linked to the subject in any independent source, and multiple individuals are listed elsewhere (e.g., LinkedIn) as founders/co-founders of this company, indicating that the coverage reflects self-narrative and exaggerated claims. Similarly, donation claims in the article are unverified, and roughly 90% of cited references are inaccessible or non-functional. Even if true, these claims do not establish encyclopedic notability.

There are mentions of a project on Ryerson.ca (inactive link, accessible via the Wayback Machine), which appears to have been a one-off initiative with no independent notability. The subject claims “plans to expand Project Beyshick to other countries,” but there is no follow-up coverage or evidence that the project was replicated. While there is a source confirming the subject’s appointment to the National Capital Commission board, it is unclear whether a board appointment alone establishes lasting encyclopedic significance; typically, notable achievements while in such a role would support notability, which does not appear to be the case here.

Beyond these examples, there is no significant coverage (SIGCOV) from independent, reliable sources. The existing material is closer to promotional or feature-style pieces than to critical, third-party reporting, and does not demonstrate lasting notability.

The subject’s Order of Canada appointment (Member, the lowest of the three levels) in 2002 is noteworthy, but per WP:ANYBIO, this alone does not establish notability. Thousands of individuals have received this honour, and only those with substantial independent coverage beyond the award itself generally merit articles. In this case, there is no additional independent coverage or recent developments since the appointment that would support lasting encyclopedic notability.

In summary:

• No independent SIGCOV beyond self-published or routine coverage.
• Sources provide visibility and self-claims, not the independent depth required by WP:GNG.
• Tone and self promotion is secondary; the main issue is the absence of sustained, reliable, independent reporting, or any notable work.
• These concerns were raised in the prior AfD, and nothing substantive has changed.

Accordingly, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements and should not be retained.

Note: I have reviewed the sources available (90% are inaccessible) but its possible I may have missed a coverage. I have aimed to remain neutral and policy-focused despite being the nominator; I welcome input if any significant independent sources exist that demonstrate lasting notability. Buddhimatta (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. There are no rules about this, and you are overcooking the whole thing. The coverage is certainly not self-published. Nor is it routine - good god, how many profiles does the Globe publish? Nfitz (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Nfitz,

I am aware of the reputations of The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star, although I do not pay for it (but my inlaws do) and I prefer to read news on google news. That said, the articles under discussion raise serious questions about depth, independence, and editorial value. They read more like online lifestyle features than pieces carrying the rigour typical of print journalism. While both newspapers produce high-quality investigative reporting, these particular articles are not examples of that standard.

Over the past 18 years, there has been no substantial, independently verifiable reporting of genuine significance regarding this individual. The almost two decade old coverage above consists of interviews or features highlighting immigrants and persons of colour, rather than independent analysis, and some is limited to unreputed or personal online channels. (The video description in one of these was taken right out of the wiki page of this person, showing how we are lending to apparent notability just by allowing inclusion in this encyclopedia.)

On the broader point, I explored the “blurry lines” issue between editorial and advertising. The Wikipedia entry for The Globe and Mail notes a 2012 critique highlighting content that obscured the distinction between journalism and paid promotion—a reminder that even reputable outlets can publish material that is not fully independent.

In short, the coverage here does not demonstrate enduring encyclopedic notability. Retaining this article in its current form risks setting a precedent for submissions that are styled to appear notable rather than verifiably so. Wikipedia must remain selective, preserving content that is demonstrably significant, not merely presented as such. MelisaaArcadia (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These don't look promotional to me. As to that 2012 8-page spread (my recollection is that it was an entire separate section), there is no reference in our article! But it does ring a bell - I believe it was clearly marked as to what it is. Digging ... oh, here's the actual Tyee article]. Yes, it's clearly not part of the paper noting at the top of every page that it's "An Information Feature". Then on page 2 it clearly states that "This report was produced by RandallAnthony Communications ... in conjuction with the advertising department of the Globe and Mail ...". Misleading perhaps for the ignorant, but certainly clear. You can see this at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1695856702/ on page 36 of 58. I see nothing like that for the Jha piece. I don't see how it's comparable - or relevant to this discussion, @MelisaaArcadia. The Globe piece was however an interview - the Star 2010 is much better GNG weight - and appears on page B1 - above the fold on the front page of the Business section. I don't see any concern with the 2007 Star piece - though it was buried in a Saturday Star magazine section targeted at the South Asian community that I don't even remember. But there's nothing indicating that it's promotional. I've added a ref, and provided better context in the G&M article. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Nfitz for the research.

The more I understand this subjects pattern, the Stronger my delete conviction.

Notability cannot rest on a single 15-year-old article that merely repeats the subject’s own unsupported claim of selling his company for $100M, while giving no recognition to the facts as I have uncovered. Independent reporting shows that Omid Hodaie (CEO), Payman Hodaie (CTO), and at least a 17 others held ownership stakes and played key roles in this company. It was not a cash deal and was sold for $94 million worth of Sun Microsystems shares (page 60, point 10).

Interesting fact, around the time of their Sun Microsystems share swap based acquisition, Sun shares traded in the range of $80-$250, but next year they were worth $13-$20. So just within a few months to a year+ later, this same company was worth $15 million or less. That makes both the company and its owner making tall claims even less notable, and were part of the speculative "dot com bubble."

So may be the Subject received 1% of this sale or 10% but definitely not 100%. Maybe, he was part of the team that worked on selling the company, or may be he was just an co-founding employee with shares, but he didn't do it alone, which may have warranted some notability, but for the dot come bubble sale. The subject’s insistence on presenting himself as the SOLE founder and THE seller is a red flag - He has not given credits anywhere to the other 16 owners per the Ontario Securities Commission.

The sourcing also reveals a troubling pattern of exaggeration: claiming a donation of 3,000 laptops but delivering only 15 toy laptops; claiming to provide scholarships for 200 Canadian students annually, yet none of the listed references on Wikipedia work and no independent verification appears in Google archives or searches. In any country, if a person provides 200 scholarships a year for 20 years (that too in a small country like Canada), that would warrant a lot of high quality independent coverage. And may be he does provide a few scholarships, but seems to be self promotion inspired and a marketing technique than true giving and philanthropy which would warrant notability. Instead, the record shows reliance on small YouTube channels that simply echo his own promotional narrative or even copy Wikipedia phrasing.

Without serious, independent coverage, this article relies on self-propagated claims and does not meet encyclopedic standards. To me Subjects pattern reminds me me Vijay Mallya who built an image of himself as the "King," but behind that was a series of exaggerated claims, half-truths, and fraudulent practices. Buddhimatta (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Person is notable. Since i am from Nepal, i am well aware of his activities as businessman and philanthropy. He has received notable award. Agree with views of Nfitz (talk) . Of course the tone and content has to be and can be improved from NPOV and that doesn’t mean article fails notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any Nepalese references you can dig out? All I could find was the one translated by BBC - which means there's at least a corresponding one in Nepalese (?) that I couldn't find. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article in Nagrik Daily is more than enough for notability. https://nagariknews.nagariknetwork.com/social-affairs/the-professional-journey-of-aditya-jha-an-entrepreneur-who-sees-success-in-failure-99-33.html Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  plenty of articles on him. https://biznessnews.com/posts/43855

  https://www.reportersnepal.com/2025/08/1116024/

  https://english.pardafas.com/aditya-jha-the-entrepreneur-who-found-success-in-failure/

  https://nepalireporter.com/tag/aditya-jha Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these are reliable, independent sources. They appear to be part of the same network, recycling the same content.

  • Nagariknews / ReportersNepal / BiznessNews / Pardafas – These are popup-heavy, ad-driven sites that syndicate the same material across partner outlets, except nagarik, which seems to own these other blogs. The articles merely repeat the subject’s own promotional claims, such as portraying him as someone who could “change Nepal if given the opportunity.” In reality, he already had such an opportunity through a government contract in Nepal, which was not renewed. The coverage simply amplifies his self-descriptions of what he might do, rather than documenting what he has actually accomplished. There is no independent analysis or critical reporting. And again, is he Indian origin or is he Nepalese origin?
  • NepaliReporter – The site itself appears compromised when loaded, and its content is unreliable at best.

  Collectively, these do not rise to the level of significant, independent coverage required by WP:RS and WP:GNG. Buddhimatta (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point, Buddhimatta, which Nepalese souces you consider reliable? Also, I don't understand the question about origin. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure why you’re asking me that. Have you actually read the syndicated interview yourself? It’s basically just a platform for the subject to talk about himself, with claims that appear highly exaggerated.

  Initially my conviction was based on limited knowledge, but after spending hours researching, I am convinced that this person, albeit somewhat successful, is more of a relentless self-promoter who makes inflated and misleading claims.

  For instance, the OSC records clearly show there were 17 owners involved in the company, and the CEO quoted in the globe and mail article about the sale is not, him, and the CTO is also someone else. Also, that company was sold for $94 million in shares— and within a year it was valued closer to $15 million, divided among all 17 owners.Yet the subject continues to brag as if he alone made a $100 million exit.

  Similarly, he once claimed he will donate 3,000 laptops to children in Nepal, but the real number was closer to 15. He also boasts about offering 200 scholarships in Canada, but in reality only a handful exist, and even those links don’t work.

  I find that this Wikipedia page only serves to amplify his exaggerations, effectively giving him a platform to market himself. An encyclopedia should not be lending notability a subject like Mr. Jah. Buddhimatta (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure, @Buddhimatta, what the claims being false have to do with AFD. If that was a criteria we'd have to delete the article for Donald Trump! If there's issues with the accuracy of the article, then add the sources refuting them. But seriously - what do you consider valid Nepalase sources - you seem to have trashed various ones as being ad-driven (???) and unreliable. Before I spend time researching, and with you being an expert on Nepalese sources, can you please list some high quality Nepalese sits, so I don't waste our time? Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Proposed deletions

• Pardeshi (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
• Zindagi Rocks (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)

Deletion review

Pakistan

Vitakridrinda

Vitakridrinda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Though the name of this taxon has been informally and without ICZN validity used in some semi-reputable journal publications, the actual formal, ICZN-valid naming was in a predatory journal published by SCIRP by a researcher notorious for such practices (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sadiq Malkani), as such it it fails WP:NSPECIES. As far as I can tell, the genus and species have never been mentioned by any other researcher in a formal academic paper other than Malkani, and thus fail WP:GNG requirement for multiple independent sources. Due to Malkani's prehistoric animal taxa being typically published in predatory journals and widely ignored by other paleontologists, there is widespread consensus in the paleontology wikiproject that they do not warrant standalone articles. Previously redirected to List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs#Vitakridrinda, where it is briefly discussed in context as an invalid taxon. Repeatedly restored by IP users without explanation. I propose to Delete and redirect the article back to the List of informally named dinosaurs to prevent IP users continuing to inappropriately restore the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, Organisms, and Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – article based on unreliable sources about a genus that is non-existent in the academic literature apart from Malkani's own papers; WP:FRINGE applies. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – Don't delete this please! There's no point in arguing over this. 174.91.37.170 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per the nominator. The reasons are well articulated. Also suggest permanent WP:SEMI protection to prevent future editing by IP users.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Ryan shell (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect as the nominator suggested. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 04:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per nominator. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outright, although a redirect is cheap. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood
• Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood (2nd nomination)

Tariq Masood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has already been deleted twice, once in 2023 and again in 2024. Looking at the current version, it reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a résumé written in a promotional tone. As for the references, the majority come from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which are largely routine coverage. The subject seems to appear in the news from time to time mainly due to controversies, which again amounts to routine coverage. I don’t think the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR in any way. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as the creator of this article) – I respectfully disagree with the deletion nomination. The subject meets WP:GNG because there is clear evidence of significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources across different regions and languages. In Pakistan, outlets such as Dawn have covered Tariq Masood’s role in national debates including his participation in anti-extremism seminars and opposition to domestic legislation, while The Express Tribune reported on his participation in major religious conferences. In India, mainstream newspapers including The Print, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Rajasthan Patrika have all reported on him, particularly in the context of blasphemy debates, public threats, and controversies. In Bangladesh, media such as Somoy News, Kaler Kantho, Dhaka Today, Dhaka Post, and Naya Diganta gave extensive coverage to his 2025 tour, including addresses at leading universities and mass gatherings, with multiple outlets analysing the reasons for his popularity among youth. In addition, his presence is documented in academic work: a 2024 German-language study on antisemitism in social media lists him among Pakistani clerics whose Urdu sermons contained hostile rhetoric towards Jews and Zionism,^[1] while a 2023 peer-reviewed chapter on Islamic preaching analyses his use of social media as part of wider trends in South Asian religious discourse.^[2]
  The range of sourcing—spanning Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Germany—demonstrates coverage that is neither routine nor trivial, but substantial and sustained over time. It includes reporting on his educational background, international preaching, controversies, and his role in social debates. This satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, since coverage exists in both news media and academic literature. The article draft may have contained promotional tone, but this is a matter for neutral copy-editing and trimming under WP:NPOV, not a reason for deletion. Given the breadth and independence of sources, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and the article should therefore be kept. Khaatir (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Hübscher, Monika; Mering, Sabine von (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien [Antisemitism in Social Media] (in German). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1.
2. Sajjad, Mohammad Waqas (2023-12-18), Akca, Ayşe Almıla; Feise-Nasr, Mona; Stenske, Leonie; Süer, Aydın (eds.), "Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan", Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, De Gruyter, pp. 237–256, doi:10.1515/9783110788334-012, ISBN 978-3-11-078833-4, retrieved 2025-08-18

• • Comment – The current version has been substantially revised: promotional tone trimmed, unreliable/WP:NEWSORGINDIA-type citations removed, and replaced with stronger sourcing. It now cites mainstream outlets like Dawn, The Express Tribune, ThePrint, ABP and Navbharat Times, along with peer-reviewed academic studies (JSTOR 2022, De Gruyter 2023, Univ. of Chitral 2024, German monograph 2024). These provide independent, significant coverage across Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Europe. Thus, the article now addresses past AfD concerns on sourcing and neutrality, and demonstrates notability per WP:GNG. Khaatir (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I have looked at the references in the article, and I agree with the nominator that most of them are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article has also been deleted multiple times in the past due to notability concerns. Beyond that, there is nothing in-depth about the subject. I don’t think the subject passes even WP:BASIC. Some of the sources used in the article, such as Times Now, Bol News, Somoy News, and Express News, are completely non-reliable. Their inclusion in the article only serves to mislead other editors or waste their time. One more point to other editors and closing admins: the editor who posted the keep comment above is the article’s original creator. Baqi:) (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not clearly independent per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. WP:SALT because this is now round three at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable individual, he got some media coverage for his viral clips on social media, and a blasphemy controversy. But most of this coverage is WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not WP:SIGCOV. Subject is evidently not passing the criteria mentioned in Wp:GNG. Also SALT is applicable as per the fellow editor, 4meter4. Zuck28 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan (1965)

Battle of Rajasthan (1965) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is mainly citing pro-Pakistani sources, and is offering nothing new that hasn't been already covered in Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Rajasthan Front.

... Raymond3023 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Pakistan, India, and Rajasthan. jolielover♥talk 05:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hope you have read the Rajasthan Front in 1965 article, this article offers lot more then that. And about pro-Pakistani sources, the article's source number 1, 2, 3, 7 are neither Indian nor Pakistani sources, number 4 is Indian sources and rest are pakistani sources. The sources have been rechecked, and they state almost the same thing. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more Indian sources to make it neutral, as it is "mainly" citing pro-Pakistani sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to describe how any of those sources make this battle notable. #7 (John Fricker) is not a reliable source here because Fricker was working for the Pakistan Air Force as a military advisor. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from John Fricker, the article has Indian sources which claims the Indian losses and involvement, and those have been added. I hope this answers your question on neutrality, as India itself claimed it's losses. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about these edits of yours. Dailyio is an unreliable source, and it makes only a passing mention of this conflict. Same case with HonourPoint. Read WP:GNG and describe where you find significant coverage for this battle. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The casualties are mentioned not only in Indian sourced but also in Pakistan sources. I have added indian references to maintain neutrality. The parent article only consists a few lines about the skirmishes, but this article offers a broader version of the warfare. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added official indian history references, like Bharat Rakhshak, which is in no way fabricated. And there are other articles which don't have long time impact and poorly sourced, but they have existed from a long time. On the other hand, this article is sourced well. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Rakshak (also not reliable) is only providing the information that already exists on 11th Infantry Division (India). So what is the point of having this article? THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 09:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard about Bharat Rakhshak? Or you are learning about it for the first time? Bharat Rakhshak is a reliable source, being established in 1997 as a pioneer of the Indian military portal. The information they provide are usually collected from different authors and Indian government documents.

About the 11th Infantry Division, the context of the war is broader then the involvement of the division in the warfare. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Rakshak is reliable only for stating Indian claims, not for establishing GNG for this battle. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion. There are passing mentions about claims from both sides about the subject but it is lacking WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources in a big way. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article has cobbled up unrelated events to make this skirmish look bigger than what it really was. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per analysis of sources above. Nothing called "battle of Rajasthan" exactly happened in 1965 war. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nadia Ali (actress)
• Articles for deletion/Nadia Ali (actress) (2nd nomination)

Nadia Ali (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The 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.[23][24][25] 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.[26][27] 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]

Order of precedence in Pakistan

Order of precedence in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page since 2014. We need references to WP:V the contents. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government employees in Pakistan

Government employees in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for possible AI use. I'm nominating because this seems to be an unnecessary page that simply copies (or possibly hallucinates) information from other sources. It doesn't really seem encyclopedic, quite a lot seems to be off-topic or random trivia. If one really wanted to find pay scales for government employees, one might be better looking elsewhere WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army

Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

The given references do not say anything on behalf of the claimed speeches. The 'History' and 'Chief of Staff of the Army' sections are not trustworthy. Where is strong proof that the appointment 'Chief of Staff of the Army' was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army? It is written here that General Yahya Khan was appointed as 'Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Army' before being appointed as the C-in-C of the army. This flickr photo does not say that the 'Chief of Staff' appointment was the deputy to the C-in-C of the army. PauKau (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. jolielover♥talk 09:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is full of lies. 37.111.206.193 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not need a standalone article. Wareon (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. The requirements for deletion are set out in AfD and WP:DEL-REASON . None of the requirements are met or even mentioned in the nomination. Dualpendel (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan). 37.111.210.11 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have read almost all of the given references, the written sentences in the article do not match with the given references. 119.30.38.61 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is poorly sourced. 37.111.214.187 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 09:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The nomination's rationale is flawed. A simple Google search does not determine notability, especially for a historically significant figure like Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui, a prominent Barelvi scholar and Sufi in India and Pakistan.

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.

Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I have found a few sources that we can consider. Since this is not a BLP, I think we can allow for a bit more flexibility here. A detailed biography of the subject is available in the book Anwār-e-‘Ulamā-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat, Sindh (pp. 862–865). Another biography has been written by Shah Turab-ul-Haq, which can be accessed here. There is also an article about the subject on Scholar.pk. In addition, we can, in good faith, assume that there are further references available under WP:OFFLINE. Baqi:) (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

Tanzeem Ul Firdous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State of Bengal

State of Bengal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no significant coverage in independent reliable source. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 1,500+ word entry about him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO.[28] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Worldbruce. Mccapra (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist seems to be notable enough in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability. Worldbruce's comment on the artist being in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is also a strong argument. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per point 3 of WP:ANYBIO. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the ODNB entry by itself would be enough to establish notability, and his obituary in The Independent (ref [2],[6]) qualifies as significant coverage. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Dar

Faisal Dar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable physician. Citations are mostly about some surgeries which the subject has conducted. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalāla

Kalāla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This has existed for almost 20 years and there are many reasons. It is formatted incorrectly. There is only one source, and could find nothing online about this. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 14:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V. I couldn't find anything in a search or even on a map. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm leaning delete, but the satellite view shows a cluster of a dozen or so houses, with one well-developed road and what looks like terraced farm fields, suggesting this is a real village. Is there anything in non-English Wikipedias? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't even find a satellite view or co-ordinates, where are you finding this please? SportingFlyer T·C 07:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are coordinates at the top right of the article if viewed on a desktop. You can click on it, then click on the Google Maps option to see the satellite pictures. – numbermaniac 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeirdNAnnoyed the problem is that there is no info online. This village might be not named "Kalāla". ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This might even be made of AI or written essay-like because it originally said "Kalala is situated in the northern region of Pakistan. A car journey from the capital Islamabad should take no longer than 3 hours. A steady drive through the mountainess terrain of Muree, Past Pearl Continental Bhurban, passing the famous Malkote Chowk at Ossia. Another few minutes brings you to a traditional shopping precinct of Dayval. The mountains accross the valley facing you are of Abbotabad, where you find idyllic places such as Ayubia. Back on route you pass Birote, Treemotia and then onto the lawless villiage of Basia. You will have now entered into the North Frontier province, infact at Dayval you leave Punjab and enter the NWFP. You approach what I can only describe as a cross road with one turning back on itself towards Kohala Bridge. Kalala is a small villiage neighbouring the famous bridge of Kohala. It does fall into the grater villiage of Basian, this particular villiage being in Lower Basian.The villiage is inhabbited by Abbasi families as is much of the sorrounding area. The journey to main Muree is one of approximately 1 hour. A truly beautiful ___location with in modest reach of Muzzaffarabad." The user might have moderated it to make it exist for that long. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like OR to me (even though it might roughly describe the sattelite view). Without any information available, I'll now make it official: Delete. Please ping me if new info is found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Dodani

Sunita Dodani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page of a medical practitioner with an h-factor of 24 and 2277 cites. She is a Fellow of the American Heart Association, but from their web page that is not selective enough. Author of this page claims a pass of WP:NPROF, but I am not convinced, it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the BLP is puffed up I think there is probably enough for a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 16 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) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Khan Gakhar

Sarang Khan Gakhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail in significant coverage. Only one reference exists in which just a casual mention was found. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Asia, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If a Wikipedia article contains just a single source, or in certain instances is entirely without sources, it does not necessarily imply that the subject lacks notability (particularly when it is not a BLP situation). Prior to proposing the article for AFD, we ought to investigate coverage regarding the subject ourselves, further details can be found at WP:BEFORE. Regarding this specific subject, it is highly notable. Significant references can even be located with a straightforward search on Google Books. Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you’ve provided are from 100 plus years ago. Per WP:RAJ we cannot use such sources for this topic. There are no modern academic sources which seem to discuss this individual in detail hence the article likely fails notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Ixudi, If you have carefully read Sitush’s essay, you will find that all these points have been written specifically in relation to the caste system in India. They do not concern other matters. This means that the references I have presented are considered unreliable only with regard to the caste system in India (according to Sitush's essay). For other subjects, they remain reliable. Best Baqi:) (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A 100 plus year old text written by a non-historian will NEVER be reliable for the purposes of editing an history-related article. Lepel Griffin, the author of the text you cited, was NOT a historian or a trained academic but an administrator. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).

  Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the subject of the article lacks significant coverage in modern academic sources. Unable to establish notability. Ixudi (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be a lot of histories, even contemporary ones by historians, covering him in google books. Note that he is the Gakhar chief "Sarang Khan" and many more references come up under the name Sarang Khan without the Gakhar at the end. Just take a look at first seven pages of hits searching "Sarang Khan" Gakhar. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage for meeting GNG. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has since been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article, but with opinions expressed by legitimate editors for both "keep" and "delete" I don't think this will stop the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per the sources NYC Guru (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article relies on single source and lacks significant coverage. Hitesh Thakrani (talk)

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Islamabad Policy Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

2021 PSL season

2021 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is based on a discussion that was originally held in the talk page for the 2020 Philippine Super Liga season. The original editor stated that the redirects to the moved articles should be removed though five years later it hasn't been done. While I made them disambiguation pages later on, deleting the original redirects can still be considered.

Based on the original talk page discussion, considering that the Pakistan Super League's first season was in 2016, I will also be nominating the pages listed below. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 redirects won't be nominated for now since those predate the Pakistan Super League.

2016 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2020 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Update: I found out that there is an article for the 2014 Palau Soccer League, but "2014 PSL season" is just a redirect at the moment.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the respective seasons on Pakistan Super League and add the redirects here note to the top of each article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the better move here. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 season redirects could stick with the volleyball league since those predate the cricket league. Also, there is no need to change any links that go to the listed pages since I changed all the relevant ones a while back. MarcusAbacus (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present these pages act as a directional tool and WP:NOPRIMARY indicates that a disambiguation page is possible even when there are only two articles. Is the proposal to add hat notes to replace these pages? Is there an editor committed to doing that?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. These are reasonable disambiguation pages. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MfD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Philippines

Vanshika Parmar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Vanshika Parmar
• Articles for deletion/Vanshika Parmar (2nd nomination)

Vanshika Parmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Sources are mostly routine about winning a beauty pageant. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Beauty pageants, Ghana, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 PSL season

2021 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is based on a discussion that was originally held in the talk page for the 2020 Philippine Super Liga season. The original editor stated that the redirects to the moved articles should be removed though five years later it hasn't been done. While I made them disambiguation pages later on, deleting the original redirects can still be considered.

Based on the original talk page discussion, considering that the Pakistan Super League's first season was in 2016, I will also be nominating the pages listed below. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 redirects won't be nominated for now since those predate the Pakistan Super League.

2016 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2020 PSL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Update: I found out that there is an article for the 2014 Palau Soccer League, but "2014 PSL season" is just a redirect at the moment.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the respective seasons on Pakistan Super League and add the redirects here note to the top of each article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the better move here. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 season redirects could stick with the volleyball league since those predate the cricket league. Also, there is no need to change any links that go to the listed pages since I changed all the relevant ones a while back. MarcusAbacus (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present these pages act as a directional tool and WP:NOPRIMARY indicates that a disambiguation page is possible even when there are only two articles. Is the proposal to add hat notes to replace these pages? Is there an editor committed to doing that?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. These are reasonable disambiguation pages. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King College (La Union)

Christ the King College (La Union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, for most of this article history the only source was from the school website's history page Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's pretty unusual for a secondary school that's over 100 years old not to have sufficient coverage for a WP:GNG pass. I'm not seeing it myself but perhaps someone adept at sourcing/archives in the Philippines would know places to look? Perhaps coverage is available in other languages? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be the first to say that "if you can't find English sources about a topic from the Philippines, you won't find Tagalog ones", but that's mostly on Tagalog language-speaking areas. This seems to be Ilocano language, and I'm not entirely sure if offline sources may exist and if someone wants to dig it up at some library. Some Catholic schools in the Philippines are indeed very old, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This technically qualifies for a soft deletion, but comments here suggest it would benefit from a more careful review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Draftify- Indeed SIGCOV or notable sources seems virtually zero at least on usual websearches, no obvious hits from Google News eiter, the closest I could scrounge up so far is this, which seems from the local government in that region. Redirecting to the founding Groups seems not sensible either given their context. Not opposed to draftify if any SIGCOV can be gathered for us to check. Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:01, 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) 18:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Catholic universities and colleges in the Philippines for now. I suspect that foreign language or offline sources exist that contain WP:SIGCOV. However, until an editor with access to those sources chooses to work in this area we can't leave an article that is essentially sourced to non-independent primary materials.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems an appropriate ATD if this fails verification. It's a shame, really, as this is a nice little article on the college--just lacking sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

• Shampoo Ni Lola (via WP:PROD on 21 March 2025)
• Flag of Cagayan (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Shortcut

• WP:SGDSWP:SGDS

Singapore

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

Nahida (Genshin Impact) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Singapore. jolielover♥talk 10:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jefri Zain - Gerak Kilat

Jefri Zain - Gerak Kilat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a Singaporean movie has no references and so fails film notability and the policy of verifiability. It was already draftified once, by User: Significa Liberdade, within the past 24 hours, and was moved back to article space, without adding references, so that another unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Singapore. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added two articles from academic journals as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: When this deletion discussion is over, the article needs to be moved to its correct name of Gerak Kilat, and it needs many other improvements, but it has coverage in the secondary sources added by Eastmain. It also meets WP:NFILM criterion 2 (screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release) since it was screened at the Singapore International Film Festival in 2017 as a classic (source). Robert McClenon, I also observed the low quality of this article when it was returned to mainspace and initially had the same thought you did, but I think the sources show the topic meets notability requirements; would you be willing to withdraw the nom? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Keep; the coverage added is enough and the nominator would save us time by withdrawing. - E. Ux 14:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the sources added there are plenty more sources here. Passes GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hmmm. This is a Heymann case. The question is whether the nominator should withdraw a nomination that was correct at the time it was made, because the article now passes general notability. My nomination was correct at the time it was made, because the article not only had no references, but was tendentiously moved back to article space after being properly draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

South Korea

Kuk Sul Do

Kuk Sul Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Only three sources are cited in the article, and those too are from the organization itself. There is no significant coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, South Korea, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per total lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Given that the sources are primarily primary and do not demonstrate notability, I don't see justification for keeping this article. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Firstly, I'm here to inform that I may have been erroneously identified as the entry creator. I created Kyeok Sul Do under the name Kuk Sul Do by mistake, but the article was moved to a proper name. I think User:2601:282:1900:33C0:BC6A:451:9534:2472 and/or User:Ish00ra created the current incarnation and not me. Also I think an earlier incarnation was made by User:SwordDance108 who tried to revert my edits when I thought Kyeok Sul Do was called Kuk Sul Do. It believe that the IP user/who made the new one could be SwordDance108 -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Family (film)

Portrait of a Family (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a film that apparently remains unreleased four full years after completing production, and is thus likely DOA.
While we do allow articles about films that are still in the production pipeline as long as they have GNG-worthy production coverage, the core notability claims at WP:NFILM hinge on the film actually having seen some form of commercial release, and films that have never been released at all don't necessarily retain permanent notability just because they had a bit of production coverage at the time. We would need to see a reason why the production would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance despite its failure to ever get released, which isn't being shown here.
As I can't read Korean, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Korean can find a stronger basis for notability (e.g. it actually did get released but just not under this title, so the article got missed when the time came to update it? or somebody can find a reliably sourced reason why a film that was shot in 2021 is still unreleased in 2025?), and obviously it can be undeleted if the film ever actually does come out in the future -- but if a film is still unreleased four full years after filming, then it's highly unlikely to ever get released at all, and deeply unlikely to have any permanent notability that would exempt it from ever having to get released. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fluent in Korean, but I did do some searching. As far as I can see, it was never released as this source from 2024 mentions that it was still awaiting release. This article from 2025 mentions that it's about to release, but has no actual date. It's essentially as you said: the film was made, but never released and while there are mentions of the film releasing, there's never been a set release date or even a trailer.

This will need someone fluent to do a deep dive to see if there is enough coverage and is in-depth enough to pass NFF. We're looking at one of those situations where the film might never release. As such, coverage of the production will need to be in-depth and heavy to really justify it having its own article. Most unreleased films aren't really notable. List of abandoned and unfinished films has quite a few films that never gained enough coverage for their own article but were worth mentioning somewhere. If the coverage ends up not being heavy enough, this could be a potential merge/redirect target. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or Redirect to one of the two main actors (listed on both articles) but this could actually meet the requirements for yet-unreleased films: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/films/20210928/family-drama-bigwang-starring-ha-ji-won-and-ryu-seung-ryong-wraps-up-filming ; https://cine21.com/news/view/?mag_id=97034 https://m.sportsworldi.com/view/20200318508140 - E. Ux 06:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ryu_Seung-ryong#Filmography or Delete. Unreleased film for 4 full long years and no significant coverage any further for the film to pass notability. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kuk-fan

Kim Kuk-fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As it stands, this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference is a database, and all I could find elsewhere was a mention at [[29]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and South Korea. Let'srun (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – Plenty of SIGCOV. I'll try to AGF and assume you just had some trouble with the name when doing your BEFORE. Some sources do transliterate his name weirdly. Here's an abstract to a article about him [30]. This talks a bit about him as a coach [31], and a little bit more here [32]. There's probably tons more in the sources of the first article, but I can't read Korean, so Korean newspaper databases would be quite difficult for me. – Ike Lek (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found from the korean source that he actually exist. https://gsic.sports.or.kr/com/cop/game/player_info.do?gameCode=14 Also he seems to be covered in other korean resarch material as well as one of the figures that were part of the first generation of wrestlers in south korea.https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10862222 Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 07:40, 25 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) 00:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes WP:SPORTSBASIC based on the scholarly materials given above. It's not often a wrestler is the primary subject of an academic journal article. Nice find. Other sources look like WP:SIGCOV as well.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

• Miraculous Brothers

Taiwan related deletions

Emily Hung

Emily Hung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet general or actor notability. No independent reliable sources found on search. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Taiwan. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm unable to find enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and she also fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of notable roles. Almost all coverage appears to be tabloid sensationalism about her figure. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Like MidnightMayhem, the only sources I can find are tabloid sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

Siwakorn Muanseelao

Siwakorn Muanseelao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Like Korkrirk Petchkongthong, this fails GNG. Was even created with the BLP unsourced tag! Geschichte (talk) 06:37, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korkrirk Petchkongthong

Korkrirk Petchkongthong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. Was even created with the BLP unsourced tag! Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find absolutely nothing on this person Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Should have been PRODed in 2018. Vade retro. Svartner (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 16:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship Thailand

Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Merge. BKFC Thailand ad BKFC UK are pointless. The relevant information of both pages has already been merged into the main article Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship. The events, champions, history. I don't understand why these pages were created in the first place. Both pages are merely the main company hosting events in other countries. It's like we would create a page for UFC UK, or UFC Asia, but will almost no coverage and no events. BKFC UK has had held 8 events and BKFC Thailand has had 5 total events and is now defunct as of 2025! The main page is notable, not the branches.

Both pages lack independent coverage, and cite majoritly primary sources (BKFC.com). Events of from UK are already list inside the main promotion's list of yearly events see: 2022 in Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship#Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship 27: London. There is absolutely no need to have the extra pages except to confuse readers.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:54, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Boxing, Thailand, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is the proposed action? If content from these two articles were merged to Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship, the articles' histories must be retained to preserve attribution. The usual process would be to redirect the pages to the merge target and tag them as {{R from merge}}. This can usually be done with agreement on the article talk pages, without need for AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Content is already merged, champions, events, history. I am open to a redirect to Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship, but I still believe delete is preferable. I don't see how we can justify a standalone page for these events. Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, the page histories may not be deleted. See the full explanation at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't copied back to main page, content from main page was duplicated into the UK and Thailand. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanom Sirirangsri

Chanom Sirirangsri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. With a "source" given: https://www.facebook.com/RunningInsider/posts/1023121385120107/ . Need something more reliable to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thailand at the 1964 Summer Olympics - aside from non-selective databases, the only substantial coverage I could find was on the Olympics website, which itself is not sufficent to establish WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLY. Comparison of subject with other competitors in the same marathon reveals shows other athletes notable solely for non-medallist performances in the event redirect to country's participation in that year's Olympic Games. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 10:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thailand at the 1964 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as de-PRODer: Despite the article from the Running Insider Facebook page, which appears to be self-published, I haven't been able to find in-depth coverage online, only name mentions in articles discussing Thailand's Olympic history. As with other people fron that time period, it's hard to tell whether significant offline coverage exists from back then. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thailand at the 1964 Summer Olympics#Athletics where the person's name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thailand at the 1964 Summer Olympics#Athletics does seem a possible ATDm but is has the Marathon or Running section been added for the subject, also checked and seems his name has yet to be mentioned in the target article?Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or Tor Kor Market shooting

Or Tor Kor Market shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Thailand. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Is there any particular reason this article got nominated for deletion but not Siam Paragon shooting, Nakhon Ratchasima shootings or other pages in Category:Mass shootings in Thailand?🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 18:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems odd to me you're questioning the nominator's rationale when the article in question is still in the new pages feed. This is an event from this week, and so complaints of WP:NOTNEWS are relevant. If you have issues with other mass shooting articles, you're free to nominate those. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No offense but the nominator did not explicitly state anything in regard to the fact that the article is relatively new. Also, the word "news" in Thai language is applicable to topics that were news as well, unlike in English where the word seems to only be applicable for recent news. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is a clear case of WP:RAPID, a week has passed since the event, the initial news coverage is still ongoing at least in the Thai and Vietnamese news cycles and you're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until further details come out. Nightmares26 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmares26, WP:RAPID says to wait a few days, which is exactly what XYZ1233212 did. It also says that we should still find an alternative to deletion, such as merging, userification, or draftification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lasting notability must be demonstrated before we can say that a subject is notable and create an article for it. There is no sustained secondary coverage to support an article. Wikipedia is not here to host WP:News articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not enough has time has passed to determine lasting notability. CornyDude22 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per CornyDude22 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know this is considered an argument to avoid, but we have many articles about attacks with far lower death tolls (if any deaths at all), including from countries where such attacks are more commonplace (such as the US). I did find one article from the Bangkok Post published two days after the attack, about the perpetrator's family; for now, that's as far as ongoing coverage goes. It's too early to tell. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:21, 8 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!} 17:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I personally feel like the reason why this article feel less notable than other mass shooting in Thailand is due to the fact that news coverage of it got shadowed by the ongoing conflict with Cambodia. Regardless I retained my keep on this AFD. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 08:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now to Or Tor Kor Market#2025 shooting which already has a paragraph on this shooting. If this story still has continuing coverage, someone can revert the redirect and cite that coverage. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG and WP:RAPID DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's got significant coverage, even though lots of other bad things are happening. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand proposed deletions

Vietnam

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.