Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< August 18	August 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Ghanem

(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]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to American While Black: African Americans, Immigration, and the Limits of Citizenship. We have what looks like no consensus on the question of whether an article on this person could exist, but a clear consensus that it should not exist in this form. Accordingly, this can be closed at this time as delete+redirect. asilvering (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niambi Carter

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

Procedural nomination per this conversation at ANI where evidence has been presented that this article was created (at least in part) using AI software. Even if this subject is notable, the use of AI demands that the article be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Maryland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject is a clearly notable academic, with a peer-reviewed book published by Oxford University Press, award recognition, and substantial media and academic coverage. If the current article shows signs of AI writing, it should be **rewritten by a human editor**, not deleted outright. RolandSimon (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, keep or draftify as atd. SDGB1217 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the use of AI. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about her book, American While Black: African Americans, Immigration, and the Limits of Citizenship, since it passes WP:NBOOK by virtue of multiple academic reviews. I don't think WP:AUTHOR is met by just one book (that'd have to be a very impressive single book), any case for WP:PROF notability would have to rest on sorting through the media appearances for WP:PROF#C7 and seems rather shaky, and we should expunge the untrustworthy text rather than let it sit around until somebody takes up the task of redoing it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only if the previous versions are suppressed so the text is unavailable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with deleting the page before creating the redirect, so that the current text isn't sitting there in the visible history and won't be restored. It cites "example.edu/syllabus", for crying out loud. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No objection to revdel past versions under WP:RD5. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 15 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!} 23:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrothermal explosion of Global Subterranean waters

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

This article is a bit difficult to comprehend (or even to understand what the scope is), but it appears to be entirely original research. It seems to be related to Hydrothermal explosion, but this would be an unlikely search term to redirect there. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. This may take the cake as THE worst violation of WP:OR and WP:ESSAY I have ever seen. Of the three references, none mention the hypothesis, and the first isn't even about geology, it's about industrial heat-transfer processes. Nonstandard formatting, tone, cadence, and capitalization give the article a real Time Cube feel. Absolutely inappropriate for WP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons stated above. — LucasBrown 04:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Chemistry, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Clear OR, a paper draft from a SPA with no real attempt to hide that it is anything else. Note: the redirect Noah's Flood through science - Hydrothermal explosion of Global Subterranean waters should be included in the delete. The redirect's title is telling.Ldm1954 (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Astonishing article - am only glad this was caught early and hadn't been sitting in the bowels of the site for months. Complete OR - no redeemable information. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 10:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research.--Staberinde (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day hypothesis. By now, everybody knows that we don't publish original research. Also delete the redirect for the same reasons, plus WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, and delete the redirect Noah's Flood through science - Hydrothermal explosion of Global Subterranean waters too. If it's not clear what this is, the article creator was helpful enough to include an infobox person template identifying himself as a Bible Scholar and Creationist known for Advocacy of Christian Apologistics and Scientific, historical support for the Bible. Meters (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There are well-argued points in favour of a number of options, with none clearly prevailing in number, and accordingly, a no-consensus closure is appropriate.

This does not prevent editors from discussing and gaining consensus for merging or redirecting via an appropriate talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Fraser (Canadian soccer)

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

Cannot find any articles and citations on him. I have also checked newspapers.com. He also only played one Olympics game as a midfielder. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NOLY. I imagine there needs to be a more study of these footballers from the St. Louis edition, but it is within the current criteria. Svartner (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOLY seems to apply to individuals who have won medals in the Olympics, but it does not automatically qualify anyone. The policy was changed a while ago. It now starts out by saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete...." ,,, if you go back to a version such as June 2021 it says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games,..." .. this has not been the case for a while and I am assuming you are an old school editor that is not aware of the policies.

So we still need significant coverage. If you can produce such coverage, please post it. We need to start deleting many of these older athletes who no longer qualify based on the policies. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "need" to delete articles on Olympic champions? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner I don't disagree, but we don't currently have any policies that says Olympic medalists qualify automatically. They still need to have significant news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge too Galt F.C. Again like I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Cudmore, I believe they are notable as a group, the prose should be merged for all players. I am also curious why this is chosen to be nominated for AfD, when it could have been all merged without the need for AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because some editors bitterly oppose any and all changes to these pages and insist that everything has to be done through AFD. If you redirect they just undo the redirect. If you PROD they just deProd with a perfunctory "too many prods". So AFD it has to be. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galt F.C.. Mention the players here with position and lifespan. It's anachronistic to treat the 1904 Olympic football competition as a real Olympic football competition. Geschichte (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
50 words in this source. Kinda ridiculous to start getting rid of Olympic champions... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 he only played one game in Olympics. That's hardy a champion. There is also no indication that he played in the finals. However, since we go based on policy, please point me to the policy that may be relevant here. WP:NOLY seems to apply to individuals who have won medals in the Olympics, but in addition it does not automatically qualify anyone. The policy was changed a while ago. It now starts out by saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete...." ,,, if you go back to a version such as June 2021 it says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games,..." .. this has not been the case for a while and I am assuming you are an old school editor that is not aware of the policies. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who appears for an Olympic champion team is considered an Olympic champion. All I said is that it is ridiculous to get rid of articles on Olympic champions. Being called an editor that is not aware of the policies by someone with 1/100 as many contributions as myself is kind of insulting to be honest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 I apologize if my comment came across as insulting—that was not my intention. I only meant to point out that, under the current policies, being an Olympic Champion does not automatically qualify someone, and it appears you may not have been aware of this change. The guidelines specify that significant news coverage is still required. I fully acknowledge that you have made more edits than I have; however, the number of edits does not necessarily reflect familiarity with every Wikipedia policy. There are likely many areas where your knowledge exceeds mine, but in this case, it seems you may not be as familiar with the WP:NOLY policy. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 fully agree. Svartner (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (2nd pref.) Redirect - This was a team medal, not individual, and per WP:NTEAM members of the team don't inherit the notability of the team. Then there's the question of whether a tournament in which exactly two countries (three teams - two for the US, one for Canada) were represented qualifies even under WP:NOLY, and it clearly does not because NOLY explicitly excludes situations in which everyone is guaranteed a medal ("Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), e.g., Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, e.g. Laurentia Tan, unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal)". I'd also question whether it's accurate to say that the players in these teams were playing for their countries - especially the players in the two US teams but even the players in Galt F.C. appear to have been representing their teams, not their countries. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of IRS SIGCOV.

Oppose Merge - There isn't anything WP:DUE to merge here. Whilst I'm at It I should say that my preference is for deletion, not redirection, because "(Canadian soccer)" is not a plausible search-term. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This was a team medal, not individual" Why'd all the players get medals then? Football_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table: "According to a report in the Toronto Mail and Empire newspaper of November 18, 1904, medals were awarded to the players in St. Louis. The report states that "Immediately after the game, the Galt aggregation, numbering about 50 persons, retired to the office of James E. Sullivan, chief of the Department of Physical Culture, where they received their prize. After a talk by Mr. James A. Conlon, of the Physical Culture Department, Mayor Mundy, of the City of Galt, presented each player on the winning team with a beautiful gold medal." The medal awarded to Fred Steep of Galt, held by The Soccer Hall of Fame and Museum in Vaughan, Ontario, clearly shows that the medals were made in St. Louis, Missouri." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are team medals because this is a team event. Players receive them regardless of how they, individually, performed. The winner is the team, not the individual players. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I said merge, because Galt F.C. won the medal for the Canadian team, the Galt F.C. article could easily house basic team information in say a table. FOARP I feel ashamed for you, (I never said redirect) you're clearly more interested in article destruction than article creation. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created hundreds of articles, so no, that impression is pretty much just in your own head.

What I'm against is the mass-spamming of the encyclopaedia with non-notable articles that's been going on. As can be seen from WP:NSPORTS2022, WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2, I'm far from the only person who thinks this is an issue.

As for merging, as I said, there is nothing reliably sourced and WP:DUE that needs merging here. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-spamming going on? This has nothing to do with Lugnuts. Why are you casting aspersion on the well-appreciated article creator - User:Gh, for an article that clearly met creation criteria? The article has been here for almost 20 years! Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an Olympic medalist.--User:Namiba 14:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He would have been an Olympic medallist regardless of how he performed, because only three teams entered. WP:NOLY explicitly excludes this kind of medal even if you think a team medal makes him a champion (it doesn't). FOARP (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where this argument fails is that he's a gold medalist. And a member of one of only 18 teams of distinction (and the second ever added) from the last 140 years in the Canada Soccer Hall of Fame. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for the notability of the teams, not him. FOARP (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Galt F.C. as possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the team. Oppose merge as the existing info is just a couple sentences of trivial prosified stats. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV, and since only three teams competed in the football tournament this season WP:NOLY is also not met here. Oppose a redirect due to the implausible disambiguation, and there's nothing worth merging here either. Let'srun (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think no matter what a gold medal should be grounds for inclusion in the Olympics, regardless of coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in the first editions. These are cases where I think it's completely justifiable to have stubs. Svartner (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have two global consensuses explicitly rejecting that reasoning, so... JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opposite, because the earliest competitions took place between completely random teams, not countries with qualifying processes etc. The media attention was also astronomically lower. Geschichte (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's remarkable that not a single keep !vote articulates a valid PAG-based argument... JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Galt F.C. as a possible search team. Winning a gold medal at the Olympics, especially as part of a team, does not exempt one from GNG and has not since the alterations made to NOLY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. An Olympic gold medalist is an Olympic gold medalist.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, this reasoning was deprecated by NSPORT2022. Olympic medals have also not been accepted for ANYBIO criteria in years. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Olympic medals have also not been accepted for ANYBIO criteria in years." I don't think there's ever been a discussion about it at all one way or the other. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I participated in the RFC FYI. That RFC specifically changed criteria at NSPORT. It had zero impact on the way ANYBIO is applied to biographies; including ANYBIO applications to sports biographies. I also note that WP:NOLYMPICS indicates medalists are likely to have WP:SIGCOV. For major sports awards like gold medals at the Olympics a pass by ANYBIO is a perfectly valid WP:SNG rationale for establishing notability.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How could an achievement that is, by multiple recent global consensuses, explicitly not considered sufficient for even presuming SIGCOV exists, let alone presuming notability, ever be a valid candidate for some other notability criterion... That's as clear-cut a rejection of ANYBIO candidacy as you can get! Not to mention that NBIO also states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, which unambiguously precludes any sporting achievement from satisfying presumption of notability on its own. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where has there been an explicit conversation about Olympic medal winners with the outcome you are claiming? Please link to the conversation/RFC on said topic with the resulting opinion. To my knowledge no conversation has taken place on this topic. Further, the main problem with NSPORT criteria was the massive amount of Olympic participants automatically presumed notable just because they participated. Ditto on athletes in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. The revised guidelines were meant to stop such spurious article creations and delete the massive amount of SPORTSCRUFT on the encyclopedia, and rightfully so. What these conversations were not meant to do was prevent articles on distinguished athletes (ie medalists). Where ANYBIO rightfully intercedes is in rescuing articles on athletes with a measurable notable distinction. In other words. Olympic participant= No guarantee of notability. Olympic medalist= Guarantee of notability. That seems both fair and right in my opinion. Lastly ANYBIO is higher order of policy. NSPORT can't override biography policies of wide scope that are applied across all topic areas encyclopedia wide. 4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT2022 explicitly removed any presumption of athlete notability and instead replaced it with the weaker statement that sufficient SIGCOV is likely to exist if and only if a source of IRS SIGCOV has already been identified and cited. This overrides all presumptions of notability previously afforded by individual sport criteria, which, without exception, were deemed to never be sufficient for meeting WP:N on their own. If winning a gold medal at the Olympics was uniformly prestigious enough to bypass SPORTCRIT, meeting that criterion would have achieved consensus for exemption.
NOLY further removes the presumption of GNG even when a SIGCOV source (meeting SC #5) is cited for gold medal-winning athletes who competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal); this was added following this SNOW consensus: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 47#Low participation competitions.

ANYBIO is also absolutely not a "higher order" of policy. In fact, it is lower: even though NSPORT and NBIO are both SNGs and subordinate to WP:N, the NBIO "additional criteria" merely state a person meeting them is likely to be notable, not "presumed to be notable" (which is under NBASIC). This is clearly a weaker presumption of notability and, as NBIO is a GNG-based SNG anyway, and as WP:N still ultimately requires all SNG-meeting topics to have IRS SIGCOV, it is not sufficient to rebut a demonstrable lack of GNG coverage. Additionally, the global consensus from NSPORT2022 is much more recent and received much more participation than the ANYBIO discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect at best, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:SIGCOV, and common sense. In my view the notability of this subject is marginal. Competing at the Olympics is not this singular achievement: it may be the pinnacle of a sport today, but historical context matters. In this case every football player appears to have been guaranteed a medal. More generally, there are a plethora of subjects that are genuinely significant that we do not have articles about because we lack substantive coverage about them. Regardless of the cosmic significance of all Olympic athletes, the only part of this article that would not be covered in a list entry is his birthplace. A standalone page is not justified, and a redirect is also not justified, given that this is an unlikely search term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vanamonde, FOARP, etc - we should not merge/redirect, as the title is not a plausible search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one is searching for him, how come there's over 600 views in the past year? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections. ✗plicit 23:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent candidates in the 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections

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

Wikipedia is not a database. This indiscriminate collection of information that has absolutely no sources at all would be better merged with the parent article. Creating an entire page to list all the representatives of an ~~pretty niche~~ election feels like if a novel had a separate chapter to list all the background characters. The topic of this article isn't big enough to be actually separate. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 14:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 14:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of Candidates in the 2013 Philippine House of Representatives election but there were too many independents, it was an editorial decision to WP:SPLITSIZE. If this is not what the community wants, merge to Candidates in the 2013 Philippine House of Representatives election. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly disagree that the 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections is a "pretty niche election". This is a general election of a country of 100 million people. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections. This has no sourcing whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections. per Maile. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 Philippine House of Representatives elections: Per Maile. Scoria (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aristide Sartor

(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 is a database and all I could find in a BEFORE were some mentions and hits on unrelated people. A redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a small amount of coverage in Richard D. Burnell's Henley Regatta: A History (1957), but I can only see it in snippet view on Google books. Jahaza (talk) 16:32, 5 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) 15:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his brother's article Ampelio Sartor as I have found an article with coverage of the brother and another elder brother when they raced together in 1939[1]. This can fill in some of the backstory on them. Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Redirect but two separate target articles that have been suggested. We need to find agreement on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Slugfest

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

Unsourced article full of unsupported claims. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source, but it's MobyGames. MetaCritic has a list of reviews, which I think is generally enough? [2] SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disamgibuate This is a series page, as Slugfest: Loaded has its own page already. I do not believe it is notable enough for a series page, though. Either it should be turned into a DAB page for the various MLB Slugfest games or deleted to let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking DAB it, too, but technically I believe it should be a Set index article -- SIA -- but either will work. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be a section on List of video games by Midway Games but either way is fine. IgelRM (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a lot of suggestions floating around here and none have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above comments that there's ample space for a feeder page, but no evidence of series coverage for a standalone article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islah Abdur-Rahman

(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]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Thanks to the editors who went to so much trouble both evaluating sources and looking for additional ones to support claims of notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wakkanai Centennial Memorial

(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]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trojans Rugby Football Club

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

Explicitly promotional piece on an amateur rugby club in the United States. This was the only independent piece of coverage I found. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Georgia (U.S. state). JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 13 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!} 21:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd presumed this was the club in Southampton England that probably would qualify as a notable team. Skeene88 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Wellbeing

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

Fails WP:GNG. Absolutiva 22:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva 22:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 12 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!} 21:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems sources just have WP:ROUTINE coverage and not able to find many sources with such details mentioned on the page. "Digital wellbeing" in many reliable sources is for broader concept of digital wellbeing and not just "a feature on Android developed by Google". Asteramellus (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG --Setwardo (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malsawmtluanga

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

Only 3 professional appearances in the 2014-15 I-League season. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Meghalaya-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to a previous appearance at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mizoram-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything close to WP:SIGCOV from his brief career. I found a smidgen of coverage about the unrelated R. Malsawmtluanga but that's about it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't yet see justification to SALT the page. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Levi Carter

AfDs for this article:

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

Restored following the AfD two months ago. I've done a new WP:BEFORE search and still can't find any sources that show WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. His achievements don't meet WP:ANYBIO. References found all seem to be press releases and/or unreliable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources beyond routine announcements. Examples include VoyageHouston (2017 profile), Click2Houston (2020 news article), Defender Network (multiple features, 2019–2020), and BlackBusiness.com (2019 article). His company’s repeated recognition on the Inc. 5000 list and authorship with ForbesBooks demonstrate notability under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Article should be improved, not deleted. SLC1CR (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these sources were already mentioned in the previous discussion. I'm not sure if the new ones are enough to change consensus. I'll ping the people that reviewed the sources 2 months ago to see if this is now acceptable. @Asamboi:, @Mekomo:, @Oaktree b:, @Mooonswimmer:, @Bearian:, @Gheus: - if the new sources do address the concerns from 2 months ago, I'll withdraw the AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still promotional spam and the sources are still garbage, eg ForbesBooks is a vanity press. The previous article was created by a banned sockpuppet, and User:SLC1CR's editing pattern, which is focused solely on the Carters, is suspiciously similar. Asamboi (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing has changed since the last AFD. Mekomo (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT due to repeated creation. This page is WP:ADMASQ. These sources are a mix of trivial mentions, affiliated sources, press releases, and churnalism. I see no evidence of passing WP:GNG and the repeated creation is a clear effort to evade WP:NOTPROMO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing has changed since the previous AfD. All coverage is either primary, trivial, hyper-local, or promotional (eg. Vents Magazine). Awards and recognitions like Inc. 5000 listings and a Stevie Award are routine business recognitions and don't establish notability. Mooonswimmer 19:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rakib Mosabbir

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability or notable works. Just news of his new albums getting releases. No reliable independent sources for establishing notability. Rht bd (talk) 20:29, 12 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) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 21:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to a previous appearance at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: As a courtesy, notifying the only unblocked participant in the prior AfD (other than myself). --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Only a couple of the listed items have articles; a category would be more appropriate for the ones that do. ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Utah. ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While it might appear that the "first nomination" is missing, in actuality it was part of a failed bundled nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine, from 2009. (I have no opinion on the current nomination.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found these two sources that seem to span the scope of the list: [3]; [4]. However, I have no idea about the reliability of either site, and both seem a little promotional and SEO-ish. So I will withhold an opinion for now unless someone can establish the reliability of these sites. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the page is non-notable local businesses. I don't believe we should have a directory of small companies that manufacture a certain type of product in this form. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NOTDIRECTORY. One notable/articled entry for each category? Naah. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This question should be part of a larger discussion, I believe, because there are really a lot of "List of breweries in X" articles, and we should probably attempt to arrive at a consensus on how they should all be handled. Take a look at List of breweries in New York, Brewing in Oregon, List of breweries in Illinois, List of breweries in England, List of breweries in Ireland... and so on. The Utah article has fewer breweries that have their own WP articles than a lot of those, but it's just a matter of degree. And then there's List of breweries in California, where breweries with references but without their own WP articles were removed a few months ago, with minimal discussion. What's needed is an overall discussion about these articles. I think a Request for Comment would be the best approach. (I'm going to somewhat randomly ping a few editors who I think might be interested in this topic: @David Eppstein, MelanieN, IronGargoyle, and Graywalls:). — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said to keep but list only bluelinked entries, per the California example (for which the relevant discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in San Diego County, California) but I don't see enough bluelinks to support a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to China–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US–China strategic engagement

(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]
Redirect to China–United States relations: This article clearly fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an essay. No objection to any encyclopedic content being merged as appropriate to the target page, though, and redirection with page history preserved will facilitate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW, and kinda-sorta WP:G5, as the creator has now been CU-blocked. asilvering (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Florida Turnpike crash

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

Feline Frame-Up (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

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

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. This is a run-of-the-mill news story about a car crash that is only receiving press because the Trump admin is politicizing it. There is pretty much zero chance that this event will have any lasting effect. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only likely avenue for notability will come from continued politicisation, in which case per WP:DELAY and WP:CRYSTAL this article currently doesn't stand as notable. Also don't think WP:RAPID is relevant here - the event occured a week ago and the facts of the case are broadly known and have been covered. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 19:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the Trump comment until several days after this incident had happened, and by then, I had already read a huge number of articles on this incident that never mentioned Trump's comment. This incident exposes the fact that sanctuary states that don't care about the law are illegally giving commercial driver's licenses to illegal immigrants who failed both the English test and the road sign test. This policy is widespread and systemic. Even if Trump had never commented on it, it would still be a huge deal. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is very notable, and has received massive commentary from many notable elected leaders and news people. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from elected officials and the media is not sufficient to establish that an event is "notable" as Wikipedia uses the term. Please read the notability guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank for you comment.~~

~~In general, I think that this subject is huge, and will continue to get a large amount of coverage for a long time.~~

~~This will be in the history books, and also in the legal books.~~

~~Law schools will be talking about this one for hundreds of years.~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

As a lawyer, I can confidently say that that is not true. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page author has declined draftification in favor of this deletion discussion — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I created this article. I prefer a deletion nomination over draft status, because it will help me to get more opinions from more people. I'm willing to take the risk of it getting deleted. It could be a learning experience for me. I'm hoping the consensus is for keeping it, but I'm always open to the possibility that the consensus is different than my own opinion. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you want to learn more about editing here, but forcing other editors through a discussion where the outcome is obvious is not the best way to do that. Again, I suggest you read the notability guidelines and get an appreciation for what can be an article on Wikipedia. If those guidelines are unclear, ask for help. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~An extremely valid point on your part. Thank you for making it. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability, and I question if it would pass NEVENT even if Trump's politicization of the event was added to the article. WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another detail is that the subject accused was said to cross over the border in 2018 during their first term, so whatever political point FFU was trying to make with this article fails based on chronology alone. Nathannah • 📮 23:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is very unlikely to have any enduring interest outside of a small clique and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Donald Albury 19:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this crash, wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If there is enduring notability, the article can always be recreated later, but I'm skeptical that it will be as such unfortunately. Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:POINTy WP:ONEEVENT, as there are numerous crashes with fatalities on that toll road yearly, and the article makes no mention of any crashes in the road's history. It's also interesting that FFU knows how to draft in the sandbox and then WP:CANVASSed several other talk pages to put eyes on this article (and a myopic focus on culture war offal and an attempt to 'wall of shame' the driver by editing a dab in their name with the details), so I think we're not dealing with someone on their first Wikipedian rodeo (nor account). Nathannah • 📮 22:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The truck driver failed both his English test and his road sign test. This policy could be widespread and systemic, and there could be a huge number of dangerous and unqualified drivers on the road. He got his commercial driver's license from a sanctuary state that doesn't care about these kinds of safety laws. Very big deal. Very notable subject. Source: https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/us-news/illegal-migrant-truck-driver-in-deadly-florida-crash-failed-english-road-sign-tests-despite-getting-licenses-from-2-sanctuary-states/ Feline Frame-Up (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, New York Post cannot be considered a reliable source as a tabloid magazine with a "lack of concern for fact checking". Perhaps a different source could be used to make your case? — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 02:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~An ABC News affiliate said the truck driver who killed 3 people needed a translator when he was in court.~~

~~That's a very reliable source.~~

~~California gave a commercial driver's license to a person who can't read English road signs.~~

~~This is a huge deal.~~

~~Source: https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/stockton-truck-driver-will-be-extradited-deadly-florida-crash/103-93629d11-a9a6-472e-abd7-3f18e66b405d~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~The Miami Herald, another reliable source, also reported that he needed a translator in court.~~

~~Source: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article311770068.html~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

He got his commercial driver's license from a sanctuary state that doesn't care about these kinds of safety laws. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your political beliefs in articles. Neutrality is one of our core policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A key word here is could be. At present, this car crash is insignificant. If policy is created based on this crash, maybe the crash will meet NEVENT. Until then, it's likely non-notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly the turning decision is more notable here than the person themselves; any person who drives a truck, irrespective of their nationality, could have done this, but there's nothing any existing or new traffic law could do to stop this because people are people. Nathannah • 📮 15:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is significant that California gave a commercial driver's license to someone who cannot read road signs.~~

~~He needed a translator in court.~~

~~Sources:~~

~~https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/stockton-truck-driver-will-be-extradited-deadly-florida-crash/103-93629d11-a9a6-472e-abd7-3f18e66b405d~~

~~https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article311770068.html~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Small-scale car crashes can be notable, such as the 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. However, it is likely WP:TOOSOON to determine if this is such a case. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEVENT. 1) It is TOOSOON to tell if this will have long-lasting impacts. Thus, the article may be recreated at a later date if there at lasting implications. 2) I cannot find sources outside of the US and India, the driver's country of origin. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The crash itself is not notable. If the debate is over Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States, we have that article already so perhaps some commentary is appropriate there... Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a debate on the talk page there. I don't think it's due for inclusion there and this seems like it's getting close to POV-pushing to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the full paragraph with all the details that focus on the crash is undue detail there, and I agree there's definitely POV-pushing, but a shorter summary to describe more recent attention and that this was a CDL may be appropriate. Not a great article in general, way too much administrative process about New York, not enough discussion about the merits. — Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely be rewritten using secondary sources. Right now, it's a mix of "politician X said Y" and a play-by-play of the legislative processes. None of it is particularly encyclopedic. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's extremely notable that California gave a commercial driver's license to someone who can't read road signs.~~

~~He needed a translator in court.~~

~~Sources:~~

~~https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/stockton-truck-driver-will-be-extradited-deadly-florida-crash/103-93629d11-a9a6-472e-abd7-3f18e66b405d~~

~~https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article311770068.html~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Yes. Perhaps a redirect to that article would be a better idea than a deletion. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and the "newsworthiness" has been existing issues related to immigration. – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor road traffic incident with only three deaths and no indication of lasting notability. Incidents like these are far from rare. Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's extremely notable that California gave a commercial driver's license to someone who can't read road signs.~~

~~He needed a translator in court.~~

~~Sources:~~

~~https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/stockton-truck-driver-will-be-extradited-deadly-florida-crash/103-93629d11-a9a6-472e-abd7-3f18e66b405d~~

~~https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article311770068.html~~

~~Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You don't need to(and shouldn't) repeat your points in this discussion over and over. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article's creator is a relatively new account that immediately created blank user and talk pages, which to me seems like an attempt to not appear as a new account with red links. Nearly all their edits have been their work creating this article, then spamming links to it on a bunch of talk pages, which to me seems like WP:NOTHERE behaviour and just POV-pushing. I mean, just read their comment above; it's obvious they don't think the topic is notable because of Wikipedia's notability policies but because they want to highlight the driver personally in a bad light as an example of sanctuary states being an issue. As other editors have already pointed out though, there's no correlation, which is why the article creator resorted to a deprecated tabloid source. Yue🌙 21:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted a rewrite of the article to remove many of the inflammatory points of the original draft and removed massive irrelevant category spam, but it definitely needs more work to even be an acceptable stub. Nathannah • 📮 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thank you for improving the article. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I don't like the red on those links, so I did something to get rid of it. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Interesting conundrum. Would definitely keep if this turns out to be some sort of false flag. But until there's more evidence then politically overly convenient timing, delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also per WP:CARCRASH - the general consensus among WP:USRD editors is to exclude mention of crashes and other incidents in road articles, let alone standalone articles unless the incident was caused by a design in the roadway and/or led to a reconstruction of the respective section of roadway. Also the title is problematic for two reasons. The road is called "Florida's Turnpike", and this definitely was not the only crash to occur on it in 2025. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sock. – The Grid (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the article creator. I am not blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayvin Van Deventer

(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. Let'srun (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kansas, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only played in reserve team so far. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Colchester United W.F.C. season

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

I'm struggling to comprehend why we have a separate article for an individual club season for a club competing in the 9th tier of English women's football. This season is already covered more than adequately in the main article - Colchester United W.F.C.. Even if there were independent, reliable sources for all the statistics and results in this article, this would be way below the level that would usually be considered for a stats article. In English men's football, typically only the top 4 tiers are covered to this level of detail. As a stand-alone topic, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. I also think WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Although they are at slightly higher amateur levels, 2024–25 Colchester United W.F.C. season and 2025–26 Colchester United W.F.C. season may also need looking at. Those advocating for keep, please can I ask that you cite a Wikipedia notability guideline? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant fails in WP:NSEASON. Svartner (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note consensus on other amateur seasons that all ended in deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 CS Saint-Laurent season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024/25 Romford FC Season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other obscure, amateur seasons mentioned by Spiderone. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A season topic for a team in a league that is not notable enough to have a topic is clearly not notable. CNC (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States governors who died in office

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 18:07, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific, and since it already fails WP:NOTTRIVIA, it would get deleted. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom and comment above. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends if this is WP:SYNTH or not. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian chief ministers who died in office, this is a relevant topic and I don't believe it's synthesis or mere trivia. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Reywas92. Article with potential encyclopedic interest if reviewed/kept in scope. Svartner (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Reywas92.PortraitMaster1 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I disagree with the interpretation it does not meet WP:NLIST and believe it fulfills a purpose relevant to Wikipedia. Today I learned how many governors died in office and am a little surprised it hasn't happened in 22 years. I also know this is a bit "other stuff exists," but certainly lists like List of members of the United States Congress who died in office (1950–1999) do demonstrate the usefulness of such a list. I do preface it as a weak keep because there doesn't seem to be a ton in the article at present that ties the concept together.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This article provides an overview of the important turning points in the history of U.S. states by linking to further articles, which helps in understanding how these events shaped the subsequent governing history of each state. It also allows for comparisons with similar situations in Indian states by referring to the corresponding article on Indian chief ministers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh PreetManak (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:PURPLIST. It's a relevant topic partly because society has a vested interest in understanding succession of leadership when someone dies in high political office. When events like these happen they are of historic importance and have significant impact on the society where the subject was serving as a governor.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TSU (song)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. No coverage on the song itself; brief coverage on the controversial R Kelly sample (which I just added), which itself is not enough for this article to stand on its own. The song is not discussed in length in the sources I checked. Was actually completely uncited before today (other than charts) and had 2 incorrect statements (according to BBC and Variety, anyway). jolielover♥talk 18:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Charting meets WP:NSONG, and the song has received widespread sigcov, in multiple sources that meet WP:RSMUSIC and WP:RSPS. As well as the Rolling Stone, Variety & BBC refs you added, there's also Billboard, LA TImes and NME. Even if they're because of the sample used, it still counts as significant coverage of the song (and its composition). Nil🥝 05:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG says charting may count towards notability, and it still has to pass WP:GNG. None of the sources are in depth about the song/composition, it's merely about the controversy. A sentence or two on the controversy can be in the main album page. A source review will find that none of the sources are in depth in regards to the song. jolielover♥talk 07:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, GNG's WP:SIGCOV doesn't require sources to be "in depth", only non-trivial.

If a song creates controversy that's reported in multiple reliable sources, then I don't believe that could be considered trivial coverage.

I understand others may not see it the same way (and I would accept a merge as an AtD), but I see "in depth" brought up often in AfD, even though that's not the actual requirement as I read it. Nil🥝 04:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair perspective. However, if the song was only notable for that controversy, and there's not much else to write about it, then wouldn't the "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" part of WP:NSONG apply? There's not much else to write about the song beyond the controversy, as clearly proven. I also don't think having an article held up only be a single controversy when there isn't much to write about it as a whole is exactly neutral or due. λ NegativeMP1 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Certified Lover Boy. Not enough significant coverage on the song itself and charting doesn't establish notability. λ NegativeMP1 03:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight hot take, but I always thought Drake singing "I've got a Drac in the studio and I don't just mean I'm in this bitch" was actually pretty funny. Anyways, I think this could be redirected; the writer credit controversy is more of a footnote in the larger album rollout and could be covered on the CLB article. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nil. Well, first of all. In the notability of WP:NSONG: Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and note that the song need to be notable even it is in the chart. I also noticed the certifications so it is a green flag IMO. Second, it passed on WP:GNG because have a article from Variety, Billboard, ABS-CBN News (Philippines), NME, People and many more (I did a search, there's so many articles about TSU by drake but I pick the useful articles) and it is covered by WP:SIGCOV. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charting does not establish notability on its own and none of these articles are SIGCOV. All they do is talk about the controversy on the surface-level. Which is the whole rationale here. λ NegativeMP1 04:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Nil. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nil.4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. After multiple relistings, a consensus has emerged that this warrants keeping as a standalone page. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or Tor Kor Market shooting

(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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Kalika

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage of this chiropractor in reliable sources. Does not appear to be notable as an academic either. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, United States of America, and New York. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is not written like a CV/resume; it's written in an encyclopedic way, stating factual information. WP:NOTCV does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangutan Enjoyer (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is WP:ADMASQ for Kalika's practice. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; he's a WP:ROTM chiropractor who gets quoted occasionally in the media. A review of his Google Scholar page shows that his papers are almost never cited by others, so there's no argument from WP:NACADEMIC based on influence in his discipline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Valid arguments on both sides, with no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 23:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Ceylon Islamic United Front

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

No cite yet given for the claim that it was represented in parliament before the July 1960 election so might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely existed but not notable enough. Agletarang (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as explained when de-prodding, the party was represented in the national parliament. --Soman (talk) 11:30, 10 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) 16:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have provided evidence to show WP:SIGCOV. Will look at rewriting, when time permits, to highlight its significance to the national politics. Dan arndt (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M. S. Kariapper. Apparently he formed ACIUF sometime between March and July 1960 elections, ran on July election unsuccessfully, and then was convicted for corruption in the same year, later in 1965 running already as independent. All in all, ACIUF appears to have been a single election project that failed to take off, and is not really independently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Sources demonstrating WP:SIGCOV were added by Dan arndt.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riedlingen derailment

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most ...accidents...), whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Germany. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only news coverage, not sustained secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well there is at least one recent article with some secondary analysis Laura240406 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This accident was a big deal and it went all the way to the top of German politics. The extensive German Wikipedia article, Eisenbahnunfall von Riedlingen cites 23 references. This article already had an {{Expand German}} tag on it before it was nominated for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that our deletion policy requires considering alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD). One is merging and redirecting; two possible targets are Ulm–Sigmaringen railway or Riedlingen. Another option is to draftify the article to see what further coverage comes up. However, from looking at the German article, we should expand our article, not remove it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning~~ keep The German article is much longer, and while I haven't had the time to look through it the accident does seem to have had significant impact. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the improvements I'm upping my confidence here. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've greatly expanded the article by translating from the German one, and I intend to continue working on it. The incident has lasting coverage, such as this from yesterday and this from 10 August. Such train derailments are relatively rare in Germany, so I expect this to get more media coverage as the investigation into the deaths continues. Sincerely, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN award to Grumpylawnchair -- thank you! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this reminds me of the Stonehaven derailment in the UK in 2020, also killing three people on board. At the time, it was the first fatal train crash in the UK for several years. The latest one in the UK (with a Wikipedia article) was the 2024 Talerddig collision. It took a while for the RAIB to investigate the Stonehaven accident with the report concluding in March 2022. Idk what the German equvilant of the RAIB is, but there's no way an accident could be investigated within a month. Train accidents are rare, let alone fatal ones. Most fatal railway accidents (not involving level crossings) have a Wikipedia article, at least in the developed English-speaking countries. JuniperChill (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The German equivalent of the RAIB is the BEU. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be an accident that is comparable with Stonehaven. As said above, there are plenty of sources to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lukas Graham discography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm From (Lukas Graham song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; article relies heavily on primary sources. Should be redirected to Lukas Graham discography. Unregistered Biohazard! 17:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Unregistered Biohazard! 17:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lukas Graham discography per nom. Not seeing how this song is notable. Basic sources searches didn't turn up anything substantial, and charting does not establish notability on its own. λ NegativeMP1 15:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balvinder Singh Sahni

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

The article fails to meet the general notability guideline. Furthermore, it relies solely on coverage from third-party news sources about a single event, which does not constitute the significant, in-depth, and independent coverage required under event notability and significant coverage guidelines. LKO2DL (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. LKO2DL (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kuwait and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has coverage from before his arrest, from major publications in the country. Khaleej Times, 2023, The National, 2023, Hotel & Gathering, 2020, Hindustan Times, 2016, Khaleej Times, 2023, Khaleej Times, 2020, Mews, 2023, Khaleej Times, 2016, AlArabiya, 2016, AlArabiya, 2018, Arabian Business, 2018, CNN, 2016. Although some of these are interviews, they're mostly not and show he meets WP:GNG and has significant and sustained coverage from before his arrests. jolielover♥talk 02:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly meets WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources demonstrate passing on WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union Center, Indiana

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

This is just across the tracks from a US Army Reserve facility, which in turn is south of the sprawling remains of the Kingsbury Ordnance Plant; but at this spot there is nothing but a string of houses on one side of the road, of varying ages. I couldn't find anything out about the spot beyond what I could see one the map, a problem exacerbated by two other Union Centers in other parts of the state. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPLACE for not meeting WP:GNG itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to expand this article, although work will need to continue. Union Center (in LaPorte County) was a very noted community, and there are thousands of news articles, as well as a number of county histories which discuss this community in depth, including school records, church records, railroad records, etc. The Hoosier State Chronicles alone has an archive of over 150 articles. Population figures are available for 1890 and 1940. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do others think the recent article expansion and its sources establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would say the article now just barely squeaks through WP:NPLACE, though some of the new references are sparse. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A verifiably populated place (even if populated in the past) is generally presumed to meet WP:NPLACE. Also WP:HEY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Ahmad

AfDs for this article:

(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]
Delete: I can't view the sole source since my network is blocking it as a malicious link, but based on the previous discussion this individual was not in fact a national legislator in Indonesia and thus would not pass WP:NPOL. I can't find any other source that would corroborate the claim that got this version of the article through AfC. SALT due to repeated creation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Thomson

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Article relies mainly on primary/self-published sources and promotional content. LvivLark (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. LvivLark (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 15:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and promotional. Local Variable (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to find sources establishing notability. LightlySeared (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject meets WP:GNG through significant independent coverage. Thomson has been covered by independent media in both Australia and the US. Notability is further supported by his role as founder of PowerProv, which has worked with companies such as Google, Canva, Cisco, Toyota, and SXSW. Additional independent sources are being added to the article to better reflect coverage. - TG (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)TatianagGoldflower[reply]
Fails the GNG because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Only podcast episode pages on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and the subject’s own sites, which cannot establish WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV/INDEPENDENT/RS.

The 2015 AfD on this subject closed delete, and you doesnt provide something better than earlier version.

Claims “worked with Google/Canva/Cisco/Toyota/SXSW” appear only in selfposted sources but even if true that wouldnt confitm notability per WP:NOTINHERITED/NBIO.

Presence on Spotify/YouTube are primary sources, and the official YouTube is just a tiny channel with only a few dozen subscribers and viewers.LvivLark (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ryu Seung-ryong#Filmography. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Family (film)

(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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalāla

(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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matías Jurado

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

Violation of WP:BLPCRIME as the article suspect is not convicted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Argentina. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Parks-Valletta

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources; closest is this source which shows the notability of the charity more than the man. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Entertainment, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request a review of this deletion proposal, as it may be based on a misunderstanding of the sources. After reviewing the citations, it appears that the only press release-type source is the PR Newswire reference this one The remaining references come from reliable, independent third-party sources that meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and notability guidelines. I believe these sources support the article’s subject meeting the criteria for inclusion. User972364 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the same sources you're seeing. Which remaining sources are you talking about? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Winning "regional Emmy awards" is probably not enough for notability. And I'm not seeing much coverage of this actor. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With limited roles such a waiter and man in the audience, I don't see notability. The hosting duties appear to be for a local tv show and without extensive sourcing, this isn't notable. Sources 9 and 10 aren't helpful. Regional Emmys are considered notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b thank you for your feedback. I'd like to exposure my confusion here because, there are some other reviewers that consider regional emmys not a notable source, which to me they are. Can you please clarify that they actually are? Thank you User972364 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've not used them to show notability; I don't have an exact link to the policy in question. See this discussion from 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irene_Byon, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion&search=regional+emmy&ns0=1&ns11=1&searchToken=55yq8i0b0j8tifng4rdgv1qzy . If anyone else can pull up the policy, that would be helpful; to be honest I've been doing this for so long, you just commit certain rules to memory without remembering the exact page/list where it says the rule. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b thank you so much for sharing this. I appreciate it. Now I understand. User972364 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Hi again, I wanted to ask if it's possible to edit the article and completing it even if its flagged for deletion? This actor actually was one of the star of the show vandervamp rules and appeared on True Blood, plus he is the brother of the model Amber Valleta.

Thank you, please let me know. User972364 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until it's actually deleted, you can do what you want with it (short of blanking it or doing something silly to it). It's helpful to try and improve it, we see that happen in discussions here all the time. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oaktree b will work on it next Monday. User972364 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b I’ve expanded the article with stronger sources to help show notability. These now include coverage in People, E! News, Entertainment Tonight, Refinery29, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, along with other references for his charity work and production career. I also kept the official NATAS documents that confirm his regional Emmy wins. I know regional Emmys aren’t treated as major awards here, but given now there's more sources I decided to kept it, but I’m open to adjusting and removing if necessary. I'm just considering them as additional sources. Thank you so much for your time User972364 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure they show notability with the new sources added, People is more about a couple splitting, that doesn't really show notability. The article is better, just not sure it's enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b thank you for the feedback. I’ve reworked the article again and added a wider range of sources. In addition to the People and E! News coverage of his relationship, there is sourcing from the San Diego Union-Tribune, Haute Living, Look to the Stars, Hawaii News Now, and Nicki Swift that covers his charity work and his hosting/production career (Staycation and Destination shows). I’ve also included mainstream entertainment coverage from Page Six and BravoTV that ties him to his family background with his sister Amber Valletta .

I think the article is in much better shape now. Happy to keep refining if needed. Thank you! User972364 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like WP:RESUME of an unknown Hollywood personality. The only significant coverage is the SD Tribune article listed in the nomination. Other coverage can be broken down to trivia (relationship), WP:NOTINHERITED (sibling), insignificant roles in tv shows, and a non-notable "non profit" -- BriefEdits (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @BriefEdits for the feedback. I see your point about WP:RESUME, and I’ve tried to address that by focusing the article on what appears in independent coverage. In addition to the San Diego Union-Tribune, there are sources from Haute Living, Look to the Stars, Hawaii News Now, and Nicki Swift that provide feature-style coverage of Parks-Valletta’s charity work (Tag the World) and his Emmy-winning hosting/production work (Staycation / Destination shows). There is also entertainment press from People, Page Six, E! News, and Bravo that independently covered his appearances on Vanderpump Rules.

I understand WP:NOTINHERITED means Amber Valletta’s career shouldn’t count for his notability, and I agree. But I think between the mainstream coverage of his own career, the multiple regional Emmy awards, and his profile in outlets like Nicki Swift and San Diego Union-Tribune, there is enough to meet WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

That said, I’m happy to refine further or trim areas that feel too much like resume-style listing, if that helps. User972364 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think you're conflating gossip mills with "mainstream coverage". Like you wouldn't compare the New York Times to TMZ. 2. I don't think there's much for you to do other than finding better sources. You can break down the subject to various chapters and none of which are notable. There's Parks-Valletta the entertainer whose roles are insignificant as they are in non-notable productions or the roles are minor. And having one recurring appearance on a reality tv show because he was dating somebody being his only substantial on-screen credit is not notable. (fails WP:NACTOR) There's Parks-Valletta the philanthropist whose non-profit has only generated local interest WP:MILL coverage of fundraising events. The book and family stuff is barely worth mentioning. And winning a regional Emmy is really no more important than winning an award at a regional film festival, especially for a producer of all things, or an unknown industry award. The prestige is nowhere the same as the Daytime or Primetime Emmys. Like you could add it but I wouldn't count it toward notability. I hope that clarifies some stuff. -- BriefEdits (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Publication

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom, fails in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting instead of soft delete since a Talk page comment by the article creator objects to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is also very promotional. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 18:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has changed their stance to keep, which is also unanimous among other participants. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Benedict

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

Surprisingly appears to have four USMNT caps (all were friendlies), but does not appear to have played professionally and appears to fail WP:GNG. Having senior national team caps does not automatically mean someone meets the requirements of having an article. I would be in favor of a redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players. Raskuly (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, and North Carolina. Raskuly (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found some coverage at [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]]. I'd say there is enough here for the WP:GNG to be met. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found which put it past the SIGCOV threshold and the remarkable fact that Let'srun is voting to keep something which must mean it is an extremely notable subject as they are at the vanguard of what the professional wrestler Matt Hardy would say is "delete, delete, delete!" Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially per Let'srun's fourth source. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. 4th source above is good, others insufficient, so there is not enough overall. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually, with the sources already present, there's enough. Giant Snowman 17:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per all statments above. Svartner (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above sources and WP:SNOW! Raskuly (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks very basic, but given the sources seems okay. I would have liked to see a few better sources know. Govvy (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPOTLIGHT project

AfDs for this article:

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

As noted at the soft delete for this article earlier this month, the article has lacked independent notability beyond standard research outputs since 2016. Since then, the project has ended and its website is no longer active. Searching for "SPOTLIGHT project" online additionally leads to virtually nothing relating to this project. For these reasons, I don't believe the article has any lasting notability. Johnson524 12:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I made the first nomination and the result was soft delete. I don't know why the first deletion was reverted quickly. For all reasons proposed in the first nomination, there is no notability in this article. Chiserc (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was undeleted because an IP user went to REFUND and requested its restoration (but they were also seeking for it to be restored as a draft; however, all non-bot edits since the undeletion have been tags by the New Page Patrol using PageTriage, including this renomination, and nobody appears to have attempted to move it to draftspace — most of the IP's other REFUND requests for draftification in that archive did result in that part getting fulfilled too, but not this one). (I offer no opinion or comment on the article, either with regard to draftification or retaining it in any form.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability for this promotional article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stars that have unusual dimming periods. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASASSN-V J213939.3−702817.4

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

The subject isn't notable. There are six references here, which may seem sufficient. But let's look at those:

Ref. 1 is a general reference for how to find constellations in the sky, which is useless (and may as well be removed). Ref. 5 is similar: Just a generic link to the survey website.
Ref. 2 and 3 are announcements on ATel. Those are somewhat okay, as corroborating sources when there is good coverage about something. But ATel is not a peer-reviewed source, and astronomers can send in anything they observe (see [9] for a funny example that got retracted within an hour). If there is interest in the object, there will be follow-up, including a peer-reviewed publication. As far as I can tell, that has not happened in this case, so there are no new sources since 2019.
Ref. 6 is a comment, on a blog post, about someone else's tweet. This is not a reliable source and can be disregarded. I don't know why it's here at all. The only time ref. 6 is invoked is for something that already has a source.
Reference 4 is the only coverage of this that's a genuinely reliable source. The URL doesn't work and all the versions on the web archive seem to have some broken html code, but I was able to confirm that they do mention the object.

We need more than a single reliable source to establish notability. As it stands, this is a random star that someone once observed and found unusual, to never be heard from again.

As a side note, this is a 2019 creation from User:Drbogdan, who was blocked indefinitely earlier this year, as "a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it" (quote from the closing statement of this ANI discussion). I am inclined to agree: This Wikipedia article is churnalism and should be removed. Renerpho (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Renerpho (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars that have unusual dimming periods.

I took a look at the SIMBAD entry for this star and only found 4 citations:

- Two of then are the previously mentioned ATels;

- One is about another dimmer entirely who noted its similarity to the subject;

- And the last one is just the ASAS-SN Catalogue of Variable Stars.

I would also like to note that the article itself has some issues. The article is likely getting erased so these may not matter much, but its worth pointing then out:

- The lightcurve graph could be WP:OR? There is no published analysis of the star's lightcurve after the end of the dimming, and the ATel states that the dimming was ongoing at the time of the report. However, this seems to be an edge case? Do we have any standards for such cases?

- Far minor, but the alternate designations are messed up. There's a broken 2MASS false designation which subsequently breaks the SIMBAD link. GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars that have unusual dimming periods. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from nominator) I'd be okay with that. Renerpho (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. The page gets about 18 views a day, so is a known and researched topic and the sources and page presentation seem adequate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: [10] (these are the views for the old name; the article was moved in early July). Renerpho (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in the subject is undeniable. That doesn't change the fact that no reliable sources exist for it, and that we cannot establish notability (page views are a factor but they're not sufficient; see Wikipedia:BFDI for the difference between interest in the subject and notability). That's why moving it to the list of similar objects seems to be a good alternative! Renerpho (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I looked under the views for both names and they seem compatible. As for reliable sources, you mention in the nomination that the fourth source is notable. In any case, just giving my opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars that have unusual dimming periods: as a sensible WP:ATD. The argument about pageviews is a red herring not covered by the WP:DELETION policy, and that number is not particularly impressive even if it was covered. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ~~List of DC Universe locations~~List of DC Multiverse worlds without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Three

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two I just nominated for discussiong. Again, nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 19 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides missing WP:SIGCOV, there are large amounts of WP:OR here. I'm open on the redirect target. Multiverse (DC Comics) seems like a notable parent topic, and the other lists could still include an entry. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations without prejudice against selective merge. Whether the target itself is notable or not is a question for its own AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Two

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

Nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 19 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides failing the WP:GNG, this contains a lot of WP:OR. The Multiverse (DC Comics) would be a good parent article for an WP:ATD-R, with more coverage in reliable third party sources. No objection to mentioning at various lists too, such as List of DC Multiverse worlds or List of DC Universe locations (which also seem to overlap a lot). No strong feeling on what the main redirect could be. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Will the nominator also be going after the List of Earth-Two characters as well? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3 Thanks, I will, now that I know if it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see a target that is actually notable enough to merit redirection. Both Multiverse (DC Comics) and List of DC Multiverse worlds appear to fail GNG, as does this article. Redirecting a non-notable page to another non-notable page doesn't help, so deletion is likely better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Academic publisher Routledge has a whole book dedicated to the DC Multiverse, The Worlds of DC Comics. So it seems very unlikely that this topic fails WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Jensen (footballer, born 2005)

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

Contested draftification. Draft was declied some four times, so I'm nominating it as a misuse of the AFC process - especially since the given reason was so bad: "Every information is fully covered in the interview with Mathias Jensen on youtube as linked as reference". This is not acceptable as a backbone reference in an article. Geschichte (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since the draftying process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you vote for deletion due to a question of respect - and nothing Else? You deserved to be deleted then. This is a full valid article. 5.186.223.34 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with significant coverage, articles like this, this, this, this, this and this are all significant and show he passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: [Per sources supplied by @Ortizesp. Though the disregard of the AfC process is concerning regarding the user themself, the subject of the article is distinct from this issue. Following incorporation of the above sources, and other supporting coverage ([11][12][13][14]), subject satisfies GNG and SPORTSCRIT] Following @Clariniie's statement I've realised the sources I added were in fact referring to a different Matthias Jensen. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 11:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Matthias Jensen is a quite common name. Hard to look up. Can anyone analyze whether or not the sources provided by Ortizesp count towards WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the references listed are for this specific Mathias Jensen currently playing at Brøndby.@Clariniie:@Epsilon.Prota:--Ortizesp (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Drømmen opfyldt" one, maybe. Any others? Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep Just scrapes by in my opinion per WP:BASIC, however it's got a lot against it. I would like to see more to confirm my keep for me. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is fully valid. And all content are validated in the YouTube-interview linked. He’s a full professional footballer with leaguegames on his CV. 5.186.223.34 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments fully fall under WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID, please read it Geschichte (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the articles supplied by Ortiezsp just scrape over the line of SIGCOV to qualify this subject under GNG/NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, sources found. (non-admin closure)‎ MediaKyle (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joslyn Rose Lyons

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

Notability is not established by the references here, and after doing some of my own research all we really have are interviews like this one, this one and this one - the two awards mentioned in the article were only nominations. I'm not seeing anything resembling the amount of significant coverage needed for an article, only interviews, PR profiles, and being listed in the award nomination lists. MediaKyle (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references that I found at ru:Лайонс, Джослин Роуз Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference added from The Fader is a passing mention, East Bay Express and AllHipHop are promising but is that all we have for good coverage? Two pieces of sigcov doesn't usually cut it. MediaKyle (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destan Entertainment

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

Fails WP:ORGSIG. Lack of notability not inherited from its products, with the page lacking any footnotes. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Poland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails NCORP. Note that I've notified pl wiki VG wikiproject of this, in case someone there can dig up some sources (there is no pl wiki article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC) PS. Update: editors there also don't see notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom --Setwardo (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Developments

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

Fails WP:ORGSIG. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One piece of significant coverage in ST Action. Not enough for notability. Articles in Amstrad Action and Amiga Power (pages 76-77) are more about the games they made, not the company itself. --Mika1h (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an example of WP:NOTWORK, it looks like even with the suggested helpful background research done by Mika1h, the lack of sourcing or content about the studio itself fails WP:NCORP. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tokamak (software)

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

Little to no notability. Only sources are primary sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Physics, and Software. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V as is, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Little record of this engine online. Looks to have been abandoned in 2008, never "finished". A couple people made short YouTube videos after this date but nothing of note. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics engine#Engines – Where it's mentioned. Svartner (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is only mentioned in the engine list without a source. I think it needs to be expanded with some text to make sense here. IgelRM (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sound test

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

Little to no reliable sources available on the subject. Remains unreferenced. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms due to a failure of WP:DICDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms per WP:DICDEF. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, the rationale is sound and the terminology lacks sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator has requested a close, and there is no support for any other outcome. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Ganchev

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

This article has existed more or less unchanged as a stub since it was created in 2009. Most of the article does not have citations and the two cited sources are dead links to nationalist websites. Having tried to look for more sources on Ganchev, I have been entirely unable to find any significant coverage. The closest I've found is a couple passing mentions, but nothing close to anything that could flesh out a whole biography.

If no significant coverage of Ganchev in reliable sources can be turned up, then I would recommend the article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Bulgaria, and North Macedonia. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add the references in the corresponding Bulgarian article at bg:Димитър Ганчев (революционер) and the corresponding Macedonian article at mk:Димитар Ганчев Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above proposal. Jingiby (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unable to verify some of the article's contents within the cited sources, as I can't access one of them. I wouldn't call any of the currently cited sources significant coverage, but I also can't say right now if Peltekov 2014 contains significant coverage of Ganchev. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Мико: Courtesy ping to main author of the Bulgarian Wikipedia article. Can you say which parts of the article are verified in Peltekov? How much of Peltekov discusses Ganchev (sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc.)? --Grnrchst (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Peltekov's book - I have Nikolov's only. Now the Bulgarian article is really well referenced. Мико (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, judging by the Bulgarian sources, this is as good as we're going to get for a biography on Ganchev, unless there's other sources about him out there. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources already present in the article shows enough notability. Svartner (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close Let's not draw this out. The article has significantly changed since I nominated. I'm still not convinced on its notability, but at least the article itself is in a better state now. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramal Aslanov

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

The available sources contain only public relations information. The individual’s name does not appear on any official or internationally recognized kickboxing platforms, and the events appear to have been arranged and paid for on a booking-only basis. [[15]] Redivy (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Redivy (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm no expert, but the article seems problematic, citing the subject as a world champion and three-time European champion, but without providing proper sources from the organizing bodies. Not to mention that it was transcribed to other wikis with a very poor translation. Svartner (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing what I would call significant and independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Interviews, being in lists of honorees, and coverage in the Ministry of Internal Affairs newsletter are not enough. I'll also admit I discount state operated media outlets in non-democratic countries. For example, there are several sources using media owned by the state owned oil company. It's hard to judge his kickboxing record, though I don't find anything to show he meets WP:NKICK. The names of the organizations whose titles he won need to be given to verify his accomplishments, especially since certain initials are used by multiple organizations. One of his "world championships" was a "World Cup" event in Portugal (organization unknown) and usually World Cup events are not world championships. Also, the article says he won 3 European and world championships (a direct quote from a state media source), but does that mean 3 of each or 3 in some combination? The burden of proof is on those claiming notability and I'm not seeing enough evidence of WP notability. I'm open to being persuaded, but based on what I currently see I'm voting to delete. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intrexx

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

Lacks significant coverage by secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Brandon (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heavily promotional, buzzword-laden, and sourced primarily to the platform's own website. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We edited the article. IntrexxKonto2025 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and developed by a succession of single-purpose accounts at the end of which the article is little more than a product feature site supported by primary sources. Appearance as a niche player in a Gartner MQ (CMSwire commentary, 2012) is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability for a product. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tim Hetherington#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idil Ibrahim

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

Non notable filmmaker/actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 5 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!} 06:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some sources and info, including another short film she has directed, and deleted some irrelevant text. She has appeared in an award-winning feature film, and directed a short film which won two awards. That is probably not quite enough for WP:CREATIVE, and may be a case of too soon - another film she is co-producing, The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu, is in post-production. I haven't found it easy to find coverage or reliable sources - for the 2019 Zanzibar International Film Festival, for instance, the ZIFF website as archived in 2020 was still showing details of ZIFF 2018 on the home page. If there was coverage about her and those films in Tanzanian, Somali, or other African press, I haven't found it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tim_Hetherington#Personal_life: and merge a couple of things that may be relevant, or to Fishing_Without_Nets_(2014_film)#Cast, then? - E. Ux 21:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better than Delete. Most of the coverage is of her relationship with Tim Hetherington so that might be the best place for now but I don't have a strong opinion. This way content is kept if more sources emerge later. Nnev66 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Saeed

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

Swedish producer who lacks WP:SIGCOV. The work he has been involved in received significant attention (including Follow the Leader (Wisin & Yandel song)), but his contribution to this work is sparse. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-trivial reliable source I can find is a short staff bio on allmusic. It is not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Ping me if further sources are identified. ResonantDis_tortion 18:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cebu City Chiefs

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

Fails WP:GNG, did not compete in the full rugby league championship. This is a 9-a-side team. https://pnrl.org/pnrl-competition Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Rugby league. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources Mn1548 (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not a notable team. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025#List. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Crown Heights nightclub shooting

(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) 05:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United States of America, and New York. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to . See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Just another gang dispute with readily-available guns. What's notable? WWGB (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there’s a lot of mass shootings and gang violence in the US; this one does not have anything that warrants having its own page. Rainsage (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025#List as an ATD. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 06:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025#List per A. B. and Hatman31. Raskuly (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Horrible crime, not many NYC shootings surpass 10 victims; Mayor Eric Adams even spoke out with much emotion the following morning about this incident. Albanianrapper (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are relevant arguments in favor of keeping the article. I understand that this article was your creation, but I would recommend reviewing what constitutes notability on Wikipedia so you don't have to keep going through the process of seeing your work deleted or redirected. See WP:NOTABILITY. Raskuly (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025#List per several commenters above. This is a WP:MILL gang mass shooting for the US, even if rare for NYC. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025#List per above. It doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Inexpiable (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reasons listed above. For now, we will relegate it as a redirect, and after this, by the time the conviction and/or more details emerge, we can consider re-expanding it again provided there were sufficient grounds to do so. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not a notable shooting. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sisu production

AfDs for this article:

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

Most sources are from Newswire (PR tool). Multiple issues highlighted since 2022. Puda (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Photography, Comics and animation, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or an extremely selective merge to Sisu, which is its presumptive namesake. Producers and production companies are run of the mill, and even the most gutsy, hardworking, gritty, courageous, determined, assiduous, (what's the word I'm looking for? I'm giving up) producers are not automatically notable. They require significant coverage in reliable sources. Again, it's a creative use of the word, and I feel bad for the person who created this page, but otherwise it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, it was the same person who created Robin Ingle that I also nominated for deletion. As for the redirect, sorry, I am not sure how it's related to Sisu? Puda (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Redirect/Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm opposed to a merge. If it's notable as a company, it gets an article, if it isn't, it doesn't. We wouldn't be merging it to Endurance if it were called "Endurance productions"; I'm not sure that choosing to name yourself using a Finnish word confers any special need for a mention in Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources as provided by WP:ORG. The cited sources tend to be press releases, YouTube or Vimeo videos (not independent) or barely mention the subject (not significant coverage). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources cited are mainly news items released by the company or links to videos produced by the company, so fail WP:ORGIND. No independent WP:SIGCOV found. Disagree with the redirect rationale put foward, so oppose redirecting/merging to the Sisu article. Rupples (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read User:Bearian's intriguing edit summary "a hidden pearl in there". Not seeing one myself, but open to changing my recommendation if further explanation is forthcoming. Rupples (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be cute – they obviously named their firm after the Finnish self-concept Sisu. It might be worth one sentence, or maybe not, as reasonable people can disagree. If it's deleted, it's ok, too. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I get the desire for a redirect I feel like having one in this case is probably undue weight, there's no real connection between the Finnish national spirit and this company besides I suppose one thought up by a marketer. I don't think it should be mentioned at the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Previous AfD led to redirection, and the consensus in this discussion is that this is a WP:BLP1E. No need for another redirect from this overly disambiguated title. RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Henn (American actress)

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

Similar articles have been repeatedly submitted in the AFD process - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_30#Carrie_Henn and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carrie_Henn_(actress).

I am not sure whether the "American actress" qualifier added as part of this article's title is being used to subvert the fact that previous articles about the same subject were redirected. If this article is notable enough to be kept, it should probably live at "Carrie Henn" without any qualifiers. Martey (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Martey (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable and the article has many reliable sources and references. Eric Carpenter (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Neither previous discussion concluded with a consensus, and the most recent was over ten years ago. The main issue here appears to be WP:BIO1E; she had only a single notable role. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E - quite clearly, but possibly merge a few words to Aliens where she is already mentioned just to say she never pursued a career in acting after the film. Not only are some of the sources not really authoritative (one is a deadlink already), but a plethora of sources does not notability make. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the first sentence of the nom. However, the existing redirect from Carrie Henn to Aliens (film) should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played one of the main characters in one of the biggest films of the 1980s. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR requires main roles in several notable films; a single film doesn’t qualify. Gedaali (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. The subject arguably is not even an American actress, since she played her single role while still living in England. I agree with Metropolitan90 that the existing redirect from Carrie Henn to Aliens (film) should be kept.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- work though in a single film has been substantial enough to warrent multiple "Where are they now" articles in clearly RS/important places. The film itself is so notable that it can have "spinoff" articles such as this one. Agreed that after keep should be moved to just Carrie Henn w/o qualifiers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a WP:BLP1E, mentions in a few articles aren't the same as "significant coverage", fails GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Limited participation but overall the consensus is 3 to 1 in favor of deletion after the one Keep supporter gave what is presumably their best list of sources and arguments. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Blioumis

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

Non notable "producer". Adequate sources don't exist in any language and fails all the typical NWhatever requirements. Laughably so. COOLIDICAE🕶 15:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the claim that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements.

Vasilis Blioumis satisfies WP:ENT and WP:NFILM by virtue of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and a career with recognized achievements in the film industry.

1. Independent, Reliable Coverage

The subject has been covered by multiple independent, verifiable publications:

Screen Daily – Coverage of his work presented at Thessaloniki International Film Festival’s Agora section.

UK Film Review – Review of Paradox (2022).

HLC Cult Critic – Review and analysis of Paradox.

[16] Featured and awarded in Montreal Film Magazine

[17] Toronto Film Magazine

2. Festival Participation & Awards

Directed and PRODUCED 3rd World, screened at the Thessaloniki International Film Festival — one of the most prestigious festivals in Southeastern Europe.

Selected for Sarajevo Talent Campus #2 [18] (competitive selection from 250 filmmakers across 13 countries).

Winner, Walking With You – Smovies International Short Film Competition (Season 5).

[19] Prestigious SeriesFest in Denver

Gold Award – Best Science Fiction Film for Paradox.

[20] Winner in Naoussa Film Festival in 2006

[21] Winner in IndieX film festival in L.A

[22] Drama Film Festival with film "Secrets" 2011

3. Sustained Career & Multiple Notable Works

Over two decades of active work, with multiple feature and short productions (Sky, Omega, Lost and Found in Dubai, Save Water, Walking With You, Paradox), each receiving festival screenings or independent coverage.

Conclusion

These references and achievements meet the WP:GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" and WP:NFILM criteria for film professionals.

This is not a case of a single self-published work or trivial coverage, but a sustained, notable career with verified recognition in the industry.

For these reasons, the article should be retained. Annabilimic (talk) 17:54, 9 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) 17:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of sources are Red or Orange per cite highligher, only the TV Guide and the Danas one are green, so we're not off to a good start. TV Guide is a profile, Danas translates to an event summary: someone giving a lecture, student films at a festival... Trivial coverage. I don't see much of anything about this person. I'm not sure about the "award" listed in 2022, sounds rather generic. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Vasilis Blioumis meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Not generic.

Independent Coverage & Reviews: His work has received reviews and coverage in independent outlets such as UK Film Review, Cult Critic, Canadian independent film magazines, and Screen Daily (for the Thessaloniki IFF Agora).

Festival Recognition: His films have screened at notable international festivals, including the Thessaloniki International Film Festival (3rd World), the Drama International Short Film Festival, and he was selected for the Sarajevo Talent Campus among 250 filmmakers. Also selected by Samsung as aspiring filmmaker.https://www.dubaiprnetwork.com/pr.asp?pr=93416

Awards: His film Walking With You won the Smovies International Short Film Competition and was screened across VOX Cinemas in the UAE (BrandMoxie). Paradox (2022) has won a Gold Award and Platinum Award including Best TV Pilot at the Los Angeles Film Awards and recognition at the Fortean Film Festival (IMDb Awards) - In total 42 awards. Including teh prestigious SeriesFest https://seriesfestseason8.eventive.org/films/6250a74422c20100231a1677 and in IndieX https://indiexfest.com/block-3-sci-fi-sep-10th-1-30pm-3-20pm/ LAfa https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/january-2022. Earlier, his feature Omega won Best Full Length Greek Picture at the 8th Panorama of Independent Film Makers in Greece – T.U.C.TH. Many of his films can be found online , like the 2.9M views Lost and Found in Dubai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmVpQwXvECA

Career & Body of Work: With over 20+ years of professional experience, four feature-length productions, and multiple award-winning shorts (Omega, 3rd World, Paradox, Walking With You, Sky, Save Water), Blioumis has a sustained, verifiable career in film and media (blioumis.com).

Taken together, this clearly demonstrates notability per WP:GNG (significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) and WP:NFILM (recognition through awards and screenings at notable festivals). The article should be retained. Annabilimic (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. The wall of possibly AI-generated reasons to keep don't measure up against our WP:RS and WP:BIO requirements. Note that this is probably written by an undisclosed paid editor (UPE)) in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I understand the concerns regarding the notability of the subject and the quality of the sources. I've been following the conversation and I'd like to address the points that have been raised.

I am not an AI, and I am not a paid editor. I am a volunteer editor who has been working on this article because I believe (and followed) Vasilis Bloumis's work and recognition merit a Wikipedia presence. I apologize if my previous response was unclear.

I now see the core of the issue is the lack of independent, reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. I will be working to find stronger sources that can better demonstrate his notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I will also be replacing or removing any sources that are clearly self-published, primary, or trivial.

I am open to constructive feedback and would appreciate any specific guidance on which of the existing sources are the weakest so I can prioritize finding better ones. Annabilimic (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grismore, Indiana

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

The GNIS citation for this spot is "Gary/Hammond, Indiana EasyFinder. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 2001" which I don't recall seeing before; the only other reference I could see was in one of those late 19th century shipping guides. There was one reference I couldn't look into which might have shown it to be a rail point. Anyway, there's nothing there even by the railroad, and since there's a ghost towns book/website for the county I have to doubt it was a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no information found. Almost certainly a onetime rail stop, for which GNG applies and is clearly not met. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayali Sanjeev

AfDs for this article:

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

While this looks to be an open and shut case of biographical notability, I am bringing this here for discussion due to the extensive sockpuppetry, COI and promotion throughout the history both live and deleted. This is the fourth AfD, with the 3rd a trainwreck at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayali Chandsarkar.

My primary concerns are NEWSORGINDIA and whether the awards Sanjeev won or was nominated for are enough for ANYBIO. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 02:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Star Mississippi 02:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 04:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wow... Yikes... that last AFD sure was something. Shoulda got my popcorn ready first. That aside I think she now passes WP:NENT with major roles in Goshta Eka Paithanichi and Har Har Mahadev. National Film Awards are basically the Oscars of India so the first movie is definitely notable and she is billed first and I saw the second movie when it was released internationally and she plays a decently large supporting part so I feel comfortable voting keep on just that. Moritoriko (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the 3d or 4th AfD? - E. Ux 14:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth @Eva UX. The ones in the infobox, which includes this open one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayali Chandsarkar. Star Mississippi 14:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's off by one because the one article that was named differently. Moritoriko (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree she meets WP:NACTOR with the roles mentioned above and various other roles that are significant and in notable productions; see reviews of various films linked in her filmography, please. - E. Ux 14:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes in WP:NACTOR due to multiple roles and awards. The problem of sockpuppets focused on the article should be treated separately, without a WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Verifiably passes NACTOR 1 through roles in Shubhmangal Online, Basta, Aatpadi Nights, Ole Aale, Police Line, Satarcha Salman and Urmi. The Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Marathi may also be enough for NACTOR 2. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhey Singh IIT Baba

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

The individual got some coverage during February - March 2025, now there is no coverage anymore about the subject. Fails to meet WP:GNG at this stage. Capitals00 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, Spirituality, India, and Haryana. jolielover♥talk 01:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Temporary media coverage around Mahakumbh 2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela and social media virality does not meet the standards of sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Sources are mostly event-based and lack long-term encyclopedic value. Notability is not established. Setwardo (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. The subject got some media attention for a limited time period. Zuck28 (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Clergerie

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of significant coverage. The only references are primary and I was unable to find anything better elsewhere. A redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing may be suitable as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Chien

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

Not notable. Does not meet GNG.. All the references are talking about the mother Lea Salonga - Uncle Bash007 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nic Chien meets the criteria under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Per WP:GNG, notability is established through multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Nic Chien meets this standard. Multiple reliable, independent sources provide significant coverage of Nic as an individual, not merely as the child of Lea Salonga.

- People published a feature story on Nic’s gender transition, focusing on their personal journey and experiences.
- ABS-CBN News reported Nic’s casting as Jack in Into the Woods, highlighting their professional stage work.
- GMA News Online covered Nic’s transition journey, with direct quotes and independent focus on their perspective.
- ABS-CBN News covered Nic’s 2021 virtual performance at the Gabay Guro event, where Nic was identified and featured as a performer.
- PEP.ph reported Nic’s stage debut in Matilda the Musical in 2017, documenting their early performance career.

These sources are independent, reliable, and provide non-trivial coverage of Nic’s own performances, public identity, and achievements. While some mention their mother, the focus of these articles is clearly on Nic as a performer and individual. Nic is the subject of these articles. Precedent also supports retention: Wikipedia maintains standalone articles for other notable children of famous parents (e.g., Willow Smith, daughter of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith; Zoë Kravitz, daughter of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet; Colin Hanks, son of Tom Hanks). In each case, notability rests not on the parent’s fame but on the independent coverage of the child’s own career. Nic Chien’s situation is directly comparable: they have received sustained, independent coverage for their work and personal journey. - Mjmatousek (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. - jolielover♥talk 01:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mjmatousek. I checked all the references that Mjmatousek and it is true. But we all know that doesn't mean notability is inheritance. Since, the sources have a independent sources, however there is a cited YouTube (Ref#8) it can be removed. So, therefore and overall it was passed on WP:SIGCOV. - ROY is WAR Talk! 13:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - jolielover♥talk 12:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as most references in the article are focused on Nic and relevant endeavors even though the subject's parents are inevitably mentioned in them. - Ian Lopez @ 16:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. What happens next with this article, we now leave up to you all. Talk about it on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certified pre-owned

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

Contested PROD. There may be a notable topic here, but the article as it stands isn't it. It's writen like a buyers' guide, thus failing WP:NOTGUIDE, and at best needs WP:TNT. The article creator mused in response to the PROD about possibly reverting to an earlier version, but the earlier versions would, today, simply be a WP:DICDEF. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Transportation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a mess, but searching the database there are thousands of articles. This is a notable term distinct from used car. Definitely needs a lot of work, however. I am hesitant to support deleting an old article that appears to have notability, even if not currently ideal.Metallurgist (talk) 06:45, 11 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) 00:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that if this article is kept, I intend to revert to this diff to eliminate the puffery that has since inflated it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just silly to have on Wikipedia IMO, as I believe it's more of a marketing term than anything else. It's not notable, it's fallen out of common usage, and it could easily just be a section on used car. CarolLeal74 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a marketing term, but it is notable due to its prevalence. It might be worth considering a redirect instead of deletion tho, and then putting a section on used cars. Metallurgist (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two sources, one from 2005 and one from 2016. Most of the content is unsourced. Earlier versions of the page amount to a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and current versions are little more than an advertorial explanation of how a used car sales program works. Juneblay (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it's kept, it needs to be moved. I appreciate that society revolves around the motor car, but I have to break the news: motor cars are not the only things available as certified pre-owned. You can also get mass spectrometers[23], welding equipment[24], printers[25] and pretty much anything else you want. Elemimele (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to used car~~ It's always just been a dealer euphemism for cars returned after leases, trades and repossession. Would agree to have the diff listed by Bushranger merged into the used car article. Nathannah • 📮 21:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to this. Metallurgist (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathannah, "pre-owned" is indeed a euphemism for "used car" but at least in North America, "certified pre-owned" has a very specific meaning. This article explains CPO programs. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, certified pre-owned (CPO) programs cover other things, too: Honda Jets, Peletons, and Rolex watches for example. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With those additional sources and a better description of the concept beyond vehicles, I am very happy with your changes, A. B.; switching this vote! to keep. Nathannah • 📮 00:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metallurgist. There are suggestions here for improving the article, so let's do that. ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, or revert as suggested by The Bushranger. I don't normally suggest semi-protecting phrases, but this is a spam-magnet. Bearian (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is less of a consensus now than there was last week. Please, please, do not get caught up in the page title or a page move or a revert to an earlier version. All of that can be discussed if the article is Kept. But we have to know if you want the article Kept first and then you can discuss what will happen next. So, do we Keep, Delete, Redirect or Userfy? Please narrow your "vote" down to just one of those options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per our general notability guideline. I drive a certified pre-owned car. CPOs are a big business. I will add refs to the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 10 refs to the ref section; they are not inline. They include 2 academic journals, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Consumer Reports and others. These refs cover a range of products - cars, watches, Peletons, planes - and several markets: Canada, the U.S. and China. There's plenty here for editors to build a better article with. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: While that's appreciated, that doesn't change the problem here - that the current article text is extremely promotional in tone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix that. Watch. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger, I cut the article back to a one paragraph stub. I invite writers more artful than me to fix it up and expand it.

An editorial consideration to ponder: many other used products such as computers and smart phones are factory-refurbished by the manufacturers and then resold with manufacturers' warranties. These are not called "certified pre-owned" but the programs are similar; should they be included in this article?

Also, if this article is kept, I recommend a new name. "Certified pre-owned" is an adjective; maybe something like "Certified pre-owned program". A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I can switch to Keep for this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Definitely a notable term. Agree with A. B. here. – Ike Lek (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / digression - annual page views were 7578 excluding bots and crawlers, so somebody's out there looking this up. (Before anybody mentions it, I know this is not an allowable "keep" reason). For some odd reason, the monthly volume doubled in the months of May and June before dropping below average in July. Go figure. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt a keep reason? I will have to look into that because I am on another AFD that has 250,000 views a year and I thought that was a legitimate reason to keep. 7500 is a more debatable number. But thanks for the referral. Metallurgist (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:POPULARPAGE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, was not aware of that before. Thanks for mentioning. It looks like its not totally excluded as a justification, but should not be relied on. Metallurgist (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a little work and Ill look through the sources and see if we can't get a little bit of history in there too. Moritoriko (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manele Mentolate

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

Does not meet GNG and any SNG Music Uncle Bash007 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Romania. jolielover♥talk 01:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim within the article towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources in the article, and I was unable to find any in a google search. Nil🥝 03:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I am not able to find references to meet general notability guidelines or demonstrate significant coverage. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage about the subject are found. Fade258 (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant independent coverage to verify artistic influence. Fails WP:GNG and NMUSIC as far as I can tell. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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